100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.

Flying less in CA
D

There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.

Doug Palmer > wrote:

> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
> end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
> for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
> twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.

I feel your pain. Here in the northeast US, many airports are over the US
$5. mark, with several of the largest and busiest at or over the $6 mark.

I wonder if the various Angel Flight organizations are experiencing a drop
in active volunteer pilots.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
> Doug Palmer > wrote:
>
>
>>100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
>>traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
>>end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
>>for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
>>twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.
>
>
> I feel your pain. Here in the northeast US, many airports are over the US
> $5. mark, with several of the largest and busiest at or over the $6 mark.
>
> I wonder if the various Angel Flight organizations are experiencing a drop
> in active volunteer pilots.
>
I can tell you That I have slowed my fling down considerably. I am
currently moving and I doubt I will sign up with the new Angel Flight
Organization until the cost of fuel drops.

Michelle

In a previous article, "Doug Palmer" > said:
>100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we

<<Brief pause while the Europeans in the group laugh themselves silly at
our so-called high prices>>

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"All this news about Terri Schiavo, and i JUST realized that when they
talk about her living in a persistent vegetative state, they don't mean
Florida." - Rone

Doug Palmer wrote:
> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
> end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
> for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
> twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.

The United States has no leadership when it comes to this issue.
We sit with our thumb up our A$$ bitching but doing nothing. We
can't explore and develop additional crude oil reserves that would
make us less dependent upon foreign suppliers. By doing nothing
we have created our own problems, and don't think the rest of the
world doesn't benefit from our inability do anything but bitch
about hown much retirement some oil exective is going to get.

Meanwhile other countries continue to develop their supplies and
take our money hand over fist, laughing all the way to the bank.

> In a previous article, "Doug Palmer" > said:
> >100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
>
> <<Brief pause while the Europeans in the group laugh themselves silly at
> our so-called high prices>>
>

Who gives a %#^& what the euros think. They have high prices because its
mostly taxes which were created by their elected leaders. Its their own
fault.

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> <<Brief pause while the Europeans in the group laugh themselves silly at
> our so-called high prices>>
>

Yes, well Europeans have a mere fraction of the GA activity we have
enjoyed here in the US. I'm more concerned about the laughter coming
from the oil producing countries.

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Palmer wrote:
>> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
>> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will
>> it end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the
>> end for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in
>> once or twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just
>> above $2/Gal.
>
> The United States has no leadership when it comes to this issue.
> We sit with our thumb up our A$$ bitching but doing nothing.

Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were elected),
so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were elected),
> so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.

Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter
today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues
facing this country. An ever growing majority seem to be more
interested in how many entitlements some politician promises to
provide for them.

"Doug Palmer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will
> it end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the
> end for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once
> or twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above
> $2/Gal.
>
> Flying less in CA
> D


You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.

Doug Palmer wrote:
> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
> end?

Last fall, I saw nearly $6 for a short while @ OXC.

("Peter R." wrote)
> I feel your pain. Here in the northeast US, many airports are over the US
> $5. mark, with several of the largest and busiest at or over the $6 mark.


Jet-A
Diesel
Waste grease

http://www.greasecar.com/faq.cfm
<click> the profiles on the right.


Montblack
Toyota has a 1.4 D-4D (All-Aluminum) diesel car engine in Europe.

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.

That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
come down.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, "Doug Palmer" > said:
> >100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
>
> <<Brief pause while the Europeans in the group laugh themselves silly at
> our so-called high prices>>

And man, look at the healthy, thriving GA market in Europe. Hopefully
someday we can aspire to be like that... not.



JKG

> You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
> Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.

TEN DOLLARS A GALLON?

You must have some really, REALLY "sweet crude" over there in Greece...

I know if it wasn't for my autogas STC, I'd be flying a LOT less.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

a 50% increase in just a few days is airway robbery

Oil going up $3/ barrel for raw crude does not equate to $1.60 per gallon of
refined fuel.

Local county aviation departments are getting upset that the local hanger
owners and tie down renters are not buying as much fuel now as last year..
so their "flowage fee" revenues are off.

It was $3.80 / gallon at the county self service pumps last weekend,
interesting to see what it is this weekend.

BT

"Doug Palmer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will
> it end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the
> end for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once
> or twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above
> $2/Gal.
>
> Flying less in CA
> D
>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
>> Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.
>
> TEN DOLLARS A GALLON?
>
> You must have some really, REALLY "sweet crude" over there in Greece...
>
> I know if it wasn't for my autogas STC, I'd be flying a LOT less.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Yup, good ol' AirBP really sticks it to us; however, taxes are 60%
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The quality of the fuel is exceptional, though.

> I wonder if the various Angel Flight organizations are experiencing a drop
> in active volunteer pilots

Yes

> You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
> Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.

That's just because you *chose* to tax the fuel up to $10/gal.

-Robert

In article et>, Doug
Palmer > wrote:

> 100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
> traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
> end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
> for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
> twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.
>
> Flying less in CA
> D
>
>
Well, we could always finish up this trial and start making our own
fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Depolymerization

That's _make_, not pump and refine.

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
: > You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
: > Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.

: That's just because you *chose* to tax the fuel up to $10/gal.

Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies have been
done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what the pump price
is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon that we pay for
the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies have been
> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what the pump price
> is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon that we pay for
> the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.

Could you expand on that, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> wrote in message
...
>
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> : > You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here
> in
> : > Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as
> well.
>
> : That's just because you *chose* to tax the fuel up to $10/gal.
>
> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies have
> been
> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what the
> pump price
> is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon that
> we pay for
> the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
> * Electrical Engineering *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>


Hey!!!!!!!!!
I'm a VPI&SU grad, 1974, BSc Mechanical Engineering!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> You've got a loooooong way to go before you match the $10 we pay here in
>> Greece, along with incredible restrictions on all aspects of GA as well.
>
> That's just because you *chose* to tax the fuel up to $10/gal.
>
> -Robert

You DO realize how funny that came out, right???

IS User wrote:
> That's _make_, not pump and refine.

Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive
contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.

There are infastructure issues to be dealt with as well such as
the collection and transportation of all of this waste to get
to these facilities. Thinking that "making" oil iright around
the corner and so there is no further need to explore and produce
additional oil reserves for the country's needs is pure ignorance.

On 2006-04-21, ktbr > wrote:
> Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
> into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive
> contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
> a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.

What would likely happen is market forces would cause a migration rather
than a big conscious effort to build these things. Additionally, the
economics of things like thermal depolymerisation are different - it's
not so much as the traditional having a huge oil well, going to a huge
refinery. The best infrastructure would probably to have the plants
on-site where the waste is already. Such as the one right next to the
Butterball factory.

But, say, $100/barrel oil will ensure that companies go prospecting for
more oil. Suddenly, oil sources that weren't economical become
economical - as do alternate fuels - when oil isn't as cheap as it is
today (and for what you can get out of oil, it's still cheap stuff at
$70 a barrel).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
>> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
>> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
>> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
>
> That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
> come down.

And in 1981 onward, IT DID!

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> But, say, $100/barrel oil will ensure that companies go prospecting for
> more oil. Suddenly, oil sources that weren't economical become
> economical - as do alternate fuels - when oil isn't as cheap as it is
> today (and for what you can get out of oil, it's still cheap stuff at
> $70 a barrel).

It's feasible to prospect and drill for oil if the world market price hits
$35 or more. It's double that now. Problem is the environuts will not let it
happen

We're now at the point that tar sands are feasible and coming into the range
that shale is profitable. Just a ways from me is enough shale that makes
much of the middle east seem like pikers. Canada has more oil in tar sands
than Saudia Arabia has.

As the economics get past the size scales and learning curves, thigs could
well change dramatically.

Imagine the towelheads losing their grip and their market. :~)

> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies have been
> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S

Sounds like something Al Frankin or Michael Moore would say. Does "true
cost" include buying a new Lexus for illegal aliens?

-Robert

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies have
>> been
>> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what
>> the pump price
>> is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon
>> that we pay for
>> the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.
>
> Could you expand on that, please?
> --

He may be referring to THIS report:

http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

from the US-based "International Center for Technology Assessment".

It was done way back 1998 or 2000, I believe, and concluded the "true" price
could be from around 4.60 (then), up to more than $14 a gallon... and that
the consumer was shielded from this in various ways.

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
> come down.
>

Well, it'll only come down maybe 40c after the summer.

It's very different this time compared with the 70s. There's no
embargo, only peaked out production and much higher consumption from
U.S, China and India.

100LL will hit $5/gallon average sometime the next 3 years, guaranteed.

Hooray! autogas STC rules.

I just paid $2.96/gallon for autogas on my Grumman. It's quite a jump
from $2.62 I paid a week ago but more than $1 less than 100LL this time.

To truely appreciate the price of low gas price in U.S. (compared with
Europe), we need to account about 1/3 to 1/2 of our military budget and
consider that a fuel tax. Imagine a U.S. w/o any need of foreign oil
and we can produce all the fuel we need within the country, there's
absolutely no need for a military the size we have right now. 2,000
Nuclear warhead is more than enough to deter any potential threats.

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Doug Palmer" > said:
>> >100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
>>
>> <<Brief pause while the Europeans in the group laugh themselves silly at
>> our so-called high prices>>
>>
>
> Who gives a %#^& what the euros think. They have high prices because its
> mostly taxes which were created by their elected leaders. Its their own
> fault.
>
>

....as long as you realize that what taxes you are not collecting on
gasoline, you are ultimately collecting somewhere else, so you end up paying
for it anyway, one way or another.


One estimate has 12.5 billion in annual subsidies to petroleum companies
(and that's back in 1998). That is coming from somewhere.

http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> To truely appreciate the price of low gas price in U.S. (compared with
> Europe), we need to account about 1/3 to 1/2 of our military budget and
> consider that a fuel tax.

Can you back those numbers?

>Imagine a U.S. w/o any need of foreign oil
> and we can produce all the fuel we need within the country, there's
> absolutely no need for a military the size we have right now.

Even now, our defense budget, as a percent of federal expenditures, is lower
than even during the Carter yearsm, and much less than in the 1950's.

> 2,000
> Nuclear warhead is more than enough to deter any potential threats.

And if someone breaks into your house, a 155mm howitzer is really not
appropriate.

If you burn 10 gallons an hour and fly 100 hours a year, then an
additional dollar a gallon is $1000 more a year to fly an airplane the
probably costs about 410,000 or more a year to keep. So lets not get
overboard here. Yes fuel prices hurt, but the increase is less than 10%
of the total cost for most of us.

That "410,000" should be "$10,000".

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies
>>> have been
>>> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what
>>> the pump price
>>> is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon
>>> that we pay for
>>> the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.
>>
>> Could you expand on that, please?
>> --
>
> He may be referring to THIS report:
>
> http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
>
> from the US-based "International Center for Technology Assessment".
>
> It was done way back 1998 or 2000, I believe, and concluded the "true"
> price could be from around 4.60 (then), up to more than $14 a gallon...
> and that the consumer was shielded from this in various ways.
>
>
>
>

I always have a problem with any report that takes into account, as an added
real cost, money the government DOESN'T take away from a person or company.

That study could have just a easily have said the actual cost of gas is
$100.00/gal but doesn't because the government decided not to tax gas at
X00%.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-04-21, ktbr > wrote:
>> Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
>> into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive
>> contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
>> a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.
>
> What would likely happen is market forces would cause a migration rather
> than a big conscious effort to build these things. Additionally, the
> economics of things like thermal depolymerisation are different - it's
> not so much as the traditional having a huge oil well, going to a huge
> refinery. The best infrastructure would probably to have the plants
> on-site where the waste is already. Such as the one right next to the
> Butterball factory.
>
> But, say, $100/barrel oil will ensure that companies go prospecting for
> more oil. Suddenly, oil sources that weren't economical become
> economical - as do alternate fuels - when oil isn't as cheap as it is
> today (and for what you can get out of oil, it's still cheap stuff at
> $70 a barrel).
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de


This is very true and not just for NEW oil. South Arkansas has MANY oil
wells that get shut off when the price falls below about $45/barrel and they
don't get restarted until the price goes above $55.

The bad part is a lot of those wells can't restart affordably when the price
goes up and the oil is affectively lost forever.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> imagine: there is only one earth you (we) have *together*. So there is no
> second earth we can jump on if we have brought down everything; it might
> take 100 or 300 years or longer .. but almost everything on our earth is
> finite.

So is _everything_ in the universe my friend. The sun will burn out
in a few million years too then we'll all die so lets just do nothing.
Let the rest of the world develop their resourses while we just sit
here and pay them money. Hell.. in about 50 years Mexico will figure
out a way to suck all of the oil out of the gulf right under our noses.
(One of the reasons Sadam attacked Kuwait was because he believed they
were horizontally drilling into his oil fields... never disproven.)

Doing nothing and hoping all the bad stuff and people will just go
away is a losing strategy.

> That "410,000" should be "$10,000".

JEEEESUS, Doug, I thought you were flying a B-737 biz jet for a minute
there!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> hmm, there was no war for oil. it was for rescuing all those people from
> terror and saving them from the terrorists. and getting rid of Hussein.

Dang, I wish the war really *was* for oil.

Then we all wouldn't be paying these ridiculous energy bills to a bunch
of, er, "unfriendly indigenous peoples."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 21 Apr 2006 14:02:09 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> hmm, there was no war for oil. it was for rescuing all those people from
>> terror and saving them from the terrorists. and getting rid of Hussein.
>
>Dang, I wish the war really *was* for oil.
>
>Then we all wouldn't be paying these ridiculous energy bills to a bunch
>of, er, "unfriendly indigenous peoples."

Call me a raging conspiricist, but I thought Afghanistan and Iraq were
object lessons for the ruling classes in neighboring states to show
them how easily we could transform stable despotism into rampaging
anarchy if they ticked us off.

As for it being "for oil," if you're a speculator or a big holder in
an oil company . . . . Cui bono?

Don

("M" wrote)
> 100LL will hit $5/gallon average sometime the next 3 years, guaranteed.


....next 3 months might be closer.


Montblack

well, by average I meant day-in/day-out, dead in the winter time, gulf
states, whatever. 100LL will certainly reach $5/gallon this summer in
many locations, but it'll retreat back as the summer passes.

In 3 years however, $5/gallon 100LL will absolutely become the norm
everywhere. Autogas STC folks (like me) will be salivating the fact
that our autogas is *only* $4/gallon.

> > 100LL will hit $5/gallon average sometime the next 3 years, guaranteed.
>
> ...next 3 months might be closer.

It just hit $4.25 per gallon here in Iowa City.

That makes filling up the Mighty Grape (at $2.87 per gallon) with mogas
seem positively cheap. (Although it's now over $150 to fill even the
Grape!)

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
> >> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
> >> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
> >> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
> >
> > That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
> > come down.
>
> And in 1981 onward, IT DID!


Unfortunately, we currently have a president and congress who are about
as wimpy as they can get on domestic policy. Often, they're even
worse--acting much like the liberals they campaign against.

The United States likely has enough undiscovered oil to be the world's
largest oil producer by a wide margin (we are already the third-largest
exporter of crude oil), but we CHOOSE not to tap into that natural
resource. Or, rather, we let the environmentalist wackos and their junk
science make that choice for us.

There is a limit to price, and that limit is where demand starts to
fall. Right now, Americans may not be happy with $3-$4/gallon gas, but
they're willing to pay for it, so there's really no incentive for lower
prices. However, there is plenty of opportunity for politicians to
latch on to the issue of high energy prices to promote agendas that
would meddle with the market and create artificially high prices and
true hardships for Americans; such is already evident in today's high
prices. Consumers can control market price, but they can't control
government mandate.


JKG

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> \
>>
>> Even now, our defense budget, as a percent of federal expenditures, is
>> lower
>> than even during the Carter yearsm, and much less than in the 1950's.
>>
>
> The cost of Iraq war isn't included in the defense budget.

BS.

>
> Do you honestly believe we need the size of the military we have right
> now if we don't have a need for an oversea energy supply?

Pretty much.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> hmm, there was no war for oil. it was for rescuing all those people from
>> terror and saving them from the terrorists. and getting rid of Hussein.
>
> Dang, I wish the war really *was* for oil.
>
Yes, that's why we went into Afghanistan and took all their oil, then kept
all the oil we looted from Iraq that was already pumping at high output...

Well, I sure hope you're sending your children to the war so I can keep
filling my airplane with cheap gas. Honestly speaking, I have no
problem with this deal at all.

> we need to account about 1/3 to 1/2 of our military budget and
>consider that a fuel tax

For Europe too. If the U.S. did not subsidize the national defense of
Europe they'd have to pay for it themselves. Imagine the German's
having to take over all those bases in Germany.

-Robert

>hmm, there was no war for oil. it was for rescuing all those people from
> terror and saving them from the terrorists. and getting rid of Hussein.

Obviously. If the war was for oil, don't you think we'd have taken some
by now?

-Robert

On 20-Apr-2006, "Doug" > wrote:

> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.


I doubt it, too. BUT, there are practical limits to prices for crude oil
and the distillates derived from it. One is the cost of producing
alternative sources of energy. If, instead of wasting hundreds of billions
of dollars in Iraq, we spent those sums on alternative energy R&D I am
convinced the US would gain energy independence within a decade.

The unique needs of aviation will continue to require high grade liquid
fuels (i.e. gasoline or kerosene). But many other applications, including
ground transportation, could be met with such alternatives as hydrogen fuel
or ethanol. That would dramatically reduce demand for oil and bring
gasoline and kerosene prices down. Of course, such a situation will also go
a long ways toward averting a global warming catastrophe.

-Elliott Drucker

They told us the war was for weapons of mass distruction. Then they
said, Saddam (or implied it). Not sure what the reason is now.
Momentum? Can't pull out because we would look bad. Fighting the bad
guys. Something like that.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:19:14 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:

>Call me a raging conspiricist, but I thought Afghanistan and Iraq were
>object lessons for the ruling classes in neighboring states to show
>them how easily we could transform stable despotism into rampaging
>anarchy if they ticked us off.


ah. that's why the Emirates have payed the US their losses for Iraq Part I
.... I see. don't take yourself too important.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On 21 Apr 2006 22:48:08 -0700, Doug wrote:

>They told us the war was for weapons of mass distruction. Then they
>said, Saddam (or implied it). Not sure what the reason is now.
>Momentum? Can't pull out because we would look bad. Fighting the bad
>guys. Something like that.

lokk at history: what has almost every leader done when there where
problems within the country? he started a war.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:34:09 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>> Do you honestly believe we need the size of the military we have right
>> now if we don't have a need for an oversea energy supply?
>
>Pretty much.
>

what for? serious. what for?

nobody on this single planet is stupid enough to spend that much money for
.... aaahhh ... what for? for destroying this single planet? glad we have
you, you'll take care of _everything_.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On 21 Apr 2006 21:52:28 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

>For Europe too. If the U.S. did not subsidize the national defense of
>Europe they'd have to pay for it themselves.

I doubt that we here would raise much more money than we do right now for
national defense.

>Imagine the German's
>having to take over all those bases in Germany.

you mean cleaning up the environmental mess?
or taking over the bases where you spy on your allies (!!)?
or closing the airports where you train the low flights close to populated
areas?
or bringing away the nukes you have here (without permission AFAIK)?

>-Robert

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> lokk at history: what has almost every leader done when there where
> problems within the country? he started a war.

Yes, let's look at history and try to learn from it.
What's the best place to fight a war?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:57:31 GMT, ktbr wrote:

>Let the rest of the world develop their resourses while we just sit
>here and pay them money. Hell.. in about 50 years Mexico will figure
>out a way to suck all of the oil out of the gulf right under our noses.

you think in terms of nations ... this is crap, IMHO.
you (we) have to start today: develop alternatives, conserve, invest in
filters (pollution), etc. - and you have to give _everybody_ his fair
share, no matter what passport he holds.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:46:27 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> lokk at history: what has almost every leader done when there where
>> problems within the country? he started a war.
>
>Yes, let's look at history and try to learn from it.

I doubt that we will learn.

>What's the best place to fight a war?

abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

Martin Hotze wrote:
> you think in terms of nations ... this is crap, IMHO.
> you (we) have to start today: develop alternatives, conserve, invest in
> filters (pollution), etc. - and you have to give _everybody_ his fair
> share, no matter what passport he holds.

You are a nut. Take off you rose colored glasses and quit dreaming.
Go talk to the Chinese, Iran or Korea about you pie in the sky. You
need to get real.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:22:50 GMT, kontiki wrote:

>Martin Hotze wrote:
>> you think in terms of nations ... this is crap, IMHO.
>> you (we) have to start today: develop alternatives, conserve, invest in
>> filters (pollution), etc. - and you have to give _everybody_ his fair
>> share, no matter what passport he holds.
>
>You are a nut. Take off you rose colored glasses and quit dreaming.

dreams are the start

>Go talk to the Chinese, Iran or Korea about you pie in the sky. You
>need to get real.

heck, they think the same, they just name other countries, most name only
one. and where should this all end? does it make sense? it doesn't even
make economical sense, if this is all what you are thinking about.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:57:31 GMT, ktbr wrote:
>
>
>>Let the rest of the world develop their resourses while we just sit
>>here and pay them money. Hell.. in about 50 years Mexico will figure
>>out a way to suck all of the oil out of the gulf right under our noses.
>
>
> you think in terms of nations ... this is crap, IMHO.
> you (we) have to start today: develop alternatives, conserve, invest in
> filters (pollution), etc. - and you have to give _everybody_ his fair
> share, no matter what passport he holds.

Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:02:56 -0600, Newps wrote:

>> you think in terms of nations ... this is crap, IMHO.
>> you (we) have to start today: develop alternatives, conserve, invest in
>> filters (pollution), etc. - and you have to give _everybody_ his fair
>> share, no matter what passport he holds.
>
>Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:36:52 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>... I see. don't take yourself too important.

Always a good idea.

Don

Someone took the cost of the Iraq war and divided it by the barrels of
oil in Iraq. Turns out the war raises the oil by about $7.50 a
barrel........

>>For Europe too. If the U.S. did not subsidize the national defense of
>>Europe they'd have to pay for it themselves.

> I doubt that we here would raise much more money than we do right now for
> national defense.

Exactly. Europe would be a sitting duck and the U.S. would never let
that happen, hence our continued subsidies of Europe's defense. We've
never asked for anything in return. Last time I was in France the
national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)

-Robert

On 22 Apr 2006 12:08:22 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

>Exactly. Europe would be a sitting duck and the U.S. would never let
>that happen, hence our continued subsidies of Europe's defense. We've

what would happen if you would give up all your bases *NOW*? would all
those commies invade? HAHA!

>never asked for anything in return.

not open, yes ...

>Last time I was in France the
>national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)

*pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
German than English ...

ignorance at its best; and you wonder about the outcome ... *sigh*

>-Robert

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> >What's the best place to fight a war?
>
> abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
> but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.

complain to the people who started the war.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:44:14 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >What's the best place to fight a war?
>>
>> abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
>> but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.
>
>complain to the people who started the war.

which country started the last significant war?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> >> abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
> >> but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.
> >
> >complain to the people who started the war.
>
> which country started the last significant war?

people, not country.

Do you need it spelled out for you?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> >Last time I was in France the
> >national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)
>
> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
> German than English ...

In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.

Another thing you may not have noticed: Many in the U.S. would balk at
EVER raising arms to save the French...again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> >Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.
>
> well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
> the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
> what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Another thing you may not have noticed: Many in the U.S. would balk at
> EVER raising arms to save the French...again.

May as well save your breath Jay. He's not running on all cylinders.

"Icebound" > wrote in message ...
>

>
> ...as long as you realize that what taxes you are not collecting on gasoline, you are ultimately collecting somewhere
> else, so you end up paying for it anyway, one way or another.
>
>
> One estimate has 12.5 billion in annual subsidies to petroleum companies (and that's back in 1998). That is coming
> from somewhere.
>
> http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
>


The problem here is that we are continuing to pay those 'hidden' expenses and taxes while also paying the ever
increasing costs of the gasolene. The prices are being driven by speculators, not by true demand, and the profits are
exorbitant.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>
> Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were elected), so if there's a problem, thank your
> friednds and neighbors.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

I do every day and walk away shaking my head...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
> in, save your ass, and go home.

If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
statements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

And the U.S. took the area encompassing California and New Mexico as a
result of the Mexican-American war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

Likewise, Puerto Rico and the Philipines were territorial conquests
resulting from the Spanish-American war in which the U.S. "didn't go home":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico

The U.S. did its best to not "go home" which was evident during the
Philipine-American war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipine-American_War

Lastly, the War of 1812 involved a failed attempt by the U.S. to take
Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281812%29

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
> > in, save your ass, and go home.

> If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
> Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
> statements:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

> And the U.S. took the area encompassing California and New Mexico as a
> result of the Mexican-American war:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

> Likewise, Puerto Rico and the Philipines were territorial conquests
> resulting from the Spanish-American war in which the U.S. "didn't go home":

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico

> The U.S. did its best to not "go home" which was evident during the
> Philipine-American war:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipine-American_War

> Lastly, the War of 1812 involved a failed attempt by the U.S. to take
> Canada:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281812%29

Ignoring the quality of wikipedia as an authoritative source, you got
anything more recent than over a hundred years ago?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:38:12 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
wrote:

>
>"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
>> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
>> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
>> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
>
>That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
>come down.

This is a whole different set of conditions than what we saw in the
70's
..
Yes, the price will cycle through the seasons, but more than likely
the low is going to be at least $2.75 and more likely $3.00 with the
increasing demand. Remember that when inflation is taken into account
we are only paying a few % more than we were back in the early 70's.

*Only* and I emphasize "only", if we reduce the amount we use and keep
it there will prices come down. However it is in the best interests
of both the environmental and industrial groups to see the price go to
$3.50 and stay there. That is where alternative and environmentally
friendly fuels become economically competitive on a large, or nation
wide scale.

IF people would change their driving habits so they use 1/3 less fuel
we wouldn't even need to import the stuff to make gas for cars.
Currently, if I recall correctly, the overall MPG average is about
21. If the average were raised by 7 MPG we'd have reached that goal
and it could be done easily. IF people only used cars and trucks
(that includes pick-ups and SUVs) the size they *need* we'd be there.

*Most* people can cut their driving far more than they say they can.
They can car pool, and not make 5 trips a day into town for the kids
basket ball, base ball, hockey, soccer, dance, gymnastics and what
have you by planning.

BUT people are going to continue to drive monster trucks, SUVs and
Hummers because they want big and powerful even when they don't need
it. Unfortunately most of those driving the status symbols can afford
the higher prices. People are only going to cut back on their driving
where it is convenient. They aren't going to car pool, or set up
scheduling to get the kids to practice unless it is convenient, or
unless they are forced to do so by high prices or availability.

Back in the 70's we ended up with a very good start toward conserving
energy. Smaller cars (mostly imports to begin), car pooling, mass
transit were actually working, but then gas became plentiful and the
price went down and here we are.,

Taking inflation into account, the vast subsidies to industry and I
see gas prices cycling but with an ever increasing average.

I think Canada may be headed in the right direction with the Hemp
approach as it is far more energy efficient than producing alcohol
from corn. It costs considerably less to produce and makes about twice
as much alcohol. Sounds like a winner to me and currently most of my
farm is corn although I just rent it out.

What happens to gas prices if we have another hurricane season like
last year with the gulf and gulf coast getting badly beat up?
I'd bet that sooner or later they are going to have to move the
refineries that are now on the gulf coast to better locations. They
may have to move them just to keep them on the coast.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:27:20 GMT,
wrote:

>
>On 20-Apr-2006, "Doug" > wrote:
>
>> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
>> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
>> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
>> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
>
>
>I doubt it, too. BUT, there are practical limits to prices for crude oil
>and the distillates derived from it. One is the cost of producing
>alternative sources of energy. If, instead of wasting hundreds of billions
>of dollars in Iraq, we spent those sums on alternative energy R&D I am
>convinced the US would gain energy independence within a decade.
>
>The unique needs of aviation will continue to require high grade liquid
>fuels (i.e. gasoline or kerosene). But many other applications, including

And that may shift to biodesiel for some. We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.

>ground transportation, could be met with such alternatives as hydrogen fuel

Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
look cheap.

>or ethanol. That would dramatically reduce demand for oil and bring
>gasoline and kerosene prices down. Of course, such a situation will also go
>a long ways toward averting a global warming catastrophe.

They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>-Elliott Drucker

> > In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
> > in, save your ass, and go home.
>
> If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
> Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
> statements:

Sorry. I should have specified that America hasn't conquered and
occupied territory in modern times.

Of course, "Native Americans" (whatever *that* is -- how does one
qualify as "native" nowadays?) currently have every opportunity that
the rest of us have, in this land of opportunity that they are wont to
call "theirs". In some important ways, they have *more* opportunities.
(Just ask what will happen to me if I, as a German-American, try to
open a casino inside my own hotel... :-)

As "conquered peoples" go, "Native Americans" have come out pretty
well. Certainly better than MY ancestors.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:59:33 GMT, ktbr > wrote:

>Matt Barrow wrote:
>> Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were elected),
>> so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.
>
>Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
>deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter

Actually the US is a Republic that is governed as a representative
democracy.

>today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues

I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
make an intelligent choice.

>facing this country. An ever growing majority seem to be more
>interested in how many entitlements some politician promises to
>provide for them.

OTOH, both major parties here in the US keep putting up candidates
that no intelligent, informed voter could vote for and keep a clear
conscience.

The result being that both parties are becoming more polarized and
move farther apart which means the conditions are not likely to get
better any time soon.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:59:44 GMT, ktbr > wrote:

>IS User wrote:
> > That's _make_, not pump and refine.
>
>Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
>into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive

But this is a very limited resource.

>contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
>a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.

By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
will become scarce and expensive.

>
>There are infastructure issues to be dealt with as well such as
>the collection and transportation of all of this waste to get
>to these facilities. Thinking that "making" oil iright around
>the corner and so there is no further need to explore and produce
>additional oil reserves for the country's needs is pure ignorance.

Right around the corner works on this particular stuff, but not on a
wide scale as there just isn't enough to use on a large scale.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 22-Apr-2006, Roger > wrote:

> We are going to see the
> demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
> unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
> additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.


I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The real
key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building engines
(and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future for
light GA aircraft will be diesel


> Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
> look cheap.

Depends on the original energy source. Right now, photovoltaic systems can
be constructed for about $1 per delivered watt, or $1 million per megawatt,
and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could
produce copious amounts of cheap, environmentally innocuous electricity.
But how to transform that electric energy to a form that can readily be used
for highway transportation? Hydrogen from water dissociation.


> They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
> 5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
> economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
> on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

Yes, we simply have to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
source of the greenhouse gas CO2. Burning biodiesel and ethanol also
produces CO2, of course, but growing the chlorophyll-based plants from which
these fuels are derived absorbs as much CO2 as is produced when they are
burned. No net add of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen/water cycle
generates zero greenhouse gases or any other pollutant.

-Elliott Drucker

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:11:53 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >> abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
>> >> but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.
>> >
>> >complain to the people who started the war.
>>
>> which country started the last significant war?
>
>people, not country.

if you mean 9/11: this was a terrorist attack. simple as that, cruel and
not something to apologize. but this gave you (the USA as a nation) the
right to invade 2 sovereign nations?

>Do you need it spelled out for you?

you should help out Spain to invade a sovereign country, too.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On 22 Apr 2006 13:24:52 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
>> German than English ...
>
>In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>in, save your ass, and go home.

and this was related how to the above said?

>Another thing you may not have noticed: Many in the U.S. would balk at
>EVER raising arms to save the French...again.

IBTD. well, there will be _many_, I tend to agree there.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

On 22 Apr 2006 13:29:45 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> >Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.
>>
>> well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
>> the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
>> what's next? get a broader view, please.
>
>The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
>share"...whatever THAT is.

So, what ARE the altervnatives?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>> in, save your ass, and go home.
>
> If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two
> World
> Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
> statements:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars
>
> And the U.S. took the area encompassing California and New Mexico as a
> result of the Mexican-American war:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War
>
> Likewise, Puerto Rico and the Philipines were territorial conquests
> resulting from the Spanish-American war in which the U.S. "didn't go
> home":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
>
> The U.S. did its best to not "go home" which was evident during the
> Philipine-American war:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipine-American_War
>
> Lastly, the War of 1812 involved a failed attempt by the U.S. to take
> Canada:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281812%29

Great tool, Wikipedia....make it up as you go along!! No credentials, just a
web browser....

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>> > in, save your ass, and go home.
>>
>
> As "conquered peoples" go, "Native Americans" have come out pretty
> well. Certainly better than MY ancestors.

I always get a laugh out of those who say the land belonged to the American
Aborigines since the AA's had no concept of land ownership and, as nomadic
wanderers, didn't really occupy the land in any sense we'd call
"proprietorship".

BTW...how did the AA's come to occupy an area of land in the first place?
That's right, they _conquered_ it. As they did, they slaughtered each other
for generations. Those constant wars don't happen anymore. (Not to mention
the constant raids to rape the other tribes cattle and steal their women)

For all their faults, the "white" people brought a way of dealing with
ownership and disputes over ownership.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>
>> >What's the best place to fight a war?
>>
>> abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
>> but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.
>
> complain to the people who started the war.
>

I'm sure they'll be very receptive to said complaints.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> >Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.
>>
>> well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko
>> hits
>> the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
>> what's next? get a broader view, please.
>
> The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
> share"...whatever THAT is.

And what about the people that created that stuff he wants to redistribute?

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
news:YJw2g.13688>
> The problem here is that we are continuing to pay those 'hidden' expenses
> and taxes while also paying the ever increasing costs of the gasolene. The
> prices are being driven by speculators, not by true demand, and the
> profits are exorbitant.

China and India tripling and quadrupling their consumption is not a "true
demand"?

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:27:20 GMT,
> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 20-Apr-2006, "Doug" > wrote:
>>
>>> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
>>> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
>>> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
>>> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
>>
>>
>>I doubt it, too. BUT, there are practical limits to prices for crude oil
>>and the distillates derived from it. One is the cost of producing
>>alternative sources of energy. If, instead of wasting hundreds of
>>billions
>>of dollars in Iraq, we spent those sums on alternative energy R&D I am
>>convinced the US would gain energy independence within a decade.
>>
>>The unique needs of aviation will continue to require high grade liquid
>>fuels (i.e. gasoline or kerosene). But many other applications, including
>
> And that may shift to biodesiel for some. We are going to see the
> demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
> unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
> additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.

They've been looking for such a solution since the 1930's.

No luck yet!

> wrote in message
news:Q2D2g.767$yI1.26@trnddc04...
>
> On 22-Apr-2006, Roger > wrote:
>
>> We are going to see the
>> demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
>> unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
>> additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.
>
>
> I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
> aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The
> real
> key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building
> engines
> (and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
> with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future
> for
> light GA aircraft will be diesel
>
>
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:59:33 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were
>>> elected),
>>> so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.
>>
>>Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
>>deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter
>
> Actually the US is a Republic that is governed as a representative
> democracy.
>
>>today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues
>
> I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
> the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
> make an intelligent choice.

I would add that most voters have neither the information nor the ability to
make sense of it, and DON'T HAVE THE INTERST in doing so.

Hey, don't bother me, the ballgame is on...

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:59:44 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
>
>>IS User wrote:
>> > That's _make_, not pump and refine.
>>
>>Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
>>into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive
>
> But this is a very limited resource.
>
>>contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
>>a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.
>
> By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
> will become scarce and expensive.

Which raw materials are you referring to?

wrote:

> On 22-Apr-2006, Roger > wrote:

> > We are going to see the
> > demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
> > unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
> > additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.


> I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
> aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The real
> key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building engines
> (and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
> with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future for
> light GA aircraft will be diesel

And this would be a bad thing why?


> > Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
> > look cheap.

> Depends on the original energy source. Right now, photovoltaic systems can
> be constructed for about $1 per delivered watt, or $1 million per megawatt,
> and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could
> produce copious amounts of cheap, environmentally innocuous electricity.
> But how to transform that electric energy to a form that can readily be used
> for highway transportation? Hydrogen from water dissociation.


> > They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
> > 5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
> > economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
> > on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

> Yes, we simply have to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
> source of the greenhouse gas CO2. Burning biodiesel and ethanol also
> produces CO2, of course, but growing the chlorophyll-based plants from which
> these fuels are derived absorbs as much CO2 as is produced when they are
> burned. No net add of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen/water cycle
> generates zero greenhouse gases or any other pollutant.

Nonsense.

Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
i.e. smog.

> -Elliott Drucker

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article >, wrote:

> Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
> i.e. smog.

Burning Hydrogen would produce smog?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, wrote:

> > Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
> > i.e. smog.

> Burning Hydrogen would produce smog?

> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

Yes, unless you can come up with a way to keep the nitrogen in the air
out of the combustion process.

Fuel cells, which run at temperatures below which the nitrogen oxides
form don't have this problem, but any conventional engine, no matter
what the fuel, does.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message news:YJw2g.13688>
>> The problem here is that we are continuing to pay those 'hidden' expenses and taxes while also paying the ever
>> increasing costs of the gasolene. The prices are being driven by speculators, not by true demand, and the profits are
>> exorbitant.
>
> China and India tripling and quadrupling their consumption is not a "true demand"?
>
>
>

Insignificant at this point and not enough to justify the price of gasoline doubling in the last 2 1/2 years. USA is
number 1 consumer by a long shot...

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003056&contentId=7005897

Martin Hotze wrote:


> 5 liter per 100 kilometers is on the better side for our cars here, 3l is
> very good, 10l is the upper limit, but exceeding up to 20l for larger SUVs
> etc.
>
> so the average car is at about 7l per 100 kilometers here in Europe.
>
> right now we pay about 1 Euro (germany about EUR 1,30) per liter diesel or
> unleaded 90 octane.

Appreciate the "international" perspective, my friend, but, I seriously
doubt folks on this side of the pond are going to do the math to convert
the units and make sense of your data.

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
>> news:YJw2g.13688>
>>> The problem here is that we are continuing to pay those 'hidden'
>>> expenses and taxes while also paying the ever increasing costs of the
>>> gasolene. The prices are being driven by speculators, not by true
>>> demand, and the profits are exorbitant.
>>
>> China and India tripling and quadrupling their consumption is not a "true
>> demand"?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Insignificant at this point and not enough to justify the price of
> gasoline doubling in the last 2 1/2 years. USA is number 1 consumer by a
> long shot...
>
> http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003056&contentId=7005897
>

Do you understand "Demand Forecasting"?

> >> well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
> >> the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
> >> what's next? get a broader view, please.
> >
> >The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
> >share"...whatever THAT is.
>
> So, what ARE the altervnatives?

The answer is simple: The Free Market.

However, you are the one who said "give everyone his fair share" -- I
presume of natural resources? You may wish to expand upon this a bit
-- do you mean air? Water? Oil? Sunlight?

Regardless, I believe we should start the conversation with the
concepts of "worthiness" and "earning potential", as these are two
areas that seem to continually baffle you.

First, there is no one to "give" anything to ANYONE on this planet --
and for you to even start a debate with a statement like that
illustrates a vast ignorance of the way the world's economy works. You
EARN your way in the world's economy, and make yourself "worthy" of
receiving ANY share.

Second, there is no one to determine what a "fair" share of ANYTHING is
on this planet -- and, again, for you to make a comment like that shows
a remarkable naivete. In the world economy, each of us -- from
countries to citizens -- EARNS what we receive, or, rather don't
receive.

Are their inequities in this system? You bet! Here's just one
illustration of what happens when the Capitalist system isn't allowed
to work:

We've currently got a medical doctor staying at our hotel who runs a
department at a very large medical center. Because he is a public
employee, his salary is available on the web and is published in the
newspaper each year.

Imagine my surprise to discover that he personally, all by himself,
received more compensation last year than the hotel generated, in
total! He himself received more money than we received from ALL of our
revenue sources, and he himself received more money than we paid out to
ALL of our suppliers and employees COMBINED.

Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
not by a long shot. Our health care system in America is so screwed up
by regulation and red tape that the capitalist system's vaunted
efficiency has been completely wrung out of the equation. He is paid
that absurd amount of money because the system is allowing that to
happen -- not because he's "earning" it -- while at the same time new
mothers are being sent home 18 hours after giving birth due to "budget
constraints"...

Now, at the other end of the scale, here is a similar LOOKING example
that actually illustrates quite the opposite: The highest paid
government official in Iowa, by far, is (believe it or not) the
University of Iowa football coach, Kirk Ferentz. He is paid well over
a million dollars per year, BEFORE all of his endorsement contracts,
which boosts it to well over $2 million annually.

Does he EARN that money? You bet! The Hawkeyes (the football team)
bring in so much revenue that the University is able to fund ALL other
college sports, from lacrosse to field hockey, from softball to track
-- and still have money in the bank at the end.

If Ferentz were failing, and the Hawkeyes weren't winning, the college
would have to come up with $10 million annually (at least) to pay for
all those other "lesser" sports -- so in a very real sense, Ferentz
EARNS his money.

Now scale this up to the national and international level. Is Austria
EARNING it's "fair share" of natural resources? How about Kenya?
Bangaladesh? If not, why not? Are they earning more than they're
costing?

As you can see, your statements about "fair share" lose their meaning
rather quickly, in the real world.

Bottom line: Earn it, and it's yours. Fail to earn it, and reap the
consequences.

Worse yet, mess with the free market economy, and end up with bloated,
corrupt, over-paid bureaucrats -- like our vaunted doctor.

And Europe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> However, you are the one who said "give everyone his fair share" -- I
> presume of natural resources? You may wish to expand upon this a bit
> -- do you mean air? Water? Oil? Sunlight?

Living in the midwest I'm sure you'd like to know where the line forms
to get your equal share of sunlight.


You
> EARN your way in the world's economy, and make yourself "worthy" of
> receiving ANY share.

Or form OPEC and artificially drive up the price.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:06:08 GMT,
wrote:

>
>On 22-Apr-2006, Roger > wrote:
>
>> We are going to see the
>> demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
>> unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
>> additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.
>
>
>I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
>aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The real

It's that "some price" that is scary.

>key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building engines
>(and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
>with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future for
>light GA aircraft will be diesel

But I think that mogas as we know it is going to go away and in the
not too distant future.

>
>
>> Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
>> look cheap.
>
>Depends on the original energy source. Right now, photovoltaic systems can
>be constructed for about $1 per delivered watt, or $1 million per megawatt,

True, but so far that is on a very localized basis. Plus for hydrogen
you are limited to the distribution system that has yet to be
implemented except on a small scale. Electricity is easier to
transport and the electric farm you list below is one whale of a good
start. Unfortunately our power grid is only capable of *almost*
meeting peak demands. Cars user far more energy so that would mean
either trucking vast amounts of Hydrogen, increasing the size of our
electric grid several fold over what we have now, or a combination of
both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
increase the power grid.

The electric car is probably the least desirable as it would require
the greatest infrastructure change and is the least efficient "over
all".

Add into this the bio-fuels and the need for Hydrogen and electric
powered cars is greatly reduced. At least the Metal Hydrides used for
Hydrogen storage make a take full of H2 safer than one full of gas.

BTW, Hydrogen is treated more like the batter in the electric car than
a fuel. There is a loss in net energy with its production and another
loss in its use just as there is in using a battery to store
electrical energy.

>and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could

On a local basis, going solar power to really power the home is about
$20,000 and that is for Florida. Up here in the frozen, cloudy north
it's not very practical unless you can develop a way of capturing a
lot and then storing it .

I saw the figure given as a solar farm 100 miles on a side out in the
desert could power the entire US. That would be one expensive
undertaking<:-)) Both from the solar farm and the distribution.
OTOH single farms large enough to replace a couple of fossil fuel
powered electric generation plants are not out of the question. Using
parabolic mirrors to collect heat to power generators would be much
more compact and at current costs probably run about 10 to 20% (my
SWAG) of a photovoltaic farm capable of creating the same power.
A couple of 10 or 12' dishes used to heat water could probably heat
enough water in one day to heat my home for 3 to 5 days. I know a 10'
dish can collect a *lot* of heat ever since I painted one with some
excess aircraft paint and it melted the feed horn.

>produce copious amounts of cheap, environmentally innocuous electricity.
>But how to transform that electric energy to a form that can readily be used
>for highway transportation? Hydrogen from water dissociation.

It takes a lot of electricity to produce the Hydrogen on a large
scale. I used to work with the world's largest electrolytic Hydrogen
generator. The O2 was just blown off to the atmosphere as a
byproduct. That company used to have daily tankers of liquid H2
coming in and they had a tank farm for liquid H2.

The processes that used the H2 have been modified and streamlined to
the point where they use a very small percent of the H2, yet the basic
process that uses it has multiplied many fold.

Actually the tank farm AND the H2 generation cell are both gone with
just a *relatively* small tank remaining and I am speaking in relative
terms. That place is BIG and they are in the process of basically
doubling their capacity again.

One of the things I can refer to specifically is the change is the
basic charge to the customer. 30 some years ago the end product ran
as much as $165$ US per gram. Now the raw material is more pure than
that refined product and sells "some where" in the $2 to $5 a Kilogram
range.

That is a tremendous increase in efficiency.
Take that tot he Hybrid cars which I can say from experience my wife's
gets 50 MPG average. However hybrid cars take a different mind set.
These are not "economy cars". They are expensive cars (at present)
that get very good gas mileage. So although they save a *lot* at the
pump the overall operating cost has to be as much as many of the gas
guzzlers. OTOH the overall operating cost is far less than the new
luxury gas guzzlers.

As A personal opinion I see various forms of hybrid cars using various
fuels as being the current and at least short term way to go. They
alone in their current form "could be" enough to make us independent
from foreign oil and reduce the green house gases to acceptable
levels. In the mean time the alternative energy sources can be
developed to the point of being economically competitive, or even
economically superior.

The unfortunate down side is the people who really need the cars that
get high mileage can not afford them. Currently their only answer is
car pooling, driving less, mass transit, or moving closer to the
center of their activities.

One other step that is not going to be popular or painless is to empty
the high school parking lots and we could very easily see that happen.

As much as I'm afraid of being the one to put the first scratch on it,
I am now driving my wife's car (when it's available) and I don't need
the SUV for hauling *lots* of stuff. I can drive that thing to the
airport three times on about the same gas as it takes to get the SUV
there once and it gets good gas mileage. 20 years ago it would have
been considered outstanding.
>
>> They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
>> 5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
>> economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
>> on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)
>
>Yes, we simply have to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
>source of the greenhouse gas CO2. Burning biodiesel and ethanol also
>produces CO2, of course, but growing the chlorophyll-based plants from which
>these fuels are derived absorbs as much CO2 as is produced when they are
>burned. No net add of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen/water cycle
>generates zero greenhouse gases or any other pollutant.

IF you are using the biomass produced fuels to produce the materials
(crops) and produce more fuel, you have a net reduction.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>-Elliott Drucker

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:25:02 GMT, wrote:

<snip>
>Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
>i.e. smog.

There are also the lubricants that are either burned or expelled, but
modern engines have reduced these pollutants to extremely low levels.
The gas engine in my wife's car runs a compression ratio of 13:1, yet
is it listed as one of the lowest emitters of pollutants. Some call
it a zero emitter, but that really means it has met Ca standards.
What I find amazing is how they produce so little Nitrogen oxides with
such a high compression ratio. (It does have variable cam timing) and
the engine even shuts off if not needed. No idle at stop lights or
even going down hill.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>> -Elliott Drucker

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:22:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:59:33 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>> Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were
>>>> elected),
>>>> so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.
>>>
>>>Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
>>>deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter
>>
>> Actually the US is a Republic that is governed as a representative
>> democracy.
>>
>>>today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues
>>
>> I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
>> the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
>> make an intelligent choice.
>
>I would add that most voters have neither the information nor the ability to
>make sense of it, and DON'T HAVE THE INTERST in doing so.
>
>Hey, don't bother me, the ballgame is on...

I'm sorry Matt. I was watching TV while you were typing. What were we
talking about?

<sigh>

BTW There was a good program on tonight that started out showing some
old photos of glaciers and then faded to the present view from the
same location. Now that was eye opening!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>> in, save your ass, and go home.
>
>If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
>Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
>statements:

Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
them by armed force.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars
>
>And the U.S. took the area encompassing California and New Mexico as a
>result of the Mexican-American war:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War
>
>Likewise, Puerto Rico and the Philipines were territorial conquests
>resulting from the Spanish-American war in which the U.S. "didn't go home":
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
>
>The U.S. did its best to not "go home" which was evident during the
>Philipine-American war:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipine-American_War
>
>Lastly, the War of 1812 involved a failed attempt by the U.S. to take
>Canada:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281812%29

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:23:11 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:59:44 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
>>
>>>IS User wrote:
>>> > That's _make_, not pump and refine.
>>>
>>>Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
>>>into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive
>>
>> But this is a very limited resource.
>>
>>>contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
>>>a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.
>>
>> By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
>> will become scarce and expensive.
>
>Which raw materials are you referring to?
>
The wast products currently used. Even using soybeans (please do we
raise them) it's going to require some breakthroughs to make a lot of
this.

Use many soybeans and the price will really go up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

("Roger" wrote)
> BTW There was a good program on tonight that started out showing some old
> photos of glaciers and then faded to the present view from the same
> location. Now that was eye opening!


I think that's happened three or four times in the past 15,000 years. On the
flip side, some early Middle Ages tapestries depict 'the year there was no
summer' in meticulous detail. That particular Mini Ice Age destroyed the
once thriving English wine making industry - for example.

My question is always:
If not for Global Warming (capitalized because it's now a religion)
....wouldn't we be locked in one of Earth's many Ice Ages, still?

I believe 95% of GW is the Sun, and the Earth's tilt/wobble, and the ocean's
salinity/density/fresh water cycles, and the planet's solid iron core
flipping polarity, etc, etc, etc. But yes, I do think we need to work on our
5%.


Montblack
Setting rivers on fire ain't nothing...

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
> not by a long shot.

He charged what the market would bear for his services -- that's how the
free market worked (sure, the health system has plenty of distortions,
but doctor's pay is not one of them: reduce doctors pay to what you
think they are 'earning', and you'd be hard pressed to fill the posts
because the doctors are smart enough to find somewhere else where they'd
get paid more).

Also, I'm not sure whether you miss it or not, but capitalism does need
some moderation otherwise it ends up just as bad as the old Soviet
system (for one, it tends towards monopoly which is BAD for free
markets. Yes, unmoderated capitalism can end up destroying the free
market).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
> them by armed force.

But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
from myself?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
> What I find amazing is how they produce so little Nitrogen oxides with
> such a high compression ratio.

The exhaust system (3 way catalytic converter) probably gets rid of it.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
> both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
> bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
> picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
> increase the power grid.

I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
to infrastructure needed - we would need:

- new cars
- new filling stations
- new transport
- new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

For biodiesels (some forms of algae can be used to make 10,000 US
gallons of biofuel per acre, and it can be done in a more closed system
to keep evaporation of water losses to a minimum) you don't need to
change the infrastructure. Biodiesel will work in existing diesel trucks
and cars, and the same filling stations can be used, and the same
tankers can be used as is for conventional dino-diesel.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:22:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
>>> the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
>>> make an intelligent choice.
>>
>>I would add that most voters have neither the information nor the ability
>>to
>>make sense of it, and DON'T HAVE THE INTERST in doing so.
>>
>>Hey, don't bother me, the ballgame is on...
>
> I'm sorry Matt. I was watching TV while you were typing. What were we
> talking about?

Ummmm...

>
> <sigh>
>
> BTW There was a good program on tonight that started out showing some
> old photos of glaciers and then faded to the present view from the
> same location. Now that was eye opening!
>

I saw something like that a year or so ago. They showed pictures of glaciers
(Yellowstone mainly) taken in the late 1880's, then compared it to pictures
taken today. The glaciers were either greatly receeded or completely
vanished.

Thing is, someone else showed pictures taken from 1905-1915 and the pictures
then looked pretty much like today.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>>> in, save your ass, and go home.
>>
>>If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two
>>World
>>Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
>>statements:
>
> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
> them by armed force.

Yes...and until the late 1800's the tribes slaughtered each other to the
extent that after 5000 years on this continent, the aborigine population wa
barely 300,000. One sure thing in that bygone era, like death and taxes (and
now shipping and handling) today, was tribal warfare. Last tribal warfare I
heard of, aince the 1800's, was the Crips. and the Bluds, the Dodgers and
Giants, and the Democraps and the Repugnants.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
>> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
>> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
>> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
>> them by armed force.
>
> But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
> from myself?
>
Which part of the land did you take away from yourself?

Hmmm...MPD?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
>>> will become scarce and expensive.
>>
>>Which raw materials are you referring to?
>>
> The wast products currently used. Even using soybeans (please do we
> raise them) it's going to require some breakthroughs to make a lot of
> this.
>
> Use many soybeans and the price will really go up.
>
Ah...the old Supply & Demand!!

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
>> both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
>> bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
>> picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
>> increase the power grid.
>
> I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
> to infrastructure needed - we would need:
>
> - new cars

Average turnover is five years.

> - new filling stations

Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?

> - new transport
> - new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
> is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?

>
> For biodiesels (some forms of algae can be used to make 10,000 US
> gallons of biofuel per acre, and it can be done in a more closed system
> to keep evaporation of water losses to a minimum) you don't need to
> change the infrastructure. Biodiesel will work in existing diesel trucks
> and cars, and the same filling stations can be used, and the same
> tankers can be used as is for conventional dino-diesel.

Isn't it great, the inventiveness and creativity of the unfettered human
mind?

Of course, the problem to be solved is that it might be Halliburton that
comes up with the solution. Can't have that now, right?

Also, whoever solves the problem will become fabulously rich and foster
untold envy.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

> > Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
> > not by a long shot.
>
> He charged what the market would bear for his services -- that's how the
> free market worked

For HIM it's a "free market' -- but the health care market is far from
free.

In a true free market, a department head wouldn't be paid such an
exorbitant sum. Our health care "system" (really a giant, entangled
mess of regulations and interlinked government programs) has distorted
the market to the point where this guy is paid primarily to fleece the
system -- not to help provide health care.

To truly appreciate how f*cked up our health care system is, you need
to note: The hospital this doctor works for is a NON-PROFIT
organization.

Think about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger > writes:

> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
> >> in, save your ass, and go home.
> >
> >If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
> >Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
> >statements:
>
> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
> them by armed force.

Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Bob Noel > writes:

> In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
> > Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
> > as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
> > although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
> > them by armed force.
>
> But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
> from myself?

Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
displaced them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
> >> both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
> >> bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
> >> picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
> >> increase the power grid.
> >
> > I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
> > to infrastructure needed - we would need:
> >
> > - new cars
>
> Average turnover is five years.

Maybe, but those 5-year-old cars aren't junked, they're bought and
driven for another 5 years by less wealthy people.

> > - new filling stations
>
> Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?

No; hydrogen gas takes very different handling than gasoline, whereas
leaded gas could go through the same pumps just fine (we decided to
make them change the nozzles to prevent mistakes that would ruin the
catalytic converters).

> > - new transport
> > - new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
> > is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)
>
> Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?

I don't think whale oil replaced coal for much of anything.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

In article >, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

> > But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
> > from myself?
>
> Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
> relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
> displaced them.

well, actually, no. Not one person alive today took land belonging
to any "native american" alive today.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
>> >> both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
>> >> bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
>> >> picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
>> >> increase the power grid.
>> >
>> > I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
>> > to infrastructure needed - we would need:
>> >
>> > - new cars
>>
>> Average turnover is five years.
>
> Maybe, but those 5-year-old cars aren't junked, they're bought and
> driven for another 5 years by less wealthy people.

Yes...so? The point is for the majority of vehicles, not a complete purging
of the inventory.


>
>> > - new filling stations
>>
>> Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?
>
> No; hydrogen gas takes very different handling than gasoline, whereas
> leaded gas could go through the same pumps just fine (we decided to
> make them change the nozzles to prevent mistakes that would ruin the
> catalytic converters).

Wanna guess how many filling stations add that capability (especially when
it becomes pretty much mandatory) versus how many are built from scratch?

>
>> > - new transport
>> > - new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
>> > is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)
>>
>> Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?
>
> I don't think whale oil replaced coal for much of anything.

Wow! Trivia pursuit champion.

Now try "Innovation Therapy".

Oh, hell...keep your high gas prices and stunted economies heading for the
trash bin...

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> Roger > writes:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >> In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>> >> in, save your ass, and go home.
>> >
>> >If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two
>> >World
>> >Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
>> >statements:
>>
>> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
>> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
>> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
>> them by armed force.
>
> Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!

They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel > writes:
>
>> In article >,
>> Roger > wrote:
>>
>> > Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
>> > as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
>> > although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
>> > them by armed force.
>>
>> But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
>> from myself?
>
> Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
> relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
> displaced them.

Who did they (the Lakota) displace?

Matt Barrow wrote:


>>Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!
>
>
> They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.

They are Indians today. They call themselves that. What's the problem?

"Roger" wrote

> ... for hydrogen
> you are limited to the distribution system that has yet to be
> implemented except on a small scale. Electricity is easier to
> transport and the electric farm you list below is one whale of a good
> start. Unfortunately our power grid is only capable of *almost*
> meeting peak demands. Cars user far more energy so that would mean
> either trucking vast amounts of Hydrogen, increasing the size of our
> electric grid several fold over what we have now, or a combination of
> both with the latter being the most likely ...

Why transport the hydrogen? Just produce it electrolytically at every gas
station.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!
>>
>>
>> They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.
>
> They are Indians today. They call themselves that. What's the problem?
>

They've called themselves "Native Americans" for better part of a generation
around here.

Bob Noel wrote:
> > > But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
> > > from myself?
> >
> > Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
> > relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
> > displaced them.
>
> well, actually, no. Not one person alive today took land belonging
> to any "native american" alive today.

Except for various energy concerns. (Read up on Peabody Coal
to start.) Oh, and if Indians take like one fish for every
hundred a major fishing company takes and the fish population
starts to decline, guess who gets the blame? And then there
were the forced sterilizations in the 70s, Norplant and
Depo-Provera experiments in the 80s, toxic waste dumps from
the 50s to present day . . . Shall I go on?

Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
communist.

> Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
> snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
> for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
> communist.

Do you have any examples of this happening?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> If you burn 10 gallons an hour and fly 100 hours a year, then an
> additional dollar a gallon is $1000 more a year to fly an airplane the
> probably costs about 410,000 or more a year to keep. So lets not get
> overboard here. Yes fuel prices hurt, but the increase is less than 10%
> of the total cost for most of us.

410,000 for an airplane that burns 10 gal an hour? Somebody got taken for a
ride.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>> Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies
>>>> have been
>>>> done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what
>>>> the pump price
>>>> is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon
>>>> that we pay for
>>>> the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.
>>>
>>> Could you expand on that, please?
>>> --
>>
>> He may be referring to THIS report:
>>
>> http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
>>
>> from the US-based "International Center for Technology Assessment".
>>
>> It was done way back 1998 or 2000, I believe, and concluded the "true"
>> price could be from around 4.60 (then), up to more than $14 a gallon...
>> and that the consumer was shielded from this in various ways.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I always have a problem with any report that takes into account, as an
> added real cost, money the government DOESN'T take away from a person or
> company.
>
> That study could have just a easily have said the actual cost of gas is
> $100.00/gal but doesn't because the government decided not to tax gas at
> X00%.

Do you know how much you actually pay for food thanks to government
agricultural "subsidies"? Do you know how much money you give away to oil
companies because the Shrub in the WH thinks we should extend exemptions
from payment of royalties from gulf oil extraction, for example, even though
the subsidies are only meant to be used when oil prices are really low? Most
citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get on the
part of their government.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

>>> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
>>> German than English ...
>>
>>In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
>>in, save your ass, and go home.

And in case anyone has forgotten, the early 3k dead soldiers, plus the tens
of thousands of other soldiers that have been maimed, wounded and then died
(but don't get counted because they died somewhere else) are dead because...

why is it that they have died in Iraq?

Oh yeah, the CIA told the shrub and his Team Moron that Iraq had no WMD's or
nuclear program.

But they ignored that. The decision was already made to lie like good little
repukes. Why?

Simple. Because Saddam was funnelling a sh*tload of money to the
Palestinians and rewarding the families of "suicide bombers".

So we got kids dying in Iraq to support the Israeli regime.

Then we tell the Palestinians to hold democratic elections. They do. So well
that not a single observer can see any sign of fraud.

BUT WAIT, democracy US style means that if you vote in a democratic election
and you elect someone we don't like, IT DOESN'T COUNT.

And this is what those are defending? That's why they have given their
lives?



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:38:12 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
>>> burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
>>> all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
>>> down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.
>>
>>That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
>>come down.
>
> This is a whole different set of conditions than what we saw in the 70's

Not really. It was an artificial increase then and its artificial now. The
media keeps talking about "jittery traders" and all that crap the citizens
of the US swallow hook, like and sinker.

> *Only* and I emphasize "only", if we reduce the amount we use and keep
> it there will prices come down. However it is in the best interests
> of both the environmental and industrial groups to see the price go to
> $3.50 and stay there. That is where alternative and environmentally
> friendly fuels become economically competitive on a large, or nation
> wide scale.

Alternative fuels are here now. The problem is not the ability to produce
them, but rather the interests of the companies that would lose a ****load
of money if they are available at their true price. Ethanol has been proven
viable in places like Brazil. Biodiesel is also quite viable. Propane has
been used in cars for decades now in alleged third world countries. IMO it's
like pharmaceuticals. When it comes to prescription medicines, the companies
and the government screw their own citizens? Why? Because they can.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
> > snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
> > for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
> > communist.
>
> Do you have any examples of this happening?

You must not remember the 70s very well . . .

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...
> Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get on
> the part of their government.


If you had just said "...by their government." It would have been the first
time I ever agreed with Juan. Damn.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> > Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
>> > snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
>> > for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
>> > communist.
>>
>> Do you have any examples of this happening?
>
> You must not remember the 70s very well . . .

Non-answer.

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
om...

>>
>> That study could have just a easily have said the actual cost of gas is
>> $100.00/gal but doesn't because the government decided not to tax gas at
>> X00%.
>
> Do you know how much you actually pay for food thanks to government
> agricultural "subsidies"? Do you know how much money you give away to oil
> companies because the Shrub in the WH thinks we should extend exemptions
> from payment of royalties from gulf oil extraction, for example, even
> though the subsidies are only meant to be used when oil prices are really
> low? Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they
> get on the part of their government.

Demonstrating your utter ignorance of economics and markets again, Juan?

> >Last time I was in France the
>>national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)

> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
> German than English ...

Are you **SERIOUSLY** arguing that the U.S. should have left the
Nazi's in France? That we should have allowed the Nazi's to keep
France and also hand them England? You are a sick, sick puppy.

-Robert

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get
>> on the part of their government.
>
>
> If you had just said "...by their government." It would have been the
> first time I ever agreed with Juan. Damn.

<shakes head>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>>
>>> That study could have just a easily have said the actual cost of gas is
>>> $100.00/gal but doesn't because the government decided not to tax gas at
>>> X00%.
>>
>> Do you know how much you actually pay for food thanks to government
>> agricultural "subsidies"? Do you know how much money you give away to oil
>> companies because the Shrub in the WH thinks we should extend exemptions
>> from payment of royalties from gulf oil extraction, for example, even
>> though the subsidies are only meant to be used when oil prices are really
>> low? Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they
>> get on the part of their government.
>
> Demonstrating your utter ignorance of economics and markets again, Juan?

As to compared to what, your utter ignorance of simple arithmetic? Don't
even try, twit. Stick to little league where you belong.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >Last time I was in France the
>>>national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)
>
>> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
>> German than English ...
>
> Are you **SERIOUSLY** arguing that the U.S. should have left the
> Nazi's in France? That we should have allowed the Nazi's to keep
> France and also hand them England? You are a sick, sick puppy.

you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for kicking
the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of wearing
blinders when reading history.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Martin Hotze wrote:
> I wrote that (today) they'd rather learn German than English (if they ever
> chose to learn a foreign language, that is).

My my, how the world has changed. There are some some very large
cemeteries along the coast of Normandy containing the remains of
US Servicemen who gave their lives driving the "bosch" out of France.

How quickly we forget.

> you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for kicking
> the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of wearing
> blinders when reading history.

I'm seriously saying it wouldn't have happend without us.

-Robert

In article . com>,
wrote:

> > Non-answer.
>
> I already mentioned a number of examples of this in my last post.

No examples were given.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> > > Non-answer.
> >
> > I already mentioned a number of examples of this in my last post.
>
> No examples were given.

That's because there weren't any to give.

Which is why I asked...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> > > Non-answer.
>> >
>> > I already mentioned a number of examples of this in my last post.
>>
>> No examples were given.
>
> That's because there weren't any to give.

Why ask when such information is relatively easy to find on the net?

Examples include:
"Yankton Sioux Oppose Reservation Waste Dump"
http://ncseonline.org/nae/docs/yankton.html

Other articles of relevance:
http://ncseonline.org/NAE/toxics.html

And lastly, if anyone doubts that Indians have it made with casino revenue
(historically a rather recent turnabout in fortunes) their class action
lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs accused it of gross
mismanagement of Indian Trust Fund money - with potential loses to Indians
in the billions. Some background, obviously biased but at least a start for
those unfamiliar with the BIA:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/free/biatrustfund.html
http://www.indiantrust.com/

So Native Americans have been on the receiving end of abuse in living
memory, since some doubt was raised.

Sorry for contributing to this off-topic sub-thread.

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> For HIM it's a "free market' -- but the health care market is far from
> free.
>
> In a true free market, a department head wouldn't be paid such an
> exorbitant sum.

And the department head would find there was a shortage of doctors. This
would result in him having to increase doctor's pay until the shortage
was addressed - supply and demand. That's unless immigration rules were
abolished.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> >> > Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
>> >> > snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
>> >> > for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
>> >> > communist.
>> >>
>> >> Do you have any examples of this happening?
>> >
>> > You must not remember the 70s very well . . .
>>
>> Non-answer.
>
> I already mentioned a number of examples of this in my last post.

No, you didn't. Vague generalities, without substantiation (factual data
with records, not goofball opinions and speculations), is, again, a
non-answer.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> > > Non-answer.
>>> >
>>> > I already mentioned a number of examples of this in my last post.
>>>
>>> No examples were given.
>>
>> That's because there weren't any to give.
>
> Why ask when such information is relatively easy to find on the net?
>
> Examples include:
> "Yankton Sioux Oppose Reservation Waste Dump"
> http://ncseonline.org/nae/docs/yankton.html

Hmmm... :
" Information from the Yankton Sioux Tribe, Native American Women's
Health Education
Resource Center, and Greenpeace. "

Uh huh!!

>
> Other articles of relevance:
> http://ncseonline.org/NAE/toxics.html

Ditto.

>
> And lastly, if anyone doubts that Indians have it made with casino revenue
> (historically a rather recent turnabout in fortunes) their class action
> lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs accused it of gross
> mismanagement of Indian Trust Fund money - with potential loses to Indians
> in the billions. Some background, obviously biased but at least a start
> for
> those unfamiliar with the BIA:


> http://www.monitor.net/monitor/free/biatrustfund.html
> http://www.indiantrust.com/
>
> So Native Americans have been on the receiving end of abuse in living
> memory, since some doubt was raised.
>
> Sorry for contributing to this off-topic sub-thread.

Yes...something going on for 140 years and they still refuse to take
responsibility for themselves (i.e., they want the perks and handouts, but
not the true meaning of "sovereign".

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get
>> on the part of their government.
>
>
> If you had just said "...by their government." It would have been the
> first time I ever agreed with Juan. Damn.
He's only about 100 year behind the curve.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >Last time I was in France the
>>>national langauge was not German, we accept that as a thank you. :)
>
>> *pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
>> German than English ...
>
> Are you **SERIOUSLY** arguing that the U.S. should have left the
> Nazi's in France?

Would we notice any difference?

> That we should have allowed the Nazi's to keep
> France and also hand them England?

That's not the point he was making - you're jumping off.

> You are a sick, sick puppy.

That he is.

>
> -Robert
>

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for
>> kicking
>> the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of wearing
>> blinders when reading history.
>
> I'm seriously saying it wouldn't have happend without us.
>
Well, as of 1942, the Brits and the rest of the allies were doing sooooo
good.

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> I wrote that (today) they'd rather learn German than English (if they
>> ever chose to learn a foreign language, that is).
>
> My my, how the world has changed. There are some some very large
> cemeteries along the coast of Normandy containing the remains of
> US Servicemen who gave their lives driving the "bosch" out of France.
>
> How quickly we forget.

And how conveniently.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for
>> kicking
>> the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of wearing
>> blinders when reading history.
>
> I'm seriously saying it wouldn't have happend without us.

No, it _might_ not have happened. We will never know, won't we. After all,
the Vietnamese kicked the living crap out of the US and out of their country
altogether a mere 30 years later, did they not? And there's no shortage of
whoopass in Iraq for the soldiers the Shrub sent to their deaths there. It's
not appropriate in any way, shape or form to make these arrogant statements.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> I wrote that (today) they'd rather learn German than English (if they
>> ever chose to learn a foreign language, that is).
>
> My my, how the world has changed. There are some some very large
> cemeteries along the coast of Normandy containing the remains of
> US Servicemen who gave their lives driving the "bosch" out of France.
>
> How quickly we forget.

And even bigger ones, some the size of entire towns, containing the remains
of the French people who did the same thing. How quickly we forget, indeed,
that there was a reason why they were called "The Allies" and not "The
American Saviors".


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> >> you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for
> >> kicking
> >> the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of wearing
> >> blinders when reading history.
> >
> > I'm seriously saying it wouldn't have happend without us.
>
> No, it _might_ not have happened.

I'd take those odds. Way way way more likely for it not to have
happened without us. Only an idiot would dismiss the US
contribution.


[snip]
> It's
> not appropriate in any way, shape or form to make these arrogant statements.

and your statements *are* appropriate?

geeez.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> No, it _might_ not have happened. We will never know, won't we.

If you think the French would have been able to drive the Germans out
of France w/o the U.S. you have a very odd understanding of history.

-Robert

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:22:55 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>>
>>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On 2006-04-24, Roger > wrote:
>>> >> both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
>>> >> bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
>>> >> picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
>>> >> increase the power grid.
>>> >
>>> > I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
>>> > to infrastructure needed - we would need:
>>> >
>>> > - new cars
>>>
>>> Average turnover is five years.
>>
>> Maybe, but those 5-year-old cars aren't junked, they're bought and
>> driven for another 5 years by less wealthy people.

Most of them are around for another 10 to 15 years as either a second
car, a beater to drive to work, or driven by, as you say, the less
wealthy/fortunate.

>
>Yes...so? The point is for the majority of vehicles, not a complete purging
>of the inventory.
>

It may depend on where you go, but I'd guess that in this region,
Michigan which is the home of the US auto industry, that well more
than half the cars on the road are quite a bit older than 5 years. My
fore-runner is a 99.

Near as I have been able to pin it down the current average is some
where between 5 and 10 years which means even the experts aren't sure
as that's a pretty wide bracket of 2:1

People are keeping cars much longer than they did just a decade ago
and that was longer than the decade before that.

40 years ago we considered a car with 60,000 miles on it to be ready
for the junk yard. Now 60 to 90,000 is common. My wife's old
mini-mini van has almost 200,000 and it's still going strong and gets
around 34 MPG although for most of it's live it was just a tad under
40 MPG,. Now it goes through oil pretty fast, but it leaks out
instead of getting by the rings. It doesn't smoke a bit.

I used to trade often. I'd have saved a small fortune and I'd be rich
if I'd learned to drive them till the wheels fell off.

Although the average turnover was 5 years, I'd think it's a lot longer
than that now. Even in that case I think turn over is the wrong term.
At one time people did purchase a new car on average every five years,
but the old ones did not leave the roads.



>
>>
>>> > - new filling stations
>>>
>>> Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?
>>
>> No; hydrogen gas takes very different handling than gasoline, whereas
>> leaded gas could go through the same pumps just fine (we decided to
>> make them change the nozzles to prevent mistakes that would ruin the
>> catalytic converters).
>
>Wanna guess how many filling stations add that capability (especially when
>it becomes pretty much mandatory) versus how many are built from scratch?
>
Some one is going to have to provide the money and most of the
stations, or even chains aren't going to be able to come up with that
kind of cash. To install a cryogenic storage and pumping facility is
no small chore. It will be the end of the "pump it yourself" era. No
one in their right mind would trust the average driver to fill a tank
with liquid H2. OTOH it can be stored in Metal Hydrides (better known
as metal sponges) for use, but it does not come off at a high rate.
That would take some form of heating and it'd be a gas fill under
pressure. The pressure would come from heating the Metal Hydride.

There are a lot of safety regulations pertaining to the storage and
use of liquid, or even high pressure N2. If purchasing it from a
station rather than the small generating stations mentioned earlier
it's going to be *expensive* due to all the safety precautions and
extra people required, let alone the investment in materials.
>>
>>> > - new transport
>>> > - new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
>>> > is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

As I said, Metal Hydrides. They actually hold more H2 by volume than
they take up. In a wreck that ruptures the tank the H2 is given off
slowly. But again the Metal Hydrides in that quantity are very
*expensive*.

>>>
>>> Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?

Whale oil was never had a large nitch in the market. I think It was
briefly used in the early 1900's. Prior to that is was used a lot when
ships were made from trees.

>>
>> I don't think whale oil replaced coal for much of anything.
>
>Wow! Trivia pursuit champion.
>
>Now try "Innovation Therapy".
>
>Oh, hell...keep your high gas prices and stunted economies heading for the
>trash bin...

We in the US don't have high gas prices. We've just been spoiled by
having "cheap" gas for so many years. According to the economists
consumer confidence is high, and the stock market is in good shape (if
you don't have the same stocks I have). However one more hurricane
season with results any where near last year's and that is subject to
change.

BTW, the difference between our prices and the much higher prices in
many countries does not even out through hidden taxes. Here the
average person pays less than a 1/3 of their income into taxes of one
form or another while in Europe "as I recall" it's over 50%. So not
only is the cost of gas much cheaper, taxes are less, and so is the
cost of living on average.

BTW, last week I paid $2.97 for car gas and $3.05 for 100 LL.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:57:07 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
> wrote:

>"Roger" wrote
>
>> ... for hydrogen
>> you are limited to the distribution system that has yet to be
>> implemented except on a small scale. Electricity is easier to
>> transport and the electric farm you list below is one whale of a good
>> start. Unfortunately our power grid is only capable of *almost*
>> meeting peak demands. Cars user far more energy so that would mean
>> either trucking vast amounts of Hydrogen, increasing the size of our
>> electric grid several fold over what we have now, or a combination of
>> both with the latter being the most likely ...
>
>Why transport the hydrogen? Just produce it electrolytically at every gas
>station.

And most of the country is going to get the electricity to do this
from where? Certainly not from photovoltaic cells That works on small
scale and in areas where there is lots of sunlight.

it takes a lot of energy to create H2 and you get back less than you
put in. Now, each day, make enough to fill a few thousand cars with
enough to drive a few hundred miles.

If stations had to build photovoltaic cells large enough to do this we
certainly are using very cheap gas at present by comparison. As far
as the electric grid we have no where near the capacity to generate
enough H2 to fuel more than a small percent of the cars on the road.
In that case we'd be better off just building long range electric
cars. It'd be more efficient but then we come to the size, weight,
and number of batteries, not to mention handling the waste and worn
out batteries which could turn out to be an even larger problem than
we have now.

Cars are our largest energy user.
We could *probably* switch over to biofuels far easier than H2.
The only problem I see with Biodeisel is up here in the "cold country"
where the stuff either gels or solidifies. Additives raise the price
as does keeping it warm, but to me it looks like one of the best bets.
But the question does arise as to how much of the stuff we can make
economically.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:40:55 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Roger" wrote)
>> BTW There was a good program on tonight that started out showing some old
>> photos of glaciers and then faded to the present view from the same
>> location. Now that was eye opening!
>
>
>I think that's happened three or four times in the past 15,000 years. On the
>flip side, some early Middle Ages tapestries depict 'the year there was no
>summer' in meticulous detail. That particular Mini Ice Age destroyed the
>once thriving English wine making industry - for example.
>
>My question is always:
>If not for Global Warming (capitalized because it's now a religion)
>...wouldn't we be locked in one of Earth's many Ice Ages, still?

There is a problem with the figures though. Research is showing that
the CO2 llevels are far higher than they have been during any warm
periods they can measure. I believe it is almost double what it
should be for a peak and it's the highest they've measured going back
nearly a half million years. They are coming up with some pretty
concrete figures as far as the excess CO2 and correlating it with the
temperature rise.


>
>I believe 95% of GW is the Sun, and the Earth's tilt/wobble, and the ocean's
>salinity/density/fresh water cycles, and the planet's solid iron core

The salinity/fresh water cycles are tied to the temperature.

>flipping polarity, etc, etc, etc. But yes, I do think we need to work on our
>5%.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Montblack
>Setting rivers on fire ain't nothing...

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:30:14 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Roger > wrote:
>
>> Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
>> as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
>> although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
>> them by armed force.
>
>But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
>from myself?

Hmmmm... I guess that means you are partly guilty.

Did you ever see the episode in the Original Star Trek (OST) where the
two black and white aliens are fighting?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> >But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
> >from myself?
>
> Hmmmm... I guess that means you are partly guilty.

why? I didn't take any land.

>
> Did you ever see the episode in the Original Star Trek (OST) where the
> two black and white aliens are fighting?

yep. Not applicable.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most of them are around for another 10 to 15 years as either a second
> car, a beater to drive to work, or driven by, as you say, the less
> wealthy/fortunate.
>
>>
>>Yes...so? The point is for the majority of vehicles, not a complete
>>purging
>>of the inventory.
>>
>
> It may depend on where you go, but I'd guess that in this region,
> Michigan which is the home of the US auto industry, that well more
> than half the cars on the road are quite a bit older than 5 years. My
> fore-runner is a 99.

FWIH, the number of cars is growing, so the auto makers expect to turnover
their buyers every five years. Older ones are lasting longer as well, but
average age is still a lot less than for aircraft. IIRC, average age is
seven years but that may be lengthening due to the slow market the auto
industry has had these past few years.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>My question is always:
>>If not for Global Warming (capitalized because it's now a religion)
>>...wouldn't we be locked in one of Earth's many Ice Ages, still?
>
> There is a problem with the figures though. Research is showing that
> the CO2 llevels are far higher than they have been during any warm
> periods they can measure. I believe it is almost double what it
> should be for a peak and it's the highest they've measured going back
> nearly a half million years. They are coming up with some pretty
> concrete figures as far as the excess CO2 and correlating it with the
> temperature rise.

Professor Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, would be surprised
to hear that.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm (Page down to publications)

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:10:21 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

<snip>

>Near as I have been able to pin it down the current average is some
>where between 5 and 10 years which means even the experts aren't sure
>as that's a pretty wide bracket of 2:1
>
>People are keeping cars much longer than they did just a decade ago
>and that was longer than the decade before that.
>
>40 years ago we considered a car with 60,000 miles on it to be ready
>for the junk yard. Now 60 to 90,000 is common. My wife's old
>mini-mini van has almost 200,000 and it's still going strong and gets
>around 34 MPG although for most of it's live it was just a tad under
>40 MPG,. Now it goes through oil pretty fast, but it leaks out
>instead of getting by the rings. It doesn't smoke a bit.
>
>I used to trade often. I'd have saved a small fortune and I'd be rich
>if I'd learned to drive them till the wheels fell off.
>
>Although the average turnover was 5 years, I'd think it's a lot longer
>than that now. Even in that case I think turn over is the wrong term.
>At one time people did purchase a new car on average every five years,
>but the old ones did not leave the roads.

I must be bringing up the "bottom end" of the scale for the
average... <grins>

I've never purchased a new car (started driving in 1979).

My newest automobile is an '81 model.

My daily driver is a '74 model.

Haven't had to make a car payment in 20+ years.

I do tend to "drive the wheels off of them" (parked one with frame rot
that was still running strong with 235,000 miles on it).

Bela P. Havasreti

> But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away from myself?

Me too (Osage). I've got my CIB card around somewhere.

-Robert

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...

>
> I must be bringing up the "bottom end" of the scale for the
> average... <grins>
>
> I've never purchased a new car (started driving in 1979).
>
> My newest automobile is an '81 model.
>
> My daily driver is a '74 model.
>
> Haven't had to make a car payment in 20+ years.
>
> I do tend to "drive the wheels off of them" (parked one with frame rot
> that was still running strong with 235,000 miles on it).
>
> Bela P. Havasreti


You do realize Bela that you are single-handedly destroying the economy of
the USA. :)

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I must be bringing up the "bottom end" of the scale for the
> > average... <grins>
> >
> > I've never purchased a new car (started driving in 1979).
> >
> > My newest automobile is an '81 model.
> >
> > My daily driver is a '74 model.
> >
> > Haven't had to make a car payment in 20+ years.
> >
> > I do tend to "drive the wheels off of them" (parked one with frame rot
> > that was still running strong with 235,000 miles on it).
> >
> > Bela P. Havasreti
>
>
> You do realize Bela that you are single-handedly destroying the economy of
> the USA. :)

No I am helping in the destruction.

1972 mbz 220K miles 15mpg
1989 Ford 100K miles 18mpg
1995 Ford minivan 200k Miles 20mpg
1976 C182 2700hrs 12mpg

These are large comfortable cars (heck the minivan even has dual airbags and
abs).:)

I could replace the engine or transmission on either ford for less than
initial california sales tax and first year registration on a new $27000
car. yearly registration is cheap on all old cars and insurance is liability
only. I just keep driving them and will fix as needed. Gas would need to be
$10/gal or greater for the economics of replacing these cars to make sense
given the amount of driving I do.

Howard

Jim Logajan wrote:
> So Native Americans have been on the receiving end of abuse in living
> memory, since some doubt was raised.
>
> Sorry for contributing to this off-topic sub-thread.

Actually ALL Americans have been on the receiving end of abuse
from one of the biggest government ripp-off/pyramid schemes ever
conceived: the Social Security Administration.

Other blatant examples of government waste and boondogle not
withstanding, this national scam has ripped off more billions
of dollars than all other "programs" combined. It is nothing
more than a license to steal money from people who work hard to
earn it to be used exclusively to buy votes from people who
don't.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

>>Why transport the hydrogen? Just produce it electrolytically at every gas
>>station.
>
> And most of the country is going to get the electricity to do this
> from where?

Nuclear and hydroelectric.

There were only three battles the US lost in Vietnam: the battle for CBS,
the battle for NBC and the battle for ABC.

> No, it _might_ not have happened. We will never know, won't we. After all,
> the Vietnamese kicked the living crap out of the US and out of their
> country altogether a mere 30 years later, did they not?

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:31:20 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> I must be bringing up the "bottom end" of the scale for the
>> average... <grins>
>>
>> I've never purchased a new car (started driving in 1979).
>>
>> My newest automobile is an '81 model.
>>
>> My daily driver is a '74 model.
>>
>> Haven't had to make a car payment in 20+ years.
>>
>> I do tend to "drive the wheels off of them" (parked one with frame rot
>> that was still running strong with 235,000 miles on it).
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>
>
>You do realize Bela that you are single-handedly destroying the economy of
>the USA. :)

I'll allow as how I haven't been doing the automobile industry any
favors <grins> but nearly every cent that I haven't spent on fancy new
cars and car gas (for giant SUVs that get 12mpg) has gone into
airplanes, airplane parts & avgas!

Bela P. Havasreti

In article >,
Howard Nelson > wrote:
>
>I could replace the engine or transmission on either ford for less than
>initial california sales tax and first year registration on a new $27000
>car. yearly registration is cheap on all old cars and insurance is liability
>only. I just keep driving them and will fix as needed. Gas would need to be
>$10/gal or greater for the economics of replacing these cars to make sense
>given the amount of driving I do.
>

I have the same way of thinking. I now have a 1990 and a 1996 Citroen,
both combined costed me less than US$5000 and both run very well. They both
got dumped by their previus owners for being gas guzzlers (25mpg) so
I got them cheap.



--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...

>>
>>You do realize Bela that you are single-handedly destroying the economy of
>>the USA. :)
>
> I'll allow as how I haven't been doing the automobile industry any
> favors <grins> but nearly every cent that I haven't spent on fancy new
> cars and car gas (for giant SUVs that get 12mpg) has gone into
> airplanes, airplane parts & avgas!
>
> Bela P. Havasreti


Well at least you aren't doing something really un-American like saving it I
guess you're OK and you won't have to go up against the wall during the
revolution.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>> >> you're not seriously arguing that the US is solely responsible for
>> >> kicking
>> >> the Nazis out of France, are you? that's a shameless example of
>> >> wearing
>> >> blinders when reading history.
>> >
>> > I'm seriously saying it wouldn't have happend without us.
>>
>> No, it _might_ not have happened.
>
> I'd take those odds. Way way way more likely for it not to have
> happened without us. Only an idiot would dismiss the US
> contribution.

And only an even bigger idiot would dismiss the contribution of the
countries' own people. The US would not have been able to do squat on their
own. Again, that's why they were called "the Allies."


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> No, it _might_ not have happened. We will never know, won't we.
>
> If you think the French would have been able to drive the Germans out
> of France w/o the U.S. you have a very odd understanding of history.

The US would never have been able to drive the Germans out of France without
French help.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Why transport the hydrogen? Just produce it electrolytically at every gas
>>>station.
>>
>> And most of the country is going to get the electricity to do this
>> from where?
>
> Nuclear and hydroelectric.

Nuclear is exactly where the power should come from to produce the hydrogen.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Yeah, there's also sort of spin on this one. When it's all said and done
there's only one fact that remains standing. The US lost.

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
> There were only three battles the US lost in Vietnam: the battle for CBS,
> the battle for NBC and the battle for ABC.
>
>> No, it _might_ not have happened. We will never know, won't we. After
>> all, the Vietnamese kicked the living crap out of the US and out of their
>> country altogether a mere 30 years later, did they not?
>
>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> > If you think the French would have been able to drive the Germans out
> > of France w/o the U.S. you have a very odd understanding of history.
>
> The US would never have been able to drive the Germans out of France without
> French help.

ROTFLMAO

yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US help?

You need to learn the difference between "necessary" and "useful"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

500 broken, 2000 overcast....

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:11:48 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>My question is always:
>>>If not for Global Warming (capitalized because it's now a religion)
>>>...wouldn't we be locked in one of Earth's many Ice Ages, still?
>>
>> There is a problem with the figures though. Research is showing that
>> the CO2 llevels are far higher than they have been during any warm
>> periods they can measure. I believe it is almost double what it
>> should be for a peak and it's the highest they've measured going back
>> nearly a half million years. They are coming up with some pretty
>> concrete figures as far as the excess CO2 and correlating it with the
>> temperature rise.
>
>Professor Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
>Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, would be surprised
>to hear that.

I think his is one of the few dissenting voices.

>
>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm (Page down to publications)
>

Which publication? I found pages of the things.<:-))

Like many things you will be able to find creditable scientists
supporting opposing views.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:11:48 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>>My question is always:
>>>>If not for Global Warming (capitalized because it's now a religion)
>>>>...wouldn't we be locked in one of Earth's many Ice Ages, still?
>>>
>>> There is a problem with the figures though. Research is showing that
>>> the CO2 llevels are far higher than they have been during any warm
>>> periods they can measure. I believe it is almost double what it
>>> should be for a peak and it's the highest they've measured going back
>>> nearly a half million years. They are coming up with some pretty
>>> concrete figures as far as the excess CO2 and correlating it with the
>>> temperature rise.
>>
>>Professor Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
>>Meteorology,
>>Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, would be
>>surprised
>>to hear that.
>
> I think his is one of the few dissenting voices.

His is about the only one (along with the folks at SEPP) that actually show
data, rather than conjecture.

Also, aside from "consenus" being a political term, not a scientific one,
have you every seen ANYbracnh of science that had 100% "consensus"?

Stink meter just peaked!

>
>>
>>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm (Page down to publications)
>>
>
> Which publication? I found pages of the things.<:-))

1) "Understanding Common Climate Claims"

and 2) Statement Concerning Global Warming


>
> Like many things you will be able to find creditable scientists
> supporting opposing views.

Such as? Do you mean the credible scientists that have been found to have
faked massive points of data, falsified reports...?

Did you catch the several THOUSAND _CLIMATOLOGISTS_ that signed the (Oregon
IIRC) Petition?

Not politicians, not academic "researchers" on government grants,
CLIMATOLOGISTS?

Check if here http://www.sepp.org

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> > > The US would never have been able to drive the Germans out of France
> > > without
> > > French help.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO
> >
> > yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US help?
>
> IMHO this is not implied with the above statement.

It does in the context of the thread. Earlier Juan claimed that
"it _might_ not have happened." And even claimed that it was
"arrogant" to make such statements.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>> > If you think the French would have been able to drive the Germans out
>> > of France w/o the U.S. you have a very odd understanding of history.
>>
>> The US would never have been able to drive the Germans out of France
>> without
>> French help.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US
> help?

No, what I think is that you need to take remedial reading lessons.

Do you know the meaning of the word "allies"?


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Martin Hotze
> >
> wrote:
>
>> > > The US would never have been able to drive the Germans out of France
>> > > without
>> > > French help.
>> >
>> > ROTFLMAO
>> >
>> > yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US
>> > help?
>>
>> IMHO this is not implied with the above statement.
>
> It does in the context of the thread. Earlier Juan claimed that
> "it _might_ not have happened." And even claimed that it was
> "arrogant" to make such statements.

See what I mean? You can't read. I didn't "claim." I _stated_.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> > It does in the context of the thread. Earlier Juan claimed that
> > "it _might_ not have happened." And even claimed that it was
> > "arrogant" to make such statements.
>
> See what I mean? You can't read. I didn't "claim." I _stated_.

"claim" - to assert in the face of possible contradiction

"state" - to express in words

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> > yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US
> > help?
>
> No

Then why did you claim that it might have happened without US help?


> Do you know the meaning of the word "allies"?

Do _you_ know the difference between "necessary" and "useful"?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US help?
> You need to learn the difference between "necessary" and "useful"


"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
behind me." --- General George S. Patton

-Robert

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>> > It does in the context of the thread. Earlier Juan claimed that
>> > "it _might_ not have happened." And even claimed that it was
>> > "arrogant" to make such statements.
>>
>> See what I mean? You can't read. I didn't "claim." I _stated_.
>
> "claim" - to assert in the face of possible contradiction
>
> "state" - to express in words

Very good. You win a lollipop.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>> > yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US
>> > help?
>>
>> No
>
> Then why did you claim that it might have happened without US help?

Because you can't prove otherwise. I can, however, prove beyond a shadow of
a doubt, from historical documentation, that without the help of the French
and particularly the help of the French resistance, not only would the US
not been able to get the Germans out of France, D-Day would have been a
disastrous massacre of biblical proportions.

That is why they were called ALLIES, and not "saviours".

Of course, you could also extend your argument to show that were it not for
the millions of russians, french, british, poles, czechs, danes, aussies and
other assorted nationalities, everyone from San Diego to Rhode Island would
be speaking German today, or perhaps Japanese....

>> Do you know the meaning of the word "allies"?
>
> Do _you_ know the difference between "necessary" and "useful"?

Sure, this is an example that portion of revisionist history that appears to
be "necessary" to demonstrate how arrogantly ignorant some people can be.
This is "useful" precisely because it helps demonstrate the absurdity of
arrogant revisionist arguments such as the one that the only way for France
to be rid of the invading Germans was for the US to kick them out, and
without any help from the French at that.

If you need that in Spanish, let me know. <g>

BTW, is this almighty military of yours STILL looking for that one, single,
solitary six foot arab permanently tied to a dialysis machine? And does that
moron in the White House still claim "mission accomplished"?


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> yet you think the french could have driven the Germans out without US
>> help?
>> You need to learn the difference between "necessary" and "useful"
>
>
> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
> behind me." --- General George S. Patton
>
> -Robert

"The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight D.
Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

> I can, however, prove beyond a shadow of
> a doubt, from historical documentation, that without the help of the French
> and particularly the help of the French resistance, not only would the US
> not been able to get the Germans out of France, D-Day would have been a
> disastrous massacre of biblical proportions.

I'll take you up on that. Start proving....

-Robert

> "The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight D.
> Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)

Yes, Eisenhower was quite skilled in politics, something Patton was not
skilled in. Guess which one would give you the straight poop?

-Robert

> "The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight D.
> Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion"

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> > I can, however, prove beyond a shadow of
> > a doubt, from historical documentation, that without the help of the French
> > and particularly the help of the French resistance, not only would the US
> > not been able to get the Germans out of France, D-Day would have been a
> > disastrous massacre of biblical proportions.
>
> I'll take you up on that. Start proving....

don't hold your breath...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
>
> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
> behind me." --- General George S. Patton
>
Urban legend?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> "The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight
>> D.
>> Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)
>
> Yes, Eisenhower was quite skilled in politics, something Patton was not
> skilled in. Guess which one would give you the straight poop?
>

Actually, Patton would.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson102304.html (Military historian
Victor Hanson)

"Patton was not merely a great tactician, as Eisenhower seemed to think in
deprecating his larger advice about the nature and purpose of the war.
Indeed, he understood far more about strategy and global politics than did
either Eisenhower or Bradley."

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>
>> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
>> behind me." --- General George S. Patton
>>
> Urban legend?

Possibly. It appears Patton was fluent in French and presumably got along
well enough with the French (certainly better than he got along with
British General Montgomery). It seems nothing ascribed to him, true or not,
should be given much weight since he also wrote in "War As I Knew It" that
"a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor." This
despite the good performance of the black 761st Tank Battalion.

Anyway, all I found on Snopes was this link (scroll down to the long second
post by "GI Joe"):

http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/32/t/000429/p/1.html#000001

> http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson102304.html (Military historian Victor Hanson)

Oh, well, if you're going to quote the great Victor Hanson...

-Robert

Very simple. Dwight D. Eisenhower said so in unequivocal terms, when among
other things he stated that the French Resistance was the equivalent of ten
divisions of regular Army troops. Without the French resistance, virtually
all of the preparatory work prior to D-Day would have been impossible, and
the morale of the German troops would have been much, much higher.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I can, however, prove beyond a shadow of
>> a doubt, from historical documentation, that without the help of the
>> French
>> and particularly the help of the French resistance, not only would the US
>> not been able to get the Germans out of France, D-Day would have been a
>> disastrous massacre of biblical proportions.
>
> I'll take you up on that. Start proving....
>
> -Robert
>


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> "The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight
>> D.
>> Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)
>
> Yes, Eisenhower was quite skilled in politics, something Patton was not
> skilled in. Guess which one would give you the straight poop?

Guess who led the Allies to victory in the war, rather than just the
battles? Straight poop indeed.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> "The work of the Resistance was the work of 15 divisions." --- Gen Dwight
>> D.
>> Eisenhower (Gen. Patton's Boss.)
>
> "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
> accordion"

"I thought it was a big bird!" - Dick Cheney.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

> "I thought it was a big bird!" - Dick Cheney.

Maybe I missed something, but I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney was
involved in WW II. Are you lost or do you know something the rest of us
don't?

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson102304.html (Military
>> historian Victor Hanson)
>
> Oh, well, if you're going to quote the great Victor Hanson...
>

I think he's the re-incarnation of George S. Patton. :~)

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
>>> behind me." --- General George S. Patton
>>>
>> Urban legend?
>
> Possibly. It appears Patton was fluent in French and presumably got along
> well enough with the French (certainly better than he got along with
> British General Montgomery). It seems nothing ascribed to him, true or
> not,
> should be given much weight since he also wrote in "War As I Knew It" that
> "a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor." This
> despite the good performance of the black 761st Tank Battalion.

Check back a few posts for the link to Victor Hanson's lecture on Patton.
Also, his book "The Sole of Battle" is about one-third about Patton.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> "I thought it was a big bird!" - Dick Cheney.
>
> Maybe I missed something, but I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney was
> involved in WW II. Are you lost or do you know something the rest of us
> don't?

Hell, WW II was Bush's fault, and Cheney was an accomplice.

The issue I'd worry about more than price is that the refiners may
just stop making avgas, period.

What other fuels are still leaded?

It's small volume, hence a PITA from a refining/transport aspect.
With a refining capacity crunch...what will go first?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

("David Lesher" wrote)
> It's small volume, hence a PITA from a refining/transport aspect. With a
> refining capacity crunch...what will go first?


Q: "With a refining capacity crunch...what will go first?"
A: Not diesel.


Mont-bata-black
I'm telling you, it's time to change those old 8mm home movies over onto VHS
tapes...
I mean DVD's...
I mean iPod...
I mean streaming video....

Early 80's, I watched "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) at a retail
electronics store - played on a [big?] laser disk. I've never seen those old
[..."laser"...] disks in a home, though.

On 05/08/06 11:00, Montblack wrote:
> ("David Lesher" wrote)
>> It's small volume, hence a PITA from a refining/transport aspect. With a
>> refining capacity crunch...what will go first?
>
>
> Q: "With a refining capacity crunch...what will go first?"
> A: Not diesel.
>
>
> Mont-bata-black
> I'm telling you, it's time to change those old 8mm home movies over onto VHS
> tapes...
> I mean DVD's...
> I mean iPod...
> I mean streaming video....
>
> Early 80's, I watched "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) at a retail
> electronics store - played on a [big?] laser disk. I've never seen those old
> [..."laser"...] disks in a home, though.
>

I have one, although it's in the closet (both physically and because it is
not ready to admit that it's obsolete ;-) ).

I also have about 15 movies on LD (also in the closet). At the time, the
movies ran about $60 - $80, so I didn't buy them very quickly.

Then, DVDs started making noise so I held-off buying more LDs to see what
was going to happen.

So ... $500 for the player and about $900 for the movies. I think I got
off cheap ;-)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

("Mark Hansen" wrote)
> Then, DVDs started making noise so I held-off buying more LDs to see what
> was going to happen.
>
> So ... $500 for the player and about $900 for the movies. I think I got
> off cheap ;-)


Is there a noticible quality diference, if any, between ..."laser"... LD's
and DVD's?


Montblack
[NAC - Necessary Aviation Content]
Toyota has an all-"aluminium" diesel in Eupropean cars right now. I'm just
saying...

On 05/08/06 12:33, Montblack wrote:
> ("Mark Hansen" wrote)
>> Then, DVDs started making noise so I held-off buying more LDs to see what
>> was going to happen.
>>
>> So ... $500 for the player and about $900 for the movies. I think I got
>> off cheap ;-)
>
>
> Is there a noticible quality diference, if any, between ..."laser"... LD's
> and DVD's?
>
>
> Montblack
> [NAC - Necessary Aviation Content]
> Toyota has an all-"aluminium" diesel in Eupropean cars right now. I'm just
> saying...
>

Wow, yes. I pulled the LD player out a while ago and put on one of the
LDs, just for old times sake. I quickly put it back in the closet!

.... now back to our regularly-scheduled program ;-)


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen > wrote:

> Wow, yes. I pulled the LD player out a while ago and put on one of the
> LDs, just for old times sake. I quickly put it back in the closet!
>
> ... now back to our regularly-scheduled program ;-)

I was waiting for the "laser discs are analog" point, "no, they are
digital" counterpoint that always seems to surface in these groups when
LDs are mentioned.

--
Peter

Montblack wrote:
> ("David Lesher" wrote)
>
>> It's small volume, hence a PITA from a refining/transport aspect. With a
>> refining capacity crunch...what will go first?
>
>
>
> Q: "With a refining capacity crunch...what will go first?"
> A: Not diesel.
>
>
> Mont-bata-black
> I'm telling you, it's time to change those old 8mm home movies over onto
> VHS
> tapes...
> I mean DVD's...
> I mean iPod...
> I mean streaming video....
>
> Early 80's, I watched "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) at a retail
> electronics store - played on a [big?] laser disk. I've never seen those
> old [..."laser"...] disks in a home, though.
I've got a collection of about 40 laserdisks but have not watched any of
them in years and don't know for sure if the player works anymore.