MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE

[John]

To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of avgas, is the
phase-out of MTBE affecting you? The federal government hasn't banned
MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
most places. MTBE isn't the issue here, but ethanol is. Ethanol will
be replacing MTBE as an oxygenate and is also being promoted as a
(heavily subsidized) renewable energy mixed with gasoline. MTBE is
under political attack because it has been found in ground water where
gasoline has leaked from tanks.

(Apparently gasoline, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, ethanol, and other
pump gasoline ingredients don't bother people as much when they leak
from the same gasoline tanks, but that is understandable since the human
body can smell or taste MTBE in fare more quantities in drinking water
than these other carcinogenic contaminants.)

Many or most aircraft mogas STCs prohibit gasoline containing ethanol
due to its tendency to attack certain seals, gaskets, and parts in
aircraft fuel tanks, fuel systems, and engines. So for those of you who
use motor fuel in airplanes, is the lack of motor gasoline that doesn't
contain ethanol becoming a problem?

By the way ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Enjoy!

[John]

John wrote:

> (Apparently gasoline, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, ethanol, and other
> pump gasoline ingredients don't bother people as much when they leak
> from the same gasoline tanks, but that is understandable since the human
> body can smell or taste MTBE in fare more quantities in drinking water
> than these other carcinogenic contaminants.)

Oops, that should say taste MTBE in *far more minute quantities in drinking
water*

Also if your local airport has a mogas pump, can they buy ethanol free
gasoline from their supplier?

[Jim Macklin]

Another reason for high prices now, is that some states have
mandated a ratio of E85 to regular petroleum gasoline in
pump sales. But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline. Maybe the
President's lifting the EPA rules will also alter state law,
he is blamed for the shortage, hope he has the power to wave
a magic wand and fix the market shortage of refineries,
distillation plants and political unrest in the world. But
it isn't that easy.
First thing, build more refineries, second nuke IRAN so that
the uncertainty about the future supply will go away. It
will also remind a lot of people that it is better to fight
a nuclear war when only one side has the bomb. We will use
small, 3 to 300 kilo ton deep earth penetrating bombs to
take out the underground hardened factories with minimal
above ground damage or radiation release. As the Fonz said,
"You've got to hit someone every once in a while" to keep
your reputation.


Jim

"John" > wrote in message
...
| To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of
avgas, is the
| phase-out of MTBE affecting you? The federal government
hasn't banned
| MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not
protect oil
| companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out
by next week in
| most places. MTBE isn't the issue here, but ethanol is.
Ethanol will
| be replacing MTBE as an oxygenate and is also being
promoted as a
| (heavily subsidized) renewable energy mixed with gasoline.
MTBE is
| under political attack because it has been found in ground
water where
| gasoline has leaked from tanks.
|
| (Apparently gasoline, benzene, toluene, naphthalene,
ethanol, and other
| pump gasoline ingredients don't bother people as much when
they leak
| from the same gasoline tanks, but that is understandable
since the human
| body can smell or taste MTBE in fare more quantities in
drinking water
| than these other carcinogenic contaminants.)
|
| Many or most aircraft mogas STCs prohibit gasoline
containing ethanol
| due to its tendency to attack certain seals, gaskets, and
parts in
| aircraft fuel tanks, fuel systems, and engines. So for
those of you who
| use motor fuel in airplanes, is the lack of motor gasoline
that doesn't
| contain ethanol becoming a problem?
|
| By the way ethanol contains less energy per gallon than
gasoline. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|

[John]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Another reason for high prices now, is that some states have
> mandated a ratio of E85 to regular petroleum gasoline in
> pump sales. But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
> run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline. Maybe the
> President's lifting the EPA rules will also alter state law,
> he is blamed for the shortage, hope he has the power to wave
> a magic wand and fix the market shortage of refineries,
> distillation plants and political unrest in the world. But
> it isn't that easy.
> First thing, build more refineries, second nuke IRAN so that
> the uncertainty about the future supply will go away. It
> will also remind a lot of people that it is better to fight
> a nuclear war when only one side has the bomb. We will use
> small, 3 to 300 kilo ton deep earth penetrating bombs to
> take out the underground hardened factories with minimal
> above ground damage or radiation release. As the Fonz said,
> "You've got to hit someone every once in a while" to keep
> your reputation.

Not sure what nuking Iran has to do with motor fuel gas STCs for
aircraft.

Don't believe everything you here about "minimal" radiation release or
collateral damages either. And don't forget to duck when the favor is
returned. There are plenty of heavily contaminated nuclear horror shows
(NTS, Hanford, Rocky Flats, INEL, Oak Ridge, Savannah, etc) in the US
and they weren't even being used in attacks. Underground atomic bomb
testing (not to mention earlier open air tests) in Nevada have resulted
in large scale underground contamination, and those were drilled down a
lot deeper than any penetrating bomb could hope to optain. As far as
hitting someone once in a while, I believe the USA has done that quite
recently. It's worked great, hasn't it? Meanwhile I'm curious about
how increased use of ethanol in motor fuels is affecting aircraft that
use motor gas under an STC.

[Matt Barrow]

"John" > wrote in message ...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Another reason for high prices now, is that some states have
>> mandated a ratio of E85 to regular petroleum gasoline in
>> pump sales. But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
>> run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline. Maybe the
>> President's lifting the EPA rules will also alter state law,
>> he is blamed for the shortage, hope he has the power to wave
>> a magic wand and fix the market shortage of refineries,
>> distillation plants and political unrest in the world. But
>> it isn't that easy.
>> First thing, build more refineries, second nuke IRAN so that
>> the uncertainty about the future supply will go away. It
>> will also remind a lot of people that it is better to fight
>> a nuclear war when only one side has the bomb. We will use
>> small, 3 to 300 kilo ton deep earth penetrating bombs to
>> take out the underground hardened factories with minimal
>> above ground damage or radiation release. As the Fonz said,
>> "You've got to hit someone every once in a while" to keep
>> your reputation.
>
> Not sure what nuking Iran has to do with motor fuel gas STCs for
> aircraft.

Removing a complete nut case who is holding the wntire world hostage
(efficacy not yet determined).

> Don't believe everything you here about "minimal" radiation release or
> collateral damages either.

Okay, and we don't believe you either.

[John]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "John" > wrote in message ...
> > Jim Macklin wrote:
> >
> >> Another reason for high prices now, is that some states have
> >> mandated a ratio of E85 to regular petroleum gasoline in
> >> pump sales. But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
> >> run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline. Maybe the
> >> President's lifting the EPA rules will also alter state law,
> >> he is blamed for the shortage, hope he has the power to wave
> >> a magic wand and fix the market shortage of refineries,
> >> distillation plants and political unrest in the world. But
> >> it isn't that easy.
> >> First thing, build more refineries, second nuke IRAN so that
> >> the uncertainty about the future supply will go away. It
> >> will also remind a lot of people that it is better to fight
> >> a nuclear war when only one side has the bomb. We will use
> >> small, 3 to 300 kilo ton deep earth penetrating bombs to
> >> take out the underground hardened factories with minimal
> >> above ground damage or radiation release. As the Fonz said,
> >> "You've got to hit someone every once in a while" to keep
> >> your reputation.
> >
> > Not sure what nuking Iran has to do with motor fuel gas STCs for
> > aircraft.
>
> Removing a complete nut case who is holding the wntire world hostage
> (efficacy not yet determined).

Huh? How is the whole world being held hostage? For example, please
explain how a person such as myself or a nation such as Russia is being held
"hostage." That's a pretty tall claim. Secondly, how would this nut case
removal actually be accomplished?
Start a nuclear war and the world's problems slip away? Please explain.

>
>
> > Don't believe everything you here about "minimal" radiation release or
> > collateral damages either.
>
> Okay, and we don't believe you either.

Who is "we?" Using nuclear weapons doesn't disperse fissile products into
the environment.

[John]

Should read

> Who is "we?" Using nuclear weapons doesn't disperse fissile products into
> the environment?

[Grumman-581]

"John" > wrote in message ...

> Start a nuclear war and the world's problems slip away? Please explain.

Less people, less problems?

[Doug]

Yes, it is possible to buy mogas without ethanol or any of the other
additives. The self serve pumps at Platte Valley in Colorado have it.
They buy it from the refiner.

[Jay Honeck]

> To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of avgas, is the
> phase-out of MTBE affecting you?

Not here in Iowa. We've still got plenty of non-alcohol-contaminated
regular unleaded gasoline.

Which is truly ironic, no? All this ethanol nonsense originated here,
with all of our heavily subsidized corn (that no one knew what else to
do with) -- and we (of all people!) aren't mandating its use.

Only in America!

(And speaking of Iran, I don't know about nuking them, but I would
support disarming them -- now. The thought of them -- or anyone like
them -- having nuclear weapons is truly horrific, and makes the Cold
War era seem tame and predictable by comparision.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Super Dave]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Not here in Iowa. We've still got plenty of non-alcohol-contaminated
> regular unleaded gasoline.
>

Did you have to make any changes in your plane to start using automotive
fuel, or did you just start using it? Thanks.

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you have to make any changes in your plane to start using automotive
> fuel, or did you just start using it? Thanks.

No physical changes are required to use 87 octane unleaded mogas in our
O-540-powered Piper. It's just a paperwork thing. (You have to buy
the STC in order for it to be "legal" to burn mogas...)

Luckily, a previous owner (2 or 3 owners ago) paid Petersen for that
STC, so I've been reaping that benefit ever since.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, iA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "John" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Start a nuclear war and the world's problems slip away? Please explain.
>
> Less people, less problems?
>

More parking spaces.

[J. Severyn]

"Super Dave" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> Not here in Iowa. We've still got plenty of non-alcohol-contaminated
>> regular unleaded gasoline.
>>
>
> Did you have to make any changes in your plane to start using automotive
> fuel, or did you just start using it? Thanks.
>
>
Well the Peterson STC for my Cessna involved putting a sticker next to each
gas cap stating that mogas above 91 R+M octane was legal in all
concentrations mixed with 100 octane avgas, and a small clamp that is
stamped with the STC# is attached to one of the pushrod tubes. That it.
Nothing more except the usual logbook and STC paperwork. This is on a
O235L2C in a C-152.

The last engine burned avgas for the first 500 hours, and mogas for the next
1500 hours. My problems with lead fouled plugs disappeared when I switched
to mogas. But since I put in a new engine 400 hours ago, mogas where I live
is tainted with alcohol, so.... back to burning leaded avgas......and
cleaning my lower plugs very regularly, no thanks to our govenator and the
feds.
John Severyn
@KLVK

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "JM" == Jim Macklin > writes:
JM> second
JM> nuke IRAN

Ahh, the US's third world (aka Kansas, Oklahoma, and the South)
solution to everything: nuke 'em!

[Jim Macklin]

Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred nuclear
weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then the
world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France, Italy,
Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The USA
might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you know
what will happen, why wait for the final step?

We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be sure
that the underground factories are destroyed and they were
designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
| >>>>> "JM" == Jim Macklin
> writes:
| JM> second
| JM> nuke IRAN
|
| Ahh, the US's third world (aka Kansas, Oklahoma, and the
South)
| solution to everything: nuke 'em!

[Grumman-581]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Ahh, the US's third world (aka Kansas, Oklahoma, and the South)
> solution to everything: nuke 'em!

Don' knock it 'till you've tried it...

[Taylor]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Start a nuclear war and the world's problems slip away? Please explain.
> >
> > Less people, less problems?
> >
>
> More parking spaces.

Yeah in a few hundred years they will be almost safe enough to be near.

[Taylor]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
> religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred nuclear
> weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
> more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then the
> world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France, Italy,
> Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The USA
> might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you know
> what will happen, why wait for the final step?
>
> We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be sure
> that the underground factories are destroyed and they were
> designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.

So what? Everytime someone else figures out how to construct a nuclear
bomb you attack them? Look it's not really groundbreaking technology
anymore to make a fission bomb. The hardest part is to enrich the
uranium (because it's a complicated process that requires a lot of
advanced chemistry and centrifuge technology,, not to mention a lot of
uranium ore) or the other alternative is to use plutonium (requires a
more complicated bomb design due to unwanted Pu-240), or maybe even
thorium. Plutonium, as a Doc said, is a little harder to come by if you
don't have your own reactor. But basically if you have enough U-235,
all you need to do is construct a conventional explosive device to smash
two sufficiently sized balls of uranium together, and presto! You have
an a-bomb. There's god-knows how much Soviet weapons grade material
that nobody knows what happened to floating around as well, so that
takes care of your enrichening problem.

If you're going to attack everyone who figures this out (no matter how
crazy they may want to be) you're going to be very very busy for a long
time. And how do you know where all of these supposed factories are?
What do you do when they are beneath apartment buildings or schools or
hospitals? And if you start bombing around, don't forget to duck when
the mail comes in back home.

One person's religious fanatic is another person's leader.

[Taylor]

"J. Severyn" wrote:

> "Super Dave" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >> Not here in Iowa. We've still got plenty of non-alcohol-contaminated
> >> regular unleaded gasoline.
> >>
> >
> > Did you have to make any changes in your plane to start using automotive
> > fuel, or did you just start using it? Thanks.
> >
> >
> Well the Peterson STC for my Cessna involved putting a sticker next to each
> gas cap stating that mogas above 91 R+M octane was legal in all
> concentrations mixed with 100 octane avgas, and a small clamp that is
> stamped with the STC# is attached to one of the pushrod tubes. That it.
> Nothing more except the usual logbook and STC paperwork. This is on a
> O235L2C in a C-152.
>
> The last engine burned avgas for the first 500 hours, and mogas for the next
> 1500 hours. My problems with lead fouled plugs disappeared when I switched
> to mogas. But since I put in a new engine 400 hours ago, mogas where I live
> is tainted with alcohol, so.... back to burning leaded avgas......and
> cleaning my lower plugs very regularly, no thanks to our govenator and the
> feds.

Didn't AOPA say that a new unleaded avgas was going to save the day? 82UL or
something?

[Montblack]

("Bob Fry" wrote)
> Ahh, the US's third world (aka Kansas, Oklahoma, and the South)
> solution to everything: nuke 'em!


You managed to somehow lump Kansas in with The South. Wow!


Montblack

[Sylvain]

Taylor wrote:
> time. And how do you know where all of these supposed factories are?

oh, that one's easy: you just rely on the info from the same
intelligence agencies that found the WMD in Iraq. They are real
good at this kind of things.

Anyway, anyone who thinks the 'Iran' problem has anything to do with
them bragging about nukes is a tad naive; they are doing something
far worse than that, and that's what is going to get them bombed: they
are about to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars.

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

Iran is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow up
the world while they are actively enriching uranium ore.
Why wait longer?



"Taylor" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
| > religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred
nuclear
| > weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
| > more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then
the
| > world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France,
Italy,
| > Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The
USA
| > might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you
know
| > what will happen, why wait for the final step?
| >
| > We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be
sure
| > that the underground factories are destroyed and they
were
| > designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.
|
| So what? Everytime someone else figures out how to
construct a nuclear
| bomb you attack them? Look it's not really groundbreaking
technology
| anymore to make a fission bomb. The hardest part is to
enrich the
| uranium (because it's a complicated process that requires
a lot of
| advanced chemistry and centrifuge technology,, not to
mention a lot of
| uranium ore) or the other alternative is to use plutonium
(requires a
| more complicated bomb design due to unwanted Pu-240), or
maybe even
| thorium. Plutonium, as a Doc said, is a little harder to
come by if you
| don't have your own reactor. But basically if you have
enough U-235,
| all you need to do is construct a conventional explosive
device to smash
| two sufficiently sized balls of uranium together, and
presto! You have
| an a-bomb. There's god-knows how much Soviet weapons
grade material
| that nobody knows what happened to floating around as
well, so that
| takes care of your enrichening problem.
|
| If you're going to attack everyone who figures this out
(no matter how
| crazy they may want to be) you're going to be very very
busy for a long
| time. And how do you know where all of these supposed
factories are?
| What do you do when they are beneath apartment buildings
or schools or
| hospitals? And if you start bombing around, don't forget
to duck when
| the mail comes in back home.
|
| One person's religious fanatic is another person's leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Grumman-581]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> You managed to somehow lump Kansas in with The South. Wow!

Hell, they're north of I-10... They're definitely Yankees...

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
>> You managed to somehow lump Kansas in with The South. Wow!

> Hell, they're north of I-10... They're definitely Yankees...


It wasn't a geographical observation I was making. <g>

Not exactly Yankees - Kansas and Oklahoma are worlds unto themselves.


Montblack

[Taylor]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Iran is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow up
> the world while they are actively enriching uranium ore.
> Why wait longer?
>
> "Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> |
> | > Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
> | > religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred
> nuclear
> | > weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
> | > more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then
> the
> | > world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France,
> Italy,
> | > Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The
> USA
> | > might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you
> know
> | > what will happen, why wait for the final step?
> | >
> | > We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be
> sure
> | > that the underground factories are destroyed and they
> were
> | > designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.
> |
> | So what? Everytime someone else figures out how to
> construct a nuclear
> | bomb you attack them? Look it's not really groundbreaking
> technology
> | anymore to make a fission bomb. The hardest part is to
> enrich the
> | uranium (because it's a complicated process that requires
> a lot of
> | advanced chemistry and centrifuge technology,, not to
> mention a lot of
> | uranium ore) or the other alternative is to use plutonium
> (requires a
> | more complicated bomb design due to unwanted Pu-240), or
> maybe even
> | thorium. Plutonium, as a Doc said, is a little harder to
> come by if you
> | don't have your own reactor. But basically if you have
> enough U-235,
> | all you need to do is construct a conventional explosive
> device to smash
> | two sufficiently sized balls of uranium together, and
> presto! You have
> | an a-bomb. There's god-knows how much Soviet weapons
> grade material
> | that nobody knows what happened to floating around as
> well, so that
> | takes care of your enrichening problem.
> |
> | If you're going to attack everyone who figures this out
> (no matter how
> | crazy they may want to be) you're going to be very very
> busy for a long
> | time. And how do you know where all of these supposed
> factories are?
> | What do you do when they are beneath apartment buildings
> or schools or
> | hospitals? And if you start bombing around, don't forget
> to duck when
> | the mail comes in back home.
> |
> | One person's religious fanatic is another person's leader.

Someone else could argue that the USA is being run by lunatics too,
threatening to invade countries that pose no threat to them. I missed
where Iran where was threatening to blow up the world, or how that would
be in Iran's interest. Countries all over the world enrich uranium, it
is necessary for many types of power reactors, including the types used
in USA. If you start attacking any country that you don't like because
they are enriching uranium, where do you stop? Should we attack France,
Armenia, Russia, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Kazakhstan, Cuba, etc.
because they have nuclear programs? Start attacking Iran and they may
find it in their best interests to close the Straits of Hormuz, or at
least fire a missile at any oil tanker or navy ship that happens to
wander by their front yard. But you already thought all of that
through, right?

[Jim Macklin]

The President of Iran speaks openly of destroying Israel,
they whole world knows that the USA has gone out of its way
to avoid death and war. The world also knows that we don't
fight war to take territory. Since Viet Nam, we don't fight
long wars.


"Taylor" > wrote in message
...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Iran is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow
up
| > the world while they are actively enriching uranium ore.
| > Why wait longer?
| >
| > "Taylor" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > |
| > |
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > |
| > | > Would it be better to wait a few months or years for
the
| > | > religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred
| > nuclear
| > | > weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000
miles or
| > | > more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and
then
| > the
| > | > world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France,
| > Italy,
| > | > Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked.
The
| > USA
| > | > might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you
| > know
| > | > what will happen, why wait for the final step?
| > | >
| > | > We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to
be
| > sure
| > | > that the underground factories are destroyed and
they
| > were
| > | > designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.
| > |
| > | So what? Everytime someone else figures out how to
| > construct a nuclear
| > | bomb you attack them? Look it's not really
groundbreaking
| > technology
| > | anymore to make a fission bomb. The hardest part is
to
| > enrich the
| > | uranium (because it's a complicated process that
requires
| > a lot of
| > | advanced chemistry and centrifuge technology,, not to
| > mention a lot of
| > | uranium ore) or the other alternative is to use
plutonium
| > (requires a
| > | more complicated bomb design due to unwanted Pu-240),
or
| > maybe even
| > | thorium. Plutonium, as a Doc said, is a little harder
to
| > come by if you
| > | don't have your own reactor. But basically if you
have
| > enough U-235,
| > | all you need to do is construct a conventional
explosive
| > device to smash
| > | two sufficiently sized balls of uranium together, and
| > presto! You have
| > | an a-bomb. There's god-knows how much Soviet weapons
| > grade material
| > | that nobody knows what happened to floating around as
| > well, so that
| > | takes care of your enrichening problem.
| > |
| > | If you're going to attack everyone who figures this
out
| > (no matter how
| > | crazy they may want to be) you're going to be very
very
| > busy for a long
| > | time. And how do you know where all of these supposed
| > factories are?
| > | What do you do when they are beneath apartment
buildings
| > or schools or
| > | hospitals? And if you start bombing around, don't
forget
| > to duck when
| > | the mail comes in back home.
| > |
| > | One person's religious fanatic is another person's
leader.
|
| Someone else could argue that the USA is being run by
lunatics too,
| threatening to invade countries that pose no threat to
them. I missed
| where Iran where was threatening to blow up the world, or
how that would
| be in Iran's interest. Countries all over the world
enrich uranium, it
| is necessary for many types of power reactors, including
the types used
| in USA. If you start attacking any country that you don't
like because
| they are enriching uranium, where do you stop? Should we
attack France,
| Armenia, Russia, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Kazakhstan,
Cuba, etc.
| because they have nuclear programs? Start attacking Iran
and they may
| find it in their best interests to close the Straits of
Hormuz, or at
| least fire a missile at any oil tanker or navy ship that
happens to
| wander by their front yard. But you already thought all
of that
| through, right?
|

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:38:39 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
>religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred nuclear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

there are already some fanatics with nukes at hand. And I become more
afraid about them using those nukes every day.

>weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
>more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then the
>world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France, Italy,

you see Europeans freaking out like you (many Americans) do?

>Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The USA

well, I couldn't care less for Israel (as a nation), still, they are all
human beings.

>might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you know
>what will happen, why wait for the final step?
>
>We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be sure
>that the underground factories are destroyed and they were
>designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.

you first have to find a solution how you then can bring out the oil after
you have contaminated a good part of OUR world (note: it is not _yours_
alone).

How easy it got and people couldn't care less about the death of a
gazillion human beings ... *shudder*

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:05:23 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Iran is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow up
>the world while they are actively enriching uranium ore.
>Why wait longer?


The USA is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow up
the world [1] while they are actively enriching uranium ore. [2]
Why wait longer?


You see: every coin has 2 sides.

#m

[1] the official plan for using nukes is not defense any longer, they might
also be used for a preemptive strike, check the white house website
[2] you (the USA) have A B and C weapons.
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:49:11 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>The world also knows that we don't
>fight war to take territory.

... but to defend your very best interests.

> Since Viet Nam, we don't fight
>long wars.

since WWII there was no official war, you never declared war officialy
since then. Check where your troops have been since WWII .... :-/

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

[Jim Macklin]

Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty bombs
[because they were so inefficient and large]. They seem to
live there very well today.

As for contaminating the oil fields or even all of Iran,
modern bombs are very small and have little heavy metal. It
would be much better if Iran would cooperate, so far they
have rejected all offers. They have been shown as willing
to send huge numbers of children into battle to die.

Iran chose to build their nuclear plants under their cities
population centers as protection. Iran does not consider
other population centers as "targets off limits" so why
should the USA grant them a sanctuary?

I'm sure that military planners have located critical
targets and have planned the best and least destructive
methods for eliminating the threat presented. Or we can
wait for the rest of the world to arm so it will be a really
big war. Waiting works very well, it worked for Hitler.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:38:39 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Would it be better to wait a few months or years for the
| >religious fanatics to have a dozen or even hundred
nuclear
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| there are already some fanatics with nukes at hand. And I
become more
| afraid about them using those nukes every day.
|
| >weapons and the missiles needed to strike 1,000 miles or
| >more? Almost all of Europe would be targeted and then
the
| >world could have a two-sided nuclear war. France, Italy,
|
| you see Europeans freaking out like you (many Americans)
do?
|
| >Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The
USA
|
| well, I couldn't care less for Israel (as a nation),
still, they are all
| human beings.
|
| >might be safe from direct missile attack, but if you know
| >what will happen, why wait for the final step?
| >
| >We can use conventional bombs, but we also need to be
sure
| >that the underground factories are destroyed and they
were
| >designed to be hardened, nukes will do the job.
|
| you first have to find a solution how you then can bring
out the oil after
| you have contaminated a good part of OUR world (note: it
is not _yours_
| alone).
|
| How easy it got and people couldn't care less about the
death of a
| gazillion human beings ... *shudder*
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:35:33 -0400, John > wrote:

>The federal government hasn't banned
>MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
>companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
>most places.

I think you have to make that *all* places. There may be some MTBE
still being pumped out of the ground, but nobody is going to
manufacture it because Congress did not renew the immunity to
liability that companies previously had. Nobody wants to repriese the
asbestos liability monster.

My local airport was so fussy about mogas that it found a dealer in
Maine that would deliver mogas without MTBE. I don't know what will
happen to the mogas pump. I understand that there's a huge problem
about ethanol in that it can't be stored for long periods of time or
sent over long distances because water will cause the ethanol to
separate out (funny, I thought that that was why we put alcohol in our
gasoline in New Hampshire, to get the water to meld with the fuel). I
don't see how ethanol mix can sit in the ground for months or a year
without suffering the same fate. The airport just doesn't sell that
much mogas.

Or maybe non-MTBE, non-ethanol gasoline will still be available in
Maine?


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
>run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline.

Worse, you can't send the mix through pipelines for long distances, as
I understand it, meaning that NE states have to scramble.

While all this goes on, there is a tarrif of 51 cents a gallon on
imported ethanol! You might ask your congressman about that....


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

> second nuke IRAN so that
>the uncertainty about the future supply will go away.

Well, that was more or less the theory about the invasion of Iraq,
which is still pumping less than it did before the invasion. In other
words, the war exacerbted the shortage instead of allieviating it.


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Jim Macklin]

Except the USA is not run by lunatics and we have avoided
blowing up the world for 60 years. We and the Russians
sought a life on Earth, the leaders in Iran seek a life in
the after-life, that's what makes them lunatics.
The United States has all types of weapons. Since a weapon
can be used as a tool, a weapon and even entertainment
[fireworks] it all depends on how they are used.

Obviously you are not the governor of Arizona, yet you are
using a return address that isn't munged, it is stolen.
Is this you?
Airport Directory - Homepage the directory for general
aviation ... The contents of this internet site are owned
and controlled by hotze.com Martin Hotze. hotze.com Martin
Hotze reserves all intellectual property rights. ...
www.airport-directory.com/copyright.htm - 13k -
Cached - Similar pages





--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:05:23 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Iran is run by lunatics and they are threatening to blow
up
| >the world while they are actively enriching uranium ore.
| >Why wait longer?
|
|
| The USA is run by lunatics and they are threatening to
blow up
| the world [1] while they are actively enriching uranium
ore. [2]
| Why wait longer?
|
|
| You see: every coin has 2 sides.
|
| #m
|
| [1] the official plan for using nukes is not defense any
longer, they might
| also be used for a preemptive strike, check the white
house website
| [2] you (the USA) have A B and C weapons.
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Cub Driver]

On 29 Apr 2006 11:43:11 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Yes, it is possible to buy mogas without ethanol or any of the other
>additives. The self serve pumps at Platte Valley in Colorado have it.
>They buy it from the refiner.

The additives are mandated in the southern three counties of New
Hampshire (where the population is, and proximity to Massachusetts).
The rest of the state pumps real gasoline and presumably will continue
to do so. The same is true of Maine.

It is state law, not federal, that makes these rules. I believe there
is a Northeast compact between New York and the New England states on
the matter. Unsure what it takes to lift it, but note that the New
Hampshire legislature meets only one year out of two ...


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Jim Macklin]

I know very well, probably protecting your butt.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:49:11 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >The world also knows that we don't
| >fight war to take territory.
|
| .. but to defend your very best interests.
|
| > Since Viet Nam, we don't fight
| >long wars.
|
| since WWII there was no official war, you never declared
war officialy
| since then. Check where your troops have been since WWII
..... :-/
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:49:31 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>you see Europeans freaking out like you (many Americans) do?
>
>>Germany, Russia, and Israel would all be attacked. The USA
>
>well, I couldn't care less for Israel

Then you ought to understand why few Americans give a hoot about
Germany, Russia, France, and all that. "Distant countries about whom
we know little" as a British statesman once said.

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>so why
>should the USA grant them a sanctuary?

the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of war
from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute ..
you never gave sh*t on international law.

#m

Yes, I agree they (Iran) should be more cooperative etc.
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:39:43 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Except the USA is not run by lunatics and we have avoided

I am not _that_ sure ...

>blowing up the world for 60 years. We and the Russians
>sought a life on Earth, the leaders in Iran seek a life in
>the after-life, that's what makes them lunatics.
>The United States has all types of weapons. Since a weapon
>can be used as a tool, a weapon and even entertainment
>[fireworks] it all depends on how they are used.

weapons are weapons are weapons.

>Obviously you are not the governor of Arizona, yet you are

*wow* .. how wise. *clap* *clap* *clap*
And arizona.org is not owned by the state of Arizona. What now?

>using a return address that isn't munged, it is stolen.

you are a freak. the return address works.
Are you out of arguments, idiot?
As you claim that I use a stolen address I say that you are a liar.

>Is this you?

yes, it is me.

>James H. Macklin
>ATP,CFI,A&P
^^^^^^^^^^

let's start flaming? oh well, I'd love to *ggggg*
you shouldn't train students or repair aircraft with YOUR mindset ... I'd
freak out knowing that somebody who want's to nuke other human beings is
teaching to survive (flying an aircraft).

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

[Jim Macklin]

Hitler did not declare war on England, he signed a treaty
with them. Did the same with Russia.

International law of warfare does not require that the USA
or any other nation wait until they have been attacked when
the "attacker" has made it clear that they will attack.
Furthermore, the USA has treaties with Israel and other
nations that require that we defend those nations, see NATO
etc.

Path:
dukenews1.cox.net!duke.cox.net!filt01.cox.net!peer 01.cox.net!cox.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!n ntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!newsfeed.fr eenet.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed02.chello.at !news.chello.at.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Martin Hotze >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:59:28 +0200
Organization: www.arizona.org
Reply-To:
Message-ID: >
References: >
<psL4g.12901$ZW3.1972@dukeread04>
>
<xKS4g.14844$ZW3.3787@dukeread04>
>
<WD%4g.14877$ZW3.4108@dukeread04>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.47.242.175 (213.47.242.175)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:01:03 +0200
X-Trace: db07944548adf708a570a08271
Xref: cox.net rec.aviation.piloting:490788
X-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:01:04 EDT
(dukenews1.cox.net)
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0617-3, 04/28/2006), Inbound
message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >so why
| >should the USA grant them a sanctuary?
|
| the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no
declaration of war
| from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to
international law
| that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well ..
wait a minute ..
| you never gave sh*t on international law.
|
| #m
|
| Yes, I agree they (Iran) should be more cooperative etc.
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:44:28 -0400, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net>
wrote:

>Then you ought to understand why few Americans give a hoot about
>Germany, Russia, France, and all that.

... and still you interfere ...

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:10:58 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Hitler

how comes that you come up with this wacko?

> did not declare war on England,

but England declared war on Germany on Sept 3rd 1939.

> he signed a treaty
>with them. Did the same with Russia.

and now?

>International law of warfare does not require that the USA

don't you understand that the USA gives sh*t on international law and
treaties?

>or any other nation wait until they have been attacked when
>the "attacker" has made it clear that they will attack.
>Furthermore, the USA has treaties with Israel and other
>nations that require that we defend those nations, see NATO
>etc.

well, a preemptive strike then.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > second nuke IRAN so that
> >the uncertainty about the future supply will go away.
>
> Well, that was more or less the theory about the invasion of Iraq,
> which is still pumping less than it did before the invasion. In other
> words, the war exacerbted the shortage instead of allieviating it.

Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point out that you're
judging the results in Iraq with typical American impatience.

The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I believe history
will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we did -- as it
will when we are forced to do something in Iran.

Our attempts to nail democracy onto the feet of natives who clearly are
barely out of the stone age may be looked upon less favorably, however.
In retrospect, we probably should have done things the British way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[LWG]

Yes, just like how our good friends, the European allies, helped us "disarm"
Iraq with the Oil for Fools scandal. It's no wonder why we put such so
faith in world diplomacy acting against renegade nations.

You need to understand that your instransigence, corruption and greed
deprives us of effective diplomacy. And then, what's left? Military action
and European whining. Well, never mind. Your politicians have their
million/billions.

If you think it is "our" world (and I agree with you, here), then it's time
to start acting like it.


> you first have to find a solution how you then can bring out the oil after
> you have contaminated a good part of OUR world (note: it is not _yours_
> alone).

[Jay Honeck]

> If you think it is "our" world (and I agree with you, here), then it's time
> to start acting like it.

Well said.

For three generations, since at least World War I, Europeans have been
trained to know that all they have to do is drag their feet and whine
about "doing the right thing" until *(Fill in the blank international
crisis)* grows untenable -- at which point everyone knows the U.S. will
be forced to step in and do the dirty work.

I would have thought that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London
might have shocked the peoples of Europe into awareness, but this did
not happen. Only when Europe outgrows this infantile stage, and truly
engages in the diplomatic world, will the free world be able to
effectively counter Islamo-Fascism.

Until then, I'm afraid we're on our own.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JJS]

snip
>
> Not exactly Yankees - Kansas and Oklahoma are worlds unto themselves.
>
>
> Montblack

Thank God!

Joe Schneider
Happy 3rd World Citizen
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Martin Hotze]

On 30 Apr 2006 05:46:15 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>I would have thought that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London
>might have shocked the peoples of Europe into awareness, but this did

well, I think we are aware. But we are not trying to call other people
"camel ****ers" or try to bring them "our culture". well, we have some
extreme right wingers here, too.

>not happen. Only when Europe outgrows this infantile stage, and truly
>engages in the diplomatic world, will the free world be able to

we are very sorry that we have to be in _this_ diplomatic world. We have to
endure the visit of the president of the US in our capitol. It costs us
millions to host him and closes businesses and restricts the rights of
_our_ citizens. We even have to seal duct covers just like the Germans had
to do during his last visit. With such friends you don't need enemies.

>effectively counter Islamo-Fascism.
>
>Until then, I'm afraid we're on our own.

You are on your own, but you (the US) is trying to shove everyone your
opinion and viewpoint up his ass.
Just give it a try and leave everybody alone with their problems. Maybe
you're right and we have to come back whining and asking for your help.
Then you can decide and demand whatever you want for your help. You never
gave it a try.

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

[LWG]

Iran invaded and held sovereign American territory. What more does a
country need to justify war?

"> the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of
war
> from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
> that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute ..
> you never gave sh*t on international law.

[Ash Wyllie]

Cub Driver opined

>On 29 Apr 2006 11:43:11 -0700, "Doug" >
>wrote:

>>Yes, it is possible to buy mogas without ethanol or any of the other
>>additives. The self serve pumps at Platte Valley in Colorado have it.
>>They buy it from the refiner.

>The additives are mandated in the southern three counties of New
>Hampshire (where the population is, and proximity to Massachusetts).
>The rest of the state pumps real gasoline and presumably will continue
>to do so. The same is true of Maine.

Gasahol has turned up in Campton NH in the last week. Prolly to cut the number
of types of fuel to be delivered.

>It is state law, not federal, that makes these rules. I believe there
>is a Northeast compact between New York and the New England states on
>the matter. Unsure what it takes to lift it, but note that the New
>Hampshire legislature meets only one year out of two ...

They are meeting at the moment, and generating more bad laws.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Ash Wyllie]

Cub Driver opined

>On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:35:33 -0400, John > wrote:

>>The federal government hasn't banned
>>MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
>>companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
>>most places.

>I think you have to make that *all* places. There may be some MTBE
>still being pumped out of the ground, but nobody is going to
>manufacture it because Congress did not renew the immunity to
>liability that companies previously had. Nobody wants to repriese the
>asbestos liability monster.

>My local airport was so fussy about mogas that it found a dealer in
>Maine that would deliver mogas without MTBE. I don't know what will
>happen to the mogas pump. I understand that there's a huge problem
>about ethanol in that it can't be stored for long periods of time or
>sent over long distances because water will cause the ethanol to
>separate out (funny, I thought that that was why we put alcohol in our
>gasoline in New Hampshire, to get the water to meld with the fuel). I
>don't see how ethanol mix can sit in the ground for months or a year
>without suffering the same fate. The airport just doesn't sell that
>much mogas.

Different alcohol.

>Or maybe non-MTBE, non-ethanol gasoline will still be available in
>Maine?
-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Bob Fry]

All the talk about nukes is missing the future WMD, engineered
viruses. In a few years it will be possible for a very small group of
people to design and manufacture viruses that are highly contagious
and cause a high percentage of fatalities. Yes, it would be very hard
to limit their destruction once released but to fanatics who simply
hate that does not matter.

[mike regish]

I've been using mogas in my Tripacer for 6 years now, but we've recently
(MA) switched to ethanol. I actually had to siphon my tanks after putting in
what I thought was MTBE gas. This change along with the rapidly rising fuel
costs have me seriously considering selling the plane-something I really
don't want to do.

But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR the
ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real killer.

mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "John" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE


> To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of avgas, is the
> phase-out of MTBE affecting you?

"John" > wrote in message ...
> To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of avgas, is the
> phase-out of MTBE affecting you?

[Marissa Bealey]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:44:28 -0400, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net>
> wrote:
>
> >Then you ought to understand why few Americans give a hoot about
> >Germany, Russia, France, and all that.
>
> .. and still you interfere ...

Yeah we apologize for sending hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, and
soldiers to fight and die to interfere while cleaning up Europe's own
home-grown messes and genocide. Funny how Europe begged USA to "interfere."
Again, apologies. USA could have been non interfering while the rest of
Europeans became lampshades. Can you forgive us?

More on topic, enjoy the flying in Europe, I hear it's really popular and
available to the average person.

[Marissa Bealey]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> don't you understand that the USA gives sh*t on international law and
> treaties?

"International law" is a fantasy term. As far as treaties go, you're
mistaken.

[Marissa Bealey]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On 30 Apr 2006 05:46:15 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >I would have thought that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London
> >might have shocked the peoples of Europe into awareness, but this did
>
> well, I think we are aware. But we are not trying to call other people
> "camel ****ers" or try to bring them "our culture". well, we have some
> extreme right wingers here, too.

Huh? Who's "we?" Please attempt to explain yourself. Oh wait....

>
>
> >not happen. Only when Europe outgrows this infantile stage, and truly
> >engages in the diplomatic world, will the free world be able to
>
> we are very sorry that we have to be in _this_ diplomatic world. We have to
> endure the visit of the president of the US in our capitol. It costs us

> millions to host him and closes businesses and restricts the rights of
> _our_ citizens.

So in other words your country "restricted the rights of [your] citizens. But
naturally you can't blame your country for what it did that you don't like, so
you have to blame someone else. Wait, you're from Europe!

> We even have to seal duct covers just like the Germans had
> to do during his last visit. With such friends you don't need enemies.

So if it is such a burden for your great nation to have the honor of hosting
world leaders, why send out the invitations? Surely a great nation such as
yours doesn't sit around waiting for the phone to ring and then be ordered
around by another country's leader!

> >effectively counter Islamo-Fascism.
> >
> >Until then, I'm afraid we're on our own.
>
> You are on your own, but you (the US) is trying to shove everyone your
> opinion and viewpoint up his ass.

Unlike you of course! Ha! You are starting to really crack me up.

>
> Just give it a try and leave everybody alone with their problems. Maybe
> you're right and we have to come back whining and asking for your help.
> Then you can decide and demand whatever you want for your help. You never
> gave it a try.

Don't call us, we'll call you. Have a nice day.

[Matt Barrow]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> Iran invaded and held sovereign American territory. What more does a
> country need to justify war?

Since Iran's action was, according to "International Law", an act of war,
nothing.

> "> the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of
> war
>> from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
>> that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute
>> ..
>> you never gave sh*t on international law.

Nor has international law given a ****, either.

It's one thing to be rock-brained stupid, but to post it on a world-wide
medium is really reaching the pinnacle.

[Matt Barrow]

"Marissa Bealey" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> don't you understand that the USA gives sh*t on international law and
>> treaties?
>
> "International law" is a fantasy term. As far as treaties go, you're
> mistaken.
>

Martin is a mental ward escapee (yup, they left the door unlocked at the
funny farm)...ignore him.

[Marissa Bealey]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
> >But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
> >run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline.
>
> Worse, you can't send the mix through pipelines for long distances, as
> I understand it, meaning that NE states have to scramble.
>
> While all this goes on, there is a tarrif of 51 cents a gallon on
> imported ethanol! You might ask your congressman about that....

Richard "Dick" Durbin (Democrat-Illinois) was just asked that by Jim
Cramer on Meet the Press. He stated that he does not want the tariff
removed and he strongly supports it to discourage ethanol imports. It's
ok apparently to import oil from unfriendly countries, but he doesn't want
a drop of ethanol coming in from say Brazil, unless it's taxed high enough
to make it unworkable.

He also says that he does NOT support more nuclear power but also does NOT
support more oil, gas, or coal generation either. Instead he favors more
hybrid cars and electric cars (to get their power from those generators he
doesn't want, you see.)

If any of this makes any sense at all to you and you live in Illinois,
keep voting for that guy. If you missed the discussion, I think CNBC will
rerun it tonight.

[Marissa Bealey]

Ash Wyllie wrote:

> Cub Driver opined
>
> >On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:35:33 -0400, John > wrote:
>
> >>The federal government hasn't banned
> >>MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
> >>companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
> >>most places.
>
> >I think you have to make that *all* places. There may be some MTBE
> >still being pumped out of the ground, but nobody is going to
> >manufacture it because Congress did not renew the immunity to
> >liability that companies previously had. Nobody wants to repriese the
> >asbestos liability monster.
>
> >My local airport was so fussy about mogas that it found a dealer in
> >Maine that would deliver mogas without MTBE. I don't know what will
> >happen to the mogas pump. I understand that there's a huge problem
> >about ethanol in that it can't be stored for long periods of time or
> >sent over long distances because water will cause the ethanol to
> >separate out (funny, I thought that that was why we put alcohol in our
> >gasoline in New Hampshire, to get the water to meld with the fuel). I
> >don't see how ethanol mix can sit in the ground for months or a year
> >without suffering the same fate. The airport just doesn't sell that
> >much mogas.
>
> Different alcohol

Nope. Ethyl Alchol "absorbs" water that comes across. Actually the ethanol
get mixed in solution with the water. That is why it is used to remove water
from gas tanks.

[Marissa Bealey]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:35:33 -0400, John > wrote:
>
> >The federal government hasn't banned
> >MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
> >companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
> >most places.
>
> I think you have to make that *all* places. There may be some MTBE
> still being pumped out of the ground, but nobody is going to
> manufacture it because Congress did not renew the immunity to
> liability that companies previously had. Nobody wants to repriese the
> asbestos liability monster.
>
> My local airport was so fussy about mogas that it found a dealer in
> Maine that would deliver mogas without MTBE. I don't know what will
> happen to the mogas pump. I understand that there's a huge problem
> about ethanol in that it can't be stored for long periods of time or
> sent over long distances because water will cause the ethanol to
> separate out (funny, I thought that that was why we put alcohol in our
> gasoline in New Hampshire, to get the water to meld with the fuel).

It's the same principle, but ethanol will keep picking up water it comes
across. A pipeline may have small amounts of water here and there but this
can get added again and again over long distances. The fuel becomes less and
less useable as more and more water is added, because obviously the water
doesn't contain any useable energy and it takes energy to evaporate that
water in a cylinder.

When you add alcohol to remove water (ice) from a gas tank, there is a very
limited amount of water (hopefully) so the effects of that water aren't
great, especially compared to ice blocking your fuel line.


> I
> don't see how ethanol mix can sit in the ground for months or a year
> without suffering the same fate. The airport just doesn't sell that
> much mogas.

> Or maybe non-MTBE, non-ethanol gasoline will still be available in
> Maine?

Time will tell.

[Private]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, anyone who thinks the 'Iran' problem has anything to do with
> them bragging about nukes is a tad naive; they are doing something
> far worse than that, and that's what is going to get them bombed: they
> are about to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars.
>
> --Sylvain

Bingo

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:48:37 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:

>> .. and still you interfere ...
>
>Yeah we apologize for sending hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, and
>soldiers to fight and die to interfere while cleaning up Europe's own
>home-grown messes and genocide. Funny how Europe begged USA to "interfere."
>Again, apologies. USA could have been non interfering while the rest of
>Europeans became lampshades. Can you forgive us?

is this _all_ you can bring up?
Europe needed help and asked for it, your prents or grandparents granted
the help and we were thankful (and paid our share the coming years).

>More on topic, enjoy the flying in Europe, I hear it's really popular and
>available to the average person.

not general aviation.
But IIRC flying by airline is cheaper than over there.

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:48:58 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:

>"International law" is a fantasy term. As far as treaties go, you're
>mistaken.

what about "no US soldier at an international court"?

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:54:16 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:

>So if it is such a burden for your great nation to have the honor of hosting
>world leaders, why send out the invitations?

well, it seems that - just like in your country - the citizens are not
always the same opinion as their leaders.

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

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
>>Is this you?

> yes, it is me.


Hotze.com
We Connect You

....then everything else is in German. :-)


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> >More on topic, enjoy the flying in Europe, I hear it's really popular and
> >available to the average person.
>
> not general aviation.
> But IIRC flying by airline is cheaper than over there.

If your goal is to fly in an executive mail tube, have fun.

Personally, I'll take to the free American skies...for now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> Iran invaded and held sovereign American territory. What more does a
>> country need to justify war?

> Since Iran's action was, according to "International Law", an act of war,
> nothing.


Isn't there, like, a 25 year statute of limitation for taking an embassy?

Besides, many of the Iranian "students" were duped by the religious regime
and later killed or imprisoned.

Speaking of "International Law"...

Sorry, no nuk'n the Fundamentalist nut jobs, as per our 1980 "pledge".
[Damn Treaty of Versailles... Algiers...whatever!] :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Final months:
"The death of the Shah on July 27 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in
September, 1980 made Iran more receptive to resolve the hostage crisis,
while Carter lost the November 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan.
Shortly after the election, the Carter administration, with the assistance
of intermediaries such as Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, opened
fruitful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. This resulted in the
"Algiers Accords" of January 19, 1981, committing Iran to free the hostages
immediately. Essential to the Algiers Accords and reportedly a
non-negotiable requirement of Iran that the Carter Administration
reluctantly conceded was Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs. It
reads "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the
policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly,
politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Other provisions of
the Algiers Accords were unfreezing of 8 billion dollars worth of Iranian
assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced. On January 20,
1981, twenty minutes after President Reagan's inaugural address, the
hostages were formally released into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in
captivity."


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
> Just give it a try and leave everybody alone with their problems. Maybe
> you're right and we have to come back whining and asking for your help.
> Then you can decide and demand whatever you want for your help. You never
> gave it a try.


Marty, Marty, Marty,

I hope, for your sake, that if something monumental does occur in Europe, it
WILL be the USA that 'decides and demands whatever they want' from you. If
not us, you're in trouble buddy!

....unless you heal that 'wound to your immortal soul' you guys sustained in
WWII, collect yourselves, and kick some ass - when the time comes to do so.

But yes, picking your battles is always a wise strategy.

That said, sometimes the battles PICK YOU - France WWI, Ukraine WWII,
Lebanon 1980, Innsbruck Austria 2009?


Montblack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110116/
Immortal Beloved (1994)

http://home.swipnet.se/zabonk/cultur/ludwig/beeim.htm
The Letters

[Morgans]

"mike regish" > wrote

> But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
> away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR the
> ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real killer.

Step one. Find an old 6 wheel oil or gas tanker truck, and get your CDL
with the H endorsement.

Step two. Drive to where there is un-doctored gas for sale, and buy a
tanker full of it. You now have your gas needs for the next year taken care
of, and will save enough money to have bought the tanker.
--
Jim in NC

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point out that you're
> judging the results in Iraq with typical American impatience.
>
> The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I believe history
> will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we did -- as it
> will when we are forced to do something in Iran.
>


Sorry, Jay.

The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history will look very
favourably.

But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the worst decisions that a
President of the United States has ever made. Even if the eventual outcome
produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western participatory democracy
that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell whether that may not
have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures of a disenchanted
populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.

But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of which is that....
after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas, ...(and with the
Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly, against Bin Laden
and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they were being
dispersed to oblivion.

The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a training-ground in
a country where they were not even previously welcome. Now after
3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing again.... not to
oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world, including back in
Afghanistan.

---

It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who not
only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear secrets
to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.

But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want electricity.
Who have agreed to UN IAEA inspections (although the west rejects that
because we want something more...???).

The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a very strong
emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will make Iraq look
like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to inspections and it proves
wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually DOES harm to
someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them permanently in six
days or less.

The total damage will probably be considerable less than a protracted
pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or more.

It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will drop a few bombs,
wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and threat) is
magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will automatically accepts our
interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds, and politely say
"thank you for bombing our homeland".

Yes, there is the psychotic rhetoric of Ahmadinejad to fuel our fears. But
in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev beat his shoe on a United Nations table while
shouting "we will bury you" to the USA. I wonder if it would have been a
"better world" today if we had invaded or nuked the USSR back then?.?.

---

I also find it intriguing that Second Amendment proponents at home, are
*not* "Second Amendment proponents" on the world stage. "It's okay to have
a gun, but only for me and my friends, and I am not so sure about the
friends".

---

And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why doesn't the west save a
lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn nuclear power
plants *for* them, no strings attached. It would cost a lot less than war,
in both money and bodies, and they would no longer have any excuse for their
own program. Think of it like good old fashioned American
litigation...sometimes its cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if
you are right. If they persisted with the program in spite of the offer, at
least you now have a *real* excuse.

As a bonus for the west, it might be a small step from operating their
nuclear plants, to operating their oil plants.

[Newps]

> ("Martin Hotze" wrote)
>
>> Just give it a try and leave everybody alone with their problems.
>> Maybe you're right and we have to come back whining and asking for
>> your help.

The US was brought kicking and screaming into WWI. We avoided WWII
until we got bombed, much to the dismay of France and England. It
doesn't work.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "mike regish" > wrote
>
>
>>But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
>>away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR the
>>ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real killer.
>
>
> Step one. Find an old 6 wheel oil or gas tanker truck, and get your CDL
> with the H endorsement.
>
> Step two. Drive to where there is un-doctored gas for sale, and buy a
> tanker full of it. You now have your gas needs for the next year taken care
> of, and will save enough money to have bought the tanker.

Step Three. Find a place to park a tanker.

[Icebound]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "mike regish" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
>>>away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR
>>>the
>>>ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real
>>>killer.
>>
>>
>> Step one. Find an old 6 wheel oil or gas tanker truck, and get your CDL
>> with the H endorsement.
>>
>> Step two. Drive to where there is un-doctored gas for sale, and buy a
>> tanker full of it. You now have your gas needs for the next year taken
>> care of, and will save enough money to have bought the tanker.
>
> Step Three. Find a place to park a tanker.

....Such that it will still be there the next morning

[Jay Honeck]

> It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who not
> only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear secrets
> to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.

That's what happens when you have a nut-job regime that has The Bomb.
You are forced to deal with it as an equal -- no matter how unsavory
the country.

Which, of course, is why Iran -- the pariah of the world for 25 years
-- wants one so badly. Ditto North Korea.

> But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want electricity.

Right. They're sitting atop a large percentage of the world's oil --
and you *believe* they want nuclear reactors for ELECTRICITY?
Please.

> The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a very strong
> emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will make Iraq look
> like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to inspections and it proves
> wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually DOES harm to
> someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them permanently in six
> days or less.

But not before untold millions are killed? Not acceptable.

> The total damage will probably be considerable less than a protracted
> pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or more.

Yeah, but it will be somewhere OTHER than Iran. Not acceptable.

> It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will drop a few bombs,
> wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and threat) is
> magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will automatically accepts our
> interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds, and politely say
> "thank you for bombing our homeland".

Um, remember when the Israelis bombed the reactor in Iraq? It worked
out pretty well, no?

> Yes, there is the psychotic rhetoric of Ahmadinejad to fuel our fears. But
> in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev beat his shoe on a United Nations table while
> shouting "we will bury you" to the USA. I wonder if it would have been a
> "better world" today if we had invaded or nuked the USSR back then?.?.

The USSR already HAD The Bomb. If they had NOT had "The Bomb" -- yeah,
we might have taken them out when he declared that they would "Bury the
U.S."

> I also find it intriguing that Second Amendment proponents at home, are
> *not* "Second Amendment proponents" on the world stage. "It's okay to have
> a gun, but only for me and my friends, and I am not so sure about the
> friends".

No kidding. Did you really expect anything more?

> And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why doesn't the west save a
> lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn nuclear power
> plants *for* them, no strings attached.

Well, it WOULD be kind of fun to call their bluff. But if you really
believe that's what they're up to, I've got an old reactor in Chernobyl
to sell you -- cheap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:48:37 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:
>
>>> .. and still you interfere ...
>>
>>Yeah we apologize for sending hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors,
>>and
>>soldiers to fight and die to interfere while cleaning up Europe's own
>>home-grown messes and genocide. Funny how Europe begged USA to
>>"interfere."
>>Again, apologies. USA could have been non interfering while the rest of
>>Europeans became lampshades. Can you forgive us?
>
> is this _all_ you can bring up?
> Europe needed help and asked for it, your prents or grandparents granted
> the help and we were thankful (and paid our share the coming years).

Well actually you didn't. Most of the debt was forgiven.

[Montblack]

("Icebound" wrote)
[snips]
> But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of which is that....
> after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas, ...(and with the
> Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly, against Bin Laden
> and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they were being
> dispersed to oblivion.
>
> The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a training-ground
> in a country where they were not even previously welcome. Now after
> 3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing again.... not to
> oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world, including back in
> Afghanistan.

http://www.cedarland.org/black.html
I read this today. Found it interesting. Pehaps a parallel situation?

> And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why doesn't the west save
> a lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn nuclear power
> plants *for* them, no strings attached. It would cost a lot less than
> war, in both money and bodies, and they would no longer have any excuse
> for their own program. Think of it like good old fashioned American
> litigation...sometimes its cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if
> you are right. If they persisted with the program in spite of the offer,
> at least you now have a *real* excuse.

President Johnson (LBJ) tried that with Hanoi in the 1960's. He was going
to build a TVA type power project for them. They said, 'Thank you. No!'

According to Bill Moyers.
Moyers said, 'If it was the AFL-CIO's George Meany LBJ had been dealing
with, instead of the North Vietnamese, he would have had a deal.'

http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/
TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:IE55g.95155$WI1.2193@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Anyway, anyone who thinks the 'Iran' problem has anything to do with
>> them bragging about nukes is a tad naive; they are doing something
>> far worse than that, and that's what is going to get them bombed: they
>> are about to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars.
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
> Bingo

Yeah...let's cause hyperinflation of the Euro. Between that and their
overburdened welfare states, we can put the last nail in the European
coffin.

[Dave Stadt]

"Marissa Bealey" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
>> >run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline.
>>
>> Worse, you can't send the mix through pipelines for long distances, as
>> I understand it, meaning that NE states have to scramble.
>>
>> While all this goes on, there is a tarrif of 51 cents a gallon on
>> imported ethanol! You might ask your congressman about that....
>
> Richard "Dick" Durbin (Democrat-Illinois) was just asked that by Jim
> Cramer on Meet the Press. He stated that he does not want the tariff
> removed and he strongly supports it to discourage ethanol imports. It's
> ok apparently to import oil from unfriendly countries, but he doesn't want
> a drop of ethanol coming in from say Brazil, unless it's taxed high enough
> to make it unworkable.
>
> He also says that he does NOT support more nuclear power but also does NOT
> support more oil, gas, or coal generation either. Instead he favors more
> hybrid cars and electric cars (to get their power from those generators he
> doesn't want, you see.)
>
> If any of this makes any sense at all to you and you live in Illinois,
> keep voting for that guy. If you missed the discussion, I think CNBC will
> rerun it tonight.

If any state or foreign country would like Durbin they are welcome to him.
He has a simple philosophy...he is against everything. I have no idea why
people vote for him except that he is a democrat and many people in IL
blindly vote for democrats.

[Matt Barrow]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history will look very
> favourably.
>
> But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the worst decisions that
> a President of the United States has ever made. Even if the eventual
> outcome produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western participatory
> democracy that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell whether
> that may not have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures of a
> disenchanted populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.

What, through the UN?

Ke-rist!

[Jim Macklin]

Iraq is fly paper for the terrorists, they come and we kill
them.



"Icebound" > wrote in
message ...
|
| "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >
| > Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point
out that you're
| > judging the results in Iraq with typical American
impatience.
| >
| > The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I
believe history
| > will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we
did -- as it
| > will when we are forced to do something in Iran.
| >
|
|
| Sorry, Jay.
|
| The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history
will look very
| favourably.
|
| But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the
worst decisions that a
| President of the United States has ever made. Even if
the eventual outcome
| produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western
participatory democracy
| that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell
whether that may not
| have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures
of a disenchanted
| populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.
|
| But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of
which is that....
| after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas,
....(and with the
| Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly,
against Bin Laden
| and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they
were being
| dispersed to oblivion.
|
| The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a
training-ground in
| a country where they were not even previously welcome.
Now after
| 3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing
again.... not to
| oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world,
including back in
| Afghanistan.
|
| ---
|
| It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with
Pakistan, who not
| only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which
sold nuclear secrets
| to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.
|
| But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to
want electricity.
| Who have agreed to UN IAEA inspections (although the west
rejects that
| because we want something more...???).
|
| The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a
very strong
| emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will
make Iraq look
| like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to
inspections and it proves
| wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually
DOES harm to
| someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them
permanently in six
| days or less.
|
| The total damage will probably be considerable less than a
protracted
| pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or
more.
|
| It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will
drop a few bombs,
| wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and
threat) is
| magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will
automatically accepts our
| interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds,
and politely say
| "thank you for bombing our homeland".
|
| Yes, there is the psychotic rhetoric of Ahmadinejad to
fuel our fears. But
| in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev beat his shoe on a United
Nations table while
| shouting "we will bury you" to the USA. I wonder if it
would have been a
| "better world" today if we had invaded or nuked the USSR
back then?.?.
|
| ---
|
| I also find it intriguing that Second Amendment proponents
at home, are
| *not* "Second Amendment proponents" on the world stage.
"It's okay to have
| a gun, but only for me and my friends, and I am not so
sure about the
| friends".
|
| ---
|
| And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why
doesn't the west save a
| lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn
nuclear power
| plants *for* them, no strings attached. It would cost a
lot less than war,
| in both money and bodies, and they would no longer have
any excuse for their
| own program. Think of it like good old fashioned American
| litigation...sometimes its cheaper to settle than to go to
court, even if
| you are right. If they persisted with the program in
spite of the offer, at
| least you now have a *real* excuse.
|
| As a bonus for the west, it might be a small step from
operating their
| nuclear plants, to operating their oil plants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

The dead in Illinois still vote democrat, Mayor Daley Sr and
Jr have a strong hold on the whole state. The governor
answers to the Mayor, so much so that he has moved the
official functions and offices to Chicago, the Official
Capitol in Springfield is partly a ghost town.

Durbin the Turban actually lives in a village on the edge of
Springfield that is all country club and million dollar
homes.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
|
| "Marissa Bealey" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > Cub Driver wrote:
| >
| >> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| >> > wrote:
| >>
| >> >But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
| >> >run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline.
| >>
| >> Worse, you can't send the mix through pipelines for
long distances, as
| >> I understand it, meaning that NE states have to
scramble.
| >>
| >> While all this goes on, there is a tarrif of 51 cents a
gallon on
| >> imported ethanol! You might ask your congressman about
that....
| >
| > Richard "Dick" Durbin (Democrat-Illinois) was just asked
that by Jim
| > Cramer on Meet the Press. He stated that he does not
want the tariff
| > removed and he strongly supports it to discourage
ethanol imports. It's
| > ok apparently to import oil from unfriendly countries,
but he doesn't want
| > a drop of ethanol coming in from say Brazil, unless it's
taxed high enough
| > to make it unworkable.
| >
| > He also says that he does NOT support more nuclear power
but also does NOT
| > support more oil, gas, or coal generation either.
Instead he favors more
| > hybrid cars and electric cars (to get their power from
those generators he
| > doesn't want, you see.)
| >
| > If any of this makes any sense at all to you and you
live in Illinois,
| > keep voting for that guy. If you missed the discussion,
I think CNBC will
| > rerun it tonight.
|
| If any state or foreign country would like Durbin they are
welcome to him.
| He has a simple philosophy...he is against everything. I
have no idea why
| people vote for him except that he is a democrat and many
people in IL
| blindly vote for democrats.
|
|
|

[Grumman-581]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:51:30 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

> Iraq is fly paper for the terrorists, they come and we kill
> them.

"We're havin' a party and *your're* invited"... And the camel ****in'
Bedoins were stupid enough to fall for it... <snicker>

--
"I don't wish to be argumentative, but I must disagree with the
Islamic belief that I should be killed."

[Mary]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:48:37 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:
>
> >> .. and still you interfere ...
> >
> >Yeah we apologize for sending hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, and
> >soldiers to fight and die to interfere while cleaning up Europe's own
> >home-grown messes and genocide. Funny how Europe begged USA to "interfere."
> >Again, apologies. USA could have been non interfering while the rest of
> >Europeans became lampshades. Can you forgive us?
>
> is this _all_ you can bring up?
> Europe needed help and asked for it, your prents or grandparents granted
> the help and we were thankful (and paid our share the coming years).

It was a little more than "granting help." But from the tone of your posts I can
tell how thankful Europe was/is. By the way most of the debt was forgiven. And
I'm sorry that such extreme sacrifice and the lives and families that never
happened are just "ALL" I can bring up.

>
>
> >More on topic, enjoy the flying in Europe, I hear it's really popular and
> >available to the average person.
>
> not general aviation.
> But IIRC flying by airline is cheaper than over there.

Yeah if you're going to fly a bottom feeder like Ryanair or their wonderful
friends. I don't recall seeing any great deals on a regular basis on the big
flag carriers.

[Mary]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:54:16 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:
>
> >So if it is such a burden for your great nation to have the honor of hosting
> >world leaders, why send out the invitations?
>
> well, it seems that - just like in your country - the citizens are not
> always the same opinion as their leaders.

So it sounds like your strange anger has been misplaced and should be redirected
toward your own leader.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who
>> not
>> only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear
>> secrets
>> to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.
>
> That's what happens when you have a nut-job regime that has The Bomb.
> You are forced to deal with it as an equal -- no matter how unsavory
> the country.
>

Two equals generally manage to negotiate a compromise and escape with
minimum damage to each. The problems start when one believes himself to be
overwhelming superior. Even if the underdog perishes in the encounter, he
may still cut out the left eye and both testicles of the superior. Now
certain equals, and even underdogs, deserve to perish, no matter what the
cost, but as they say...as long as we choose our fights wisely.


Nut-cases are a fact of life. There are no guarantees *anywhere*, against
charismatic nutcases leading state governments, including all those
countries already with nuclear technology. Removing individual nutcases by
force is similar to throwing a fish to the starving masses. Teach them to
fish themselves...provide incentives for them to remove/avoid their own
nutcases. And no, citizens do not respond well to the incentive "do it or
we bomb you". You only need to think of what your own response would be to
that one.



> Which, of course, is why Iran -- the pariah of the world for 25 years
> -- wants one so badly. Ditto North Korea.
>
>> But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want
>> electricity.
>
> Right. They're sitting atop a large percentage of the world's oil --
> and you *believe* they want nuclear reactors for ELECTRICITY?
> Please.
>

No.

They *claim*... yada yada... I happen to *believe* that they want nuclear
reactors only in order to rattle the west's chain, and it seems to be
working.

Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that they can sell it
to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own economy, who knows?


But it is pretty much a given that they have or will have nuclear
capability... So the question becomes one of reducing collateral damage...
Will it be greater if the west goes in first, and provides an impetus for
Arab nationalism to solidify a united Islamic front against the west??? Or
will it be greater if diplomatic pressure and those IAEA inspections
continue until they step out of line... and solidify the world, including
the other Arab states, *against them*.

Rhetoric is cause for concern and a signal to be prepared. Many years of
previous rhetoric by heads of States has proved to be pretty much hot air.
Is this different? Maybe. Highly effective intelligence agencies are
trying to find out. I hope they are closer to the real truth than their
previous spectacular endeavour.

9/11 was not engineered by a head of State, but by a disgruntled financier
and a handful of zealots. Have the past 3 years destroyed more zealots than
they have created? I suppose your honest answer to that question determines
which side of the "pre-emption" fence that you will fall on.


>> The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a very strong
>> emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will make Iraq look
>> like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to inspections and it
>> proves
>> wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually DOES harm to
>> someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them permanently in
>> six
>> days or less.
>
> But not before untold millions are killed? Not acceptable.
>

My goodness, are the IAEA inspections and our own intelligence that
bad...???... that it would permit "untold millions" to die before we could
respond? Even I doubt that they are *THAT* incompetent.



>> The total damage will probably be considerable less than a protracted
>> pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or more.
>
> Yeah, but it will be somewhere OTHER than Iran. Not acceptable.

No matter *where* the damage is, the cost will still be born here... in
terms of everything from bodies to the cost of gasoline.


>
>> It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will drop a few bombs,
>> wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and threat) is
>> magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will automatically accepts
>> our
>> interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds, and politely say
>> "thank you for bombing our homeland".
>
> Um, remember when the Israelis bombed the reactor in Iraq? It worked
> out pretty well, no?


Well, I guess *not*, because 20 years later I watched the US Secretary of
State on International Television, telling the United Nations in great
detail that Iraq did indeed have a nuclear program.

[Mary]

Icebound wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point out that you're
> > judging the results in Iraq with typical American impatience.
> >
> > The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I believe history
> > will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we did -- as it
> > will when we are forced to do something in Iran.
> >
>
> Sorry, Jay.
>
> The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history will look very
> favourably.
>
> But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the worst decisions that a
> President of the United States has ever made. Even if the eventual outcome
> produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western participatory democracy
> that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell whether that may not
> have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures of a disenchanted
> populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.

Ahh yes, yearning for the good 'ole days of Saddam Hussein's horrible reign, his
rape rooms, his tortured and mangled bodies, his piles of human ears lobbed off
from those who didn't swear or were suspected of not swearing their loyalty.
The chemical gassing of thousands of humans, each a human life, just as you and
I are. Just like the gas ovens in Germany, how horrible that's over!

>
>
> But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of which is that....
> after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas, ...(and with the
> Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly, against Bin Laden
> and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they were being
> dispersed to oblivion.
>
> The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a training-ground in
> a country where they were not even previously welcome. Now after
> 3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing again.... not to
> oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world, including back in
> Afghanistan.

Yeah they were so unwelcome, Saddam had been funding al-queada. Not to mention
Hamas had a major substation right in downtown Baghdad. Oh bring back the good
old days!

>
>
> ---
>
> It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who not
> only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear secrets
> to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.

The USA was "making nice" with Pakistan for decades before they created an
atomic bomb. So what?

>
>
> But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want electricity.
> Who have agreed to UN IAEA inspections (although the west rejects that
> because we want something more...???).

Yeah, right. And I have a long bridge to sell you. Why would Iran need more
energy? They already sit on top of one of the largest proven oil reserves in
the world. If they need nuclear energy so bad for electricity (doubtful) then
why are they so gung-ho about the need to enrich uranium? Unlike typical US
power reactors, other countries (e.g. Canada, India) have perfectly working
reactors which do NOT need uranium enrichment. Good old U-238 works fine, and
U-238 over 99% of all natural uranium. Answer: U-238 can't be used in a nuclear
bomb. That's why Iran needs to enrich.

[Mary]

Icebound wrote:

>
> Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that they can sell it
> to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own economy, who knows?

Please. Even if they did want atoms for peace, they could take the Canadian
approach and NOT enrich the uranium. Instead they are moving toward enriching
and that is necessary to build a bomb, not necessarily to make electricity.

[Grumman-581]

"Mary" > wrote in message ...
> Yeah they were so unwelcome, Saddam had been funding al-queada. Not to
mention
> Hamas had a major substation right in downtown Baghdad. Oh bring back the
good
> old days!

Yeah, things were so much simplier when Russia was Communist... They kept
all the potential terrorists in line by killing 'em if they spoke out... All
we had to worry about whether we could nuke the world 30 times over before
they could... MAD was so much simplier...

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty bombs
>[because they were so inefficient and large].

Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in order that*
there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.

Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the situation in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:21:10 -0400, Icebound wrote:

>Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that they can sell it
>to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own economy, who knows?

Even Saudi Arabia knows that oil is a finite ressource. Why do they invest
so heavily in tourism and other developments there? They can have a happy
life right now doing nothing, but they are building for a different future
there. A friend of mine is flying for Emirate Airlines nd he sees first
hand what is going on there (and there are dozens of reports in the media
about that).

>(...)
>Will it be greater if the west goes in first,

please don't mix "the west" and "the USA". Thanks.

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:28:28 -0400, Mary wrote:

>I'm sorry that such extreme sacrifice and the lives and families that never
>happened are just "ALL" I can bring up.

You mean: _everybody_ in Europe (or Germany, Austria and other occupied
nations) have been happy following the propaganda and the regime?

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-30, Taylor > wrote:
> Yeah in a few hundred years they will be almost safe enough to be near.

Less than that - Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both bustling cities now.

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:57:45 -0400, Mary wrote:

>> >So if it is such a burden for your great nation to have the honor of hosting
>> >world leaders, why send out the invitations?
>>
>> well, it seems that - just like in your country - the citizens are not
>> always the same opinion as their leaders.
>
>So it sounds like your strange anger has been misplaced and should be redirected
>toward your own leader.

on this point? yes. We should not host the visit of the president of the
USA under these circumstances.
I decide with my vote. It's not much. But at least I do vote.
ah, and I would not call it anger. It's just not OK to restrict rights of
citizens to please a handful politicians. They are hree for us, not we for
them.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-30, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I would have thought that the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London
> might have shocked the peoples of Europe into awareness, but this did
> not happen. Only when Europe outgrows this infantile stage, and truly
> engages in the diplomatic world, will the free world be able to
> effectively counter Islamo-Fascism.
>
> Until then, I'm afraid we're on our own.

<snip>

You seem to have forgotten about Britain, who is currently just about
the United States' only ally. Last time I looked, it was a member of the
European Union.

You can't quite generalize the EU like you can (say) the US: Europe is
not a country, rather, it's an agglomeration of many sovereign
countries, each with their own foreign policy.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who
>> not
>> only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear
>> secrets
>> to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.
>
> That's what happens when you have a nut-job regime that has The Bomb.
> You are forced to deal with it as an equal -- no matter how unsavory
> the country.
>
> Which, of course, is why Iran -- the pariah of the world for 25 years
> -- wants one so badly. Ditto North Korea.

At least China is keeping the lid on North Korea; no such restraint exists
for Iran. In fact, Europe indirectly and Russia DIRECTLY are encouraging
Iran if not egging them on.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> If any state or foreign country would like Durbin they are welcome to him.

I suggest Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Condition: they have to KEEP him

> He has a simple philosophy...he is against everything. I have no idea why
> people vote for him except that he is a democrat and many people in IL
> blindly vote for democrats.

Hmmm...democrats? In that epitome of corruption?

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
>>Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty bombs
>>[because they were so inefficient and large].
>
> Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in order that*
> there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.

They were air bursts because the shock wave spread out, maximizing damage.

>
> Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the situation in
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.

If it had been a surface detonation, the damage would have been
substantially LESS.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>> is this _all_ you can bring up?
>> Europe needed help and asked for it, your prents or grandparents granted
>> the help and we were thankful (and paid our share the coming years).
>
> Well actually you didn't. Most of the debt was forgiven.

Only one nation repaid it's debt (Finland, I think). Most paid back NOTHING.

[Matt Barrow]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:54:16 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:
>
> >So if it is such a burden for your great nation to have the honor of
> >hosting
> >world leaders, why send out the invitations?
>
> well, it seems that - just like in your country - the citizens are not
> always the same opinion as their leaders.

Well brickbrain:

In the US, as opposed to Europe, citizens are still the masters, not the
servants (though many are looking for the teat and our public schools,
devised after the the Prussian (just up the road from you) model, has left
many incapable of rational thought (like the overwhelming majority of
Europeans).

In the US, as opposed to Europe, we're citizens, not subjects.

In the US, as opposed to Europe, govenment exists (ostensibly) to serve the
people, the people don't exist to serve the state or the collective.

In the US, as opposed to Europe, we protect the right of the individual, we
don't make them subservient to "der volk".

In the US, as opposed to Europe, we're generally free thinkers, not parrots
of the rulers.

In the US, as opposed to Europe, we're governed, not ruled.

The reason the Europeans are so fond of the Islamofascists is that they are
so closely allied philosophically. Birds of a feather.

Here is a favorite of both the Islamists and the Europeans:
"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the
conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every
truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_

You know him, don't you, Martin? Your countryman.

Bootkisser.

Come on back, Martin, let's see that childish rationalizing the left is
famous for.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that they can sell it
> to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own economy, who knows?

Are you on some medication we should be aware of?

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Icebound" wrote)
> http://www.cedarland.org/black.html
> I read this today. Found it interesting. Pehaps a parallel situation?
>
>> And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why doesn't the west save
>> a lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn nuclear power
>> plants *for* them, no strings attached. It would cost a lot less than
>> war, in both money and bodies, and they would no longer have any excuse
>> for their own program. Think of it like good old fashioned American
>> litigation...sometimes its cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if
>> you are right. If they persisted with the program in spite of the offer,
>> at least you now have a *real* excuse.

Gee...isn't that about what Bubba and the peanut farmer did for North Korea?

Naiveté in kids is cute; in adults it can be deadly.

Oh well, they can always blame Bush. Somehow.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
>>so why
>>should the USA grant them a sanctuary?
>
> the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of war
> from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
> that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute ..
> you never gave sh*t on international law.
>
> #m
>

Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>so why
>>>should the USA grant them a sanctuary?
>>
>> the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of
>> war
>> from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
>> that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute
>> ..
>> you never gave sh*t on international law.
>>
>> #m
>>
>
> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

50 years....or for Islamofascists, 2,600 years.

[Icebound]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...

>> Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the situation in
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.
>
> If it had been a surface detonation, the damage would have been
> substantially LESS.
>
>

Damage maybe, but not future liveability.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were liveable after 5 years.

Chernobyl reportedly wasn't even a nuclear explosion, just a steam
explosion... but it carried nuclear material from the surface over a wide
area, and is still basically unliveable 20 years later.

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 1 May 2006 07:16:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>You know him, don't you, Martin? Your countryman.

****ing idiot!
have a horrible life,

#m, score adjusted.
I have no nerves to talk with such braindead people like you are.
$%&$§"!$§&!!!!
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Jim Macklin]

They were dirty bombs that used a large amount of uranium
and or plutonium, only a small part was actually fisioned,
but it was all part of the high energy fallout. The bombs
were large and as you said, were air burst at about 2,000
AGL.
A ground penetration bomb was not possible at the time and
an air burst maximized the destructive radius. Today we can
make a bomb that will detonate several hundred feet
underground with minimal ejection of debris.

I would expect that only a few such bombs would be used,
most bombs would be conventional. Oil fields and terminals
would not likely be targeted.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty
bombs
| >[because they were so inefficient and large].
|
| Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in
order that*
| there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.
|
| Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the
situation in
| Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.
|
| - all the best, Dan Ford
|
| Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
| 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Jim Macklin]

Actually evidence shows that hydrocarbons (oil) are present
on the outer planets and moons, which indicates that
petroleum is not a by-product of dead dinosaurs, but a
function of planetary creation.



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:21:10 -0400, Icebound wrote:
|
| >Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that
they can sell it
| >to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own
economy, who knows?
|
| Even Saudi Arabia knows that oil is a finite ressource.
Why do they invest
| so heavily in tourism and other developments there? They
can have a happy
| life right now doing nothing, but they are building for a
different future
| there. A friend of mine is flying for Emirate Airlines nd
he sees first
| hand what is going on there (and there are dozens of
reports in the media
| about that).
|
| >(...)
| >Will it be greater if the west goes in first,
|
| please don't mix "the west" and "the USA". Thanks.
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Jim Macklin]

You have a vote because the USA fought Hitler and stuck with
it until the downfall of the USSR.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:57:45 -0400, Mary wrote:
|
| >> >So if it is such a burden for your great nation to
have the honor of hosting
| >> >world leaders, why send out the invitations?
| >>
| >> well, it seems that - just like in your country - the
citizens are not
| >> always the same opinion as their leaders.
| >
| >So it sounds like your strange anger has been misplaced
and should be redirected
| >toward your own leader.
|
| on this point? yes. We should not host the visit of the
president of the
| USA under these circumstances.
| I decide with my vote. It's not much. But at least I do
vote.
| ah, and I would not call it anger. It's just not OK to
restrict rights of
| citizens to please a handful politicians. They are hree
for us, not we for
| them.
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 1 May 2006 12:31:20 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>You have a vote because the USA fought Hitler and stuck with
>it until the downfall of the USSR.

and in 300 years you still will come up with "hey, we saved Europe ...".
You will by then have ruined the other half of our planet, but the only
thing that will count is what you have done in the 40s of the 20h century.
We are so proud of you, really.

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

[Sylvain]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
you might have wished.

--Sylvain

[Morgans]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote

> We are so proud of you, really.

Who is the Patron Saint of Lost Causes? I need to know, so we can send
him/her your way, 'cause you are surely a lost cause.

Why you can not see the connection between doing nothing, when men of evil
rise to power, and the outbreak of world wars, is beyond me.

It happened before, and it will-was happening again. Do nothing again
Martin? A very dangerous direction to take, indeed.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
>> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?
>
> actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
> that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
> you might have wished.

Yep. It was further punctuation of the lack of a creditable response to the
attacks against US citizens. They kept coming at us. Then you get 9-11.

I do not understand why Martin and some others can not see, that doing
nothing only encourages the attacks to continue, and escalate.

You want to stop a bully? Punch him in the nose. Keep hurting him, until
the cost to him is too high.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Sylvain" wrote)
> actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably? that
> looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what you might
> have wished.


I've looked for the quote in the past - no luck.

Someone in the Israeli government, maybe Moshe Dayan:
'A Superpower should never mount a rescue operation with only six
helicopters.'

http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id8.html
Go from there.

http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm
More from Google


Montblack

[Jose]

> You want to stop a bully? Punch him in the nose. Keep hurting him, until
> the cost to him is too high.

How do you tell when you are =becoming= a bully?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> That's what happens when you have a nut-job regime that has The Bomb.
> You are forced to deal with it as an equal -- no matter how unsavory
> the country.

Are you talking about the United States here?

[Mike Schumann]

And the rest of the world would just sit around and watch? If we
unilaterally used nuclear weapons 1st against anyone, the entire world would
be united against us. The top priority of every country would be to get
their own nuclear arsenal to stop any similar attack on them. In short
order, you'd have a nuclear arms race that would dwarf anything we've ever
seen.

It's amazing to me the inability of people to anticipate even the most
obvious secondary effects of what they advocate.

Mike Schumann

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:sEr5g.6068$8q.60@dukeread08...
> They were dirty bombs that used a large amount of uranium
> and or plutonium, only a small part was actually fisioned,
> but it was all part of the high energy fallout. The bombs
> were large and as you said, were air burst at about 2,000
> AGL.
> A ground penetration bomb was not possible at the time and
> an air burst maximized the destructive radius. Today we can
> make a bomb that will detonate several hundred feet
> underground with minimal ejection of debris.
>
> I would expect that only a few such bombs would be used,
> most bombs would be conventional. Oil fields and terminals
> would not likely be targeted.
>
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
> "Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
> | On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> | > wrote:
> |
> | >Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty
> bombs
> | >[because they were so inefficient and large].
> |
> | Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in
> order that*
> | there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.
> |
> | Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the
> situation in
> | Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.
> |
> | - all the best, Dan Ford
> |
> | Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
> | 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

That is the real threat.

Mike Schumann

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> All the talk about nukes is missing the future WMD, engineered
> viruses. In a few years it will be possible for a very small group of
> people to design and manufacture viruses that are highly contagious
> and cause a high percentage of fatalities. Yes, it would be very hard
> to limit their destruction once released but to fanatics who simply
> hate that does not matter.

[Bob Noel]

In article t>,
"Mike Schumann" > wrote:

> It's amazing to me the inability of people to anticipate even the most
> obvious secondary effects of what they advocate.

indeed. :-/

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

[Private]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote:
>
>> It's amazing to me the inability of people to anticipate even the most
>> obvious secondary effects of what they advocate.
>
> indeed. :-/
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

We have had many discussions here regarding recklessness. I note that it's
definition is "without regard for consequences". It seems to be a lot more
common than we like to admit.

[mike regish]

Ya gotta punch the right bully.

mike

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> You want to stop a bully? Punch him in the nose. Keep hurting him, until
> the cost to him is too high.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 1 May 2006 07:04:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>> Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in order that*
>> there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.
>
>They were air bursts because the shock wave spread out, maximizing damage.

That's not what Leslie Groves said at the time. Sorry. History is what
is is.

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 02:32:17 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> wrote:

>And the rest of the world would just sit around and watch? If we
>unilaterally used nuclear weapons 1st against anyone, the entire world would
>be united against us. The top priority of every country would be to get
>their own nuclear arsenal to stop any similar attack on them.

Not really. If the price of getting your own nuclear arsenal is a
nuclear attack, Iran wouldn't have many followers.

(That's not to say it's a great idea, or a likely scenario.)


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:46:24 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote:

snip

>I also find it intriguing that Second Amendment proponents at home, are
>*not* "Second Amendment proponents" on the world stage. "It's okay to have
>a gun, but only for me and my friends, and I am not so sure about the
>friends".

snip

I really really try to stay out of the whole political morass, but
you've got me seriously puzzled with this one.

You've just perfectly described the views of not only Handguns Inc,
the most vocal "liberal" (the common definition, not mine) Congress
critters & their lackeys/leash-holders, as well as the UN.

I guess my defintion of "Second Amendment proponent" is slightly
different than yours. Maybe we can agree to disagree.

One of my personal all-time favorites was Rosie O's diatribe against
personal ownership of firearms while collecting some serious coin from
one of the largest US retailers of same.

TC

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> At least China is keeping the lid on North Korea; no such restraint exists
> for Iran. In fact, Europe indirectly and Russia DIRECTLY are encouraging
> Iran if not egging them on.

Not quite right: most western European countries have the same position
that the United States has on the matter.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> In the US, as opposed to Europe, citizens are still the masters, not the
> servants

Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens. Take a
look at some of the recent stuff going through US legislation and follow
the money from the person proposing it. I also don't see the US Govt.
listening on things like the awful PATRIOT act either.

> truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_

Oops, you just invoked Godwin's Law there :-)

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
>> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?
>
> actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
> that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
> you might have wished.
>
> --Sylvain

No that was a rescue operation. An appropriate response to an act of war
would have been, well, war.

[Jay Honeck]

> Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.

And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.

I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
democratic than a corporation -- and they are by FAR preferable to sole
proprietorships.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
> perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
> democratic than a corporation -- and they are by FAR preferable to sole
> proprietorships.

The problem with corporations is that they embody control of large
amounts of capital by small amounts of people, said capital being easily
used to unduly influence government against large amounts of other people.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune]

by Martin Hotze > Apr 30, 2006 at 12:10 PM


let's start flaming? oh well, I'd love to *ggggg*
you shouldn't train students or repair aircraft with YOUR mindset ... I'd
freak out knowing that somebody who want's to nuke other human beings is
teaching to survive (flying an aircraft).

<<

Of course you are correct, but maniac CFIs are not uncommon. I trained
(briefly) with one.

I wonder if recreational aviation will still be sailing happily around if
them nukes start flying! Do the preflight, the run up, take off, lean
out the mixture, then, when at cruising altitude, fire up the good old
Randy Newman song, "Political Science":

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-02, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.
>
> And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.

There's nothing wrong with corporations, per se. However, when they are
used by a minority of people holding proportionately very large amounts
of influence to buy legislation, things are getting rotten.

> I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
> perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
> democratic than a corporation

Corporations are only democratic to the extent you have a shareholder
interest in them. Is it right that I should have to buy probably
several hundred million dollars worth of shared in, say, Disney to
prevent Disney from buying Sen Fritz Hollings (D. South Carolina - now
people joke that 'D' no longer means Democrat, but Disney) and proposing
appalling legislation that would effectively prevent independent film
makers from being able to share their stuff over the internet, free of
control of the big film industries?

Corporations aren't democratic in the way a country is (supposedly)
democratic. In the US, every US citizen has the same vote. With
corporations, you have to be a shareholder, and the more shares you buy
the more power you have. In the context of running a corporation, there
is nothing at all wrong with this. However, when it results in these
same shareholders being able to purchase politicians via the company
boardroom to make laws for them that can be used to neuter the competition -
then there's something rotten, and the democratic principles of the
country are being undermined. The ability to buy legislation to impede
competition is also anti free market (i.e. anti-capitalist).

When it gets to the situation that the only realistic choices the
people have left to vote for in a given juristidiction are a few
corporate shills, all bought and paid for by various corporations,
then democracy has been subverted.

I am *PRO* the existence of corporations. However, I am *AGAINST* the
principle that large corporations should be essentially be allowed to
buy legislation to distort the market.

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

[Icebound]

"Mary" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Icebound wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point out that you're
>> > judging the results in Iraq with typical American impatience.
>> >
>> > The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I believe history
>> > will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we did -- as it
>> > will when we are forced to do something in Iran.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, Jay.
>>
>> The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history will look very
>> favourably.
>>
>> But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the worst decisions
>> that a
>> President of the United States has ever made. Even if the eventual
>> outcome
>> produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western participatory democracy
>> that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell whether that may
>> not
>> have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures of a
>> disenchanted
>> populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.
>
> Ahh yes, yearning for the good 'ole days of Saddam Hussein's horrible
> reign, his
> rape rooms, his tortured and mangled bodies, his piles of human ears
> lobbed off
> from those who didn't swear or were suspected of not swearing their
> loyalty.
> The chemical gassing of thousands of humans, each a human life, just as
> you and
> I are. Just like the gas ovens in Germany, how horrible that's over!
>

The sky is blue, the winds are calm, and I'm going flying.

That will add about as much to this debate as does your ridiculous satire..

[Mike Schumann]

Do you think the average stock holder has any chance of influencing what
happens at a company in his portfolio? Have you ever gone to a stockholders
meeting and/or submitted a stockholder proposal?

Just look at what is going on with executive compensation. The whole system
consists of a cabal of about 300 people who sit on each other's boards and
hand out the spoils. If you read your proxy statements in minute detail,
you will discover that at many large US corporations executive compensation
for the top 10 people now accounts for 10 - 25% of total company earnings
(assuming there are any that aren't artificially manufactured).

Similarly, it is now coming out that the 18 wealthiest families in the US
have single handedly financed the lobbying effort to convince the rest of us
that we should get rid of the estate tax.

I used to be a republican in the days when the party stood for fiscal
responsibility and furthering the good of the nation. During the current
administration, the party has sold the country out to the highest bidder.

Mike Schumann

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.
>
> And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.
>
> I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
> perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
> democratic than a corporation -- and they are by FAR preferable to sole
> proprietorships.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Morgans]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> Ya gotta punch the right bully.

Given.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> It happened before, and it will-was happening again. Do nothing again
>> Martin? A very dangerous direction to take, indeed.
>
> I had people in my own family who where short before deportation to a
> concentration camp, they were regular farmers, they only spoke up. YOU
> want
> to tell me *SOMETHING* about living in a regime?

All horrors, indeed. I would think that you would agree with me.

If the world had put a stop to Hitler's aggression early on, instead of
trying to pacify him, perhaps all of the horrors your family experience
would not have happened.

In short, nobody (other nations) did anything, just like I said. Look what
it got you.

In Iraq, we had a man that ruled by terror, killed his *own* subjects with
chemical warfare, banned by most nations, tortured and executed many people.

We as a nation, elected a leader that did not want to sit and do nothing.
The reasons given for invasion were not important. He needed to go. He is
gone. Good.

Perhaps we saved many families, like yours, from having to go through the
persecution, like your family did. I think that it is very likely that is
the case.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:35:33 -0400, John > wrote:
<snip>
>Many or most aircraft mogas STCs prohibit gasoline containing ethanol
>due to its tendency to attack certain seals, gaskets, and parts in
>aircraft fuel tanks, fuel systems, and engines. So for those of you who
>use motor fuel in airplanes, is the lack of motor gasoline that doesn't
>contain ethanol becoming a problem?

>
>By the way ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Enjoy!

I think it's 60% less by volume, but it is clean burning.
If cars can be modified to use ethanol and the team that shows up at
Oshkosh each year burns ethanol, what would it take to convert an
airplane to use fuel with ethanol? I realize on mine with bladder
tanks it might be considerable, OTOH on mine it's not a problem as the
compression is too high to get an autogas STC anyway.

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


>
>
>
>

[Roger]

Man, talk about thread drift!

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

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:01:55 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:

>All the talk about nukes is missing the future WMD, engineered
>viruses. In a few years it will be possible for a very small group of

What do you mean in a few years? According to several limited
incidents and news stories it's possible now.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>people to design and manufacture viruses that are highly contagious
>and cause a high percentage of fatalities. Yes, it would be very hard
>to limit their destruction once released but to fanatics who simply
>hate that does not matter.

[Jose]

> I think it's 60% less by volume, but it is clean burning.

How much gas does it take to run the farm equipment to generate the corn
in the first place?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Roger" wrote)
> Man, talk about thread drift!


Isn't that what the piece of yaw string up on the monitor is for? :-)


Montblack

[Grumman-581]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:36:36 GMT, wrote:

> One of my personal all-time favorites was Rosie O's diatribe against
> personal ownership of firearms while collecting some serious coin from
> one of the largest US retailers of same.

And they basically went belly-up... Cause and effect? One can only
hope so... I hear that their "recovery plan" was that they would buy
out / merge with Sears... Looks like yet another company to avoid...

--
"Which part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' do you not understand?"

[Roger]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:10:36 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> I think it's 60% less by volume, but it is clean burning.
>
>How much gas does it take to run the farm equipment to generate the corn
>in the first place?

It depends on whos figures/studies and results you are willing to
believe. There is a tremendous amount of information out there, in
libraries, text books, and on the Internet and there is less agreement
in it than with the causes of global warming.

"Near as I can tell" it takes the equivalent of one gallon of ethanol
through the growth, harvest, and production cycle to produce roughly
a gallon and a half of product. That is a very small, net energy gain
and far from putting ethanol into a economically competitive position
as an alternative fuel regardless of claims. Also the entire chain is
heavily subsidized along with tax breaks which makes some of the
figures even more suspect.

You can spend hours looking over the results of studies that show
everything from about a 25 to 30% net energy loss to a very large net
energy gain, but nothing about the parameters used in those studies
and the studies mean nothing unless you can see what they took into
consideration. Having raised corn and still owning a small farm which
I rent out, I can say with certainty the study that showed a large net
energy gain had to have left out a lot of items in the cycle that use
a lot of energy. Corn is heavily dependent on growing conditions as
well as herbicides and pesticides. Dry years and wet years make for
lean years. It also takes a lot out of the soil which has to recover
several years before the next crop of corn.

But is it clean burning... wait... I said that before, but it is clean
burning. Actually it'll clean out an engine that's pretty badly
carboned up.

I do think is it a better choice in most cases than MTBE, but
unfortunately not when used in aircraft systems.

In Michigan we have the added problem that they no longer have to
place stickers on the pumps telling what's in the gas. The stickers
only state that the gas meets such and such a standard which may or
may not include ethanol. I believe Michigan has used ethanol from the
"get-go" and not MTBE as we've had Gasohol since the 70's. It took off
in the 70's but a number of the producers went under shortly after the
gas prices went back down. I know of no processes that were turning
in a net energy gain back then.

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


>
>Jose

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> >
> One of my personal all-time favorites was Rosie O's diatribe against
> personal ownership of firearms while collecting some serious coin from
> one of the largest US retailers of same.

Don't forget her armed body guards that she somehow forgot to mention.

>
> TC

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> And the rest of the world would just sit around and watch? If we
> unilaterally used nuclear weapons 1st against anyone, the entire world
> would be united against us. The top priority of every country would be to
> get their own nuclear arsenal to stop any similar attack on them. In
> short order, you'd have a nuclear arms race that would dwarf anything
> we've ever seen.
>
> It's amazing to me the inability of people to anticipate even the most
> obvious secondary effects of what they advocate.

Do you think that same world would retaliate against Iran if they nuked
Israel?

The same world that sits (and sat) by when Israelis' are/were slaughtered?

[Matt Barrow]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
>> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?
>
> actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
> that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
> you might have wished.
>
Well, that would adhere to the _dictionary_ version of the word "response".

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>> Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed
>>> to
>>> respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?
>>
>> actually, wasn't there a 'rescue operation' that failed miserably?
>> that looks like a response to me, even if the outcome is not what
>> you might have wished.
>
> Yep. It was further punctuation of the lack of a creditable response to
> the attacks against US citizens. They kept coming at us. Then you get
> 9-11.
>
> I do not understand why Martin and some others can not see, that doing
> nothing only encourages the attacks to continue, and escalate.

Maybe this will clarify it:
http://europundits.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_europundits_archive.html#11078563676789 9582

>
> You want to stop a bully? Punch him in the nose. Keep hurting him, until
> the cost to him is too high.

Then hit him again just to be sure.

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote
>
>> We are so proud of you, really.
>
> Who is the Patron Saint of Lost Causes? I need to know, so we can send
> him/her your way, 'cause you are surely a lost cause.
>
> Why you can not see the connection between doing nothing, when men of evil
> rise to power, and the outbreak of world wars, is beyond me.
>
> It happened before, and it will-was happening again. Do nothing again
> Martin? A very dangerous direction to take, indeed.

Maybe it's because Martin is rooting for/identifies with, the men of evil.

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 07:04:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in order that*
>>> there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.
>>
>>They were air bursts because the shock wave spread out, maximizing damage.
>
> That's not what Leslie Groves said at the time. Sorry. History is what
> is is.

Leslie Groves, huh. Funny, he and Teller have differing views.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.
>
> And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.
>
> I'm always amused by people who use the word "corporation" in a
> perjorative way. There are very few structures in the world more
> democratic than a corporation -- and they are by FAR preferable to sole
> proprietorships.

Quite so. Even a national corporation has maybe 50,000 votes. Even if the
could get ALL their employees to vote the way the corporation wanted.

The dinky backwater towns that you and I live in has more than that.

If the corporations were our masters, brickbrain Martin needs to explain why
they allow themselves to be litigated against so successfully, even with
virtually no real evidence; that (female sex organ) Erin Brockovich comes
to mind.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-02, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Correction: the corporations are the masters, not the citizens.
>>
>> And what are corporations? Large groups of people, each with a vote.
>
> There's nothing wrong with corporations, per se. However, when they are
> used by a minority of people holding proportionately very large amounts
> of influence to buy legislation, things are getting rotten.

When there is "legislation to be bough", there's something wrong. After all,
as previously put, they may be 50,000 strong, but that's one small towns
vote.

Maybe because those 50,000 are trying to buy their own legislation and the
pols and bureaucrats are more than happy to play both sides. In such cases,
the bureaucrats are the only, and always, the winners.


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

[M]

One thing I predict that will happen after this MTBE to Ethanol
conversion, is that it'll make ethanol free gas *more* available to
areas not required to have oxygenated gasoline. Basically in areas
where CO pollution level is low. (see
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/oxy2.html)

The reason is simple economics. Those metro areas where ethanol is
mandated either by federal regulation or state law have put a great
demand on ethanal, causing its (already subsidized) wholesale price to
exceed gasoline by more than 50c a gallon. Because ethanol must be
blended into gasoline at the terminal facility, no oil company in their
right mind will try to blend ethanol into gasoline unless it's
absolutely mandated.

For states who are contemplating ethanol blending laws this market
phenomenon should give them pause. In the long run it'll also pierce
the fallacy of ethanol being a practical replacement for gasoline in
this country. Too bad it will take the suffering of about 1/4 of the
country to make this happen.


John wrote:
> To those who fly with STCs for motor fuel instead of avgas, is the
> phase-out of MTBE affecting you? The federal government hasn't banned
> MTBE outright (some individual states have) but will not protect oil
> companies from MTBE lawsuits so MTBE is being phased out by next week in
> most places. MTBE isn't the issue here, but ethanol is. Ethanol will
> be replacing MTBE as an oxygenate and is also being promoted as a
> (heavily subsidized) renewable energy mixed with gasoline. MTBE is
> under political attack because it has been found in ground water where
> gasoline has leaked from tanks.
>
> (Apparently gasoline, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, ethanol, and other
> pump gasoline ingredients don't bother people as much when they leak
> from the same gasoline tanks, but that is understandable since the human
> body can smell or taste MTBE in fare more quantities in drinking water
> than these other carcinogenic contaminants.)
>
> Many or most aircraft mogas STCs prohibit gasoline containing ethanol
> due to its tendency to attack certain seals, gaskets, and parts in
> aircraft fuel tanks, fuel systems, and engines. So for those of you who
> use motor fuel in airplanes, is the lack of motor gasoline that doesn't
> contain ethanol becoming a problem?
>
> By the way ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline. Enjoy!

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Maybe it's because Martin is rooting for/identifies with, the men of
> evil.


I don't think you "get" Marty, at all.


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Do you think that same world would retaliate against Iran if they nuked
> Israel?
>
> The same world that sits (and sat) by when Israelis' are/were slaughtered?


If I'm advising Iran, my advice would be to make their first strike a good
one - for it will be their last!


Montblack

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> When there is "legislation to be bough", there's something wrong. After all,
> as previously put, they may be 50,000 strong, but that's one small towns
> vote.

Generally, in today's climate, you need to spend quite a lot of money to
actually be electable. It's just a fact of life. The companies that
sponsor politicians want something for their money. While it's certainly
true that not every politician has sold out, there is a notable minority
that have sold out - and propose legislation on behalf of their
corporate masters. While it's a minority, the rest of the democratic
process that a bill must go through can certainly get rid of the most
egregious cases.

If this is left to grow unchecked (and thanks to voter apathy, there is
a danger of this) there is a danger you end up with the sort of
democracy that Britain had in the 1700s. If I remember right, some
people in Boston got upset about that and threw their tea in the
harbour. It might be harder this time around though - small arms don't
do all that well against tanks, F-16s and laser guided bombs.

> Maybe because those 50,000 are trying to buy their own legislation and the
> pols and bureaucrats are more than happy to play both sides. In such cases,
> the bureaucrats are the only, and always, the winners.

And democracy gets subverted.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > Maybe it's because Martin is rooting for/identifies with, the men of
> > evil.
>
> I don't think you "get" Marty, at all.

Perhaps you can explain him, cuz I don't "get" him anymore, either.

For a guy whose family was impacted by Hitler's horrors, he certainly
doesn't appear to have learned a damned thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Grumman-581]

On Tue, 2 May 2006 23:12:58 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:
> If I'm advising Iran, my advice would be to make their first strike a good
> one - for it will be their last!

I would advise them to contemplate ****ing glowing camels...

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> When there is "legislation to be bough", there's something wrong. After
>> all,
>> as previously put, they may be 50,000 strong, but that's one small towns
>> vote.
>
> Generally, in today's climate, you need to spend quite a lot of money to
> actually be electable. It's just a fact of life.

I give you -- Barry Saunders...and a whole bunch more.

But the point was regarding people already in office.

> The companies that
> sponsor politicians want something for their money. While it's certainly
> true that not every politician has sold out, there is a notable minority
> that have sold out - and propose legislation on behalf of their
> corporate masters.

Now it's the politicians who are the servants...the point was citizens. I've
already pointed out the consequences of allowing politicians to manipulate
the economy (sans Constitutional authority, it's called "corruption").


Please stop running off on tangents or start a different thread.

> While it's a minority, the rest of the democratic
> process that a bill must go through can certainly get rid of the most
> egregious cases.
>
> If this is left to grow unchecked (and thanks to voter apathy, there is
> a danger of this) there is a danger you end up with the sort of
> democracy that Britain had in the 1700s.

It's been virtually unchecked since before the US Civil War, and that
accelerated the problem.

[Skylune]

by Marissa Bealey > Apr 30, 2006 at 11:59 AM



If any of this makes any sense at all to you and you live in Illinois,
keep voting for that guy. If you missed the discussion, I think CNBC will
rerun it tonight.

<<

It makes complete sense to ADM corp., and the corn farmers in IL and IA.

[Skylune]

by "Jim Macklin" > Apr 29, 2006 at
10:12 AM


Another reason for high prices now, is that some states have
mandated a ratio of E85 to regular petroleum gasoline in
pump sales. But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline. Maybe the
President's lifting the EPA rules will also alter state law,
he is blamed for the shortage, hope he has the power to wave
a magic wand and fix the market shortage of refineries,
distillation plants and political unrest in the world. But
it isn't that easy.
First thing, build more refineries, second nuke IRAN so that
the uncertainty about the future supply will go away. It
will also remind a lot of people that it is better to fight
a nuclear war when only one side has the bomb. We will use
small, 3 to 300 kilo ton deep earth penetrating bombs to
take out the underground hardened factories with minimal
above ground damage or radiation release. As the Fonz said,
"You've got to hit someone every once in a while" to keep
your reputation.


Jim


<<

Until the AOPA's Phil Boyer "takes on" the Iranians and their nuclear
ambitions, nothing will be done. Boyer must realize the potential damage
that nuclear war would have on recreational GA. Why is he silent?

Perhaps he is still quietly mourning the loss of his counterpart in
Australia, killed in a small plane crash recently.....

[Dave Stadt]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> For a guy whose family was impacted by Hitler's horrors, he certainly
>> doesn't appear to have learned a damned thing.
>
> almost everybody was impacted by the horrors, back then, IMHO. So there is
> nothing really special to the situation.
>
> when talking with one person in my family, she is about 70 and lived in a
> rather remote area during that time, the one thing I learned from her and
> I
> hear here saying it like she is standing right here now: "no war, I don't
> want a war - it was so awful".

The alternative was?

>
> #m
> --
> [...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
> Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
> just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> <http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

[Jim Macklin]

That's is what England and the European nations did, from
1935 to September 1939, when war was forced upon them. Had
they slapped Hitler down, WWII might not have happened and
the Nazi death camps might not have been built. War is
sometime necessary and lesser evil than the 'peace option."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
|
| > > I
| > > hear here saying it like she is standing right here
now: "no war, I don't
| > > want a war - it was so awful".
| >
| > The alternative was?
|
| would have been: not start a war in the first place.
|
|
| for the future: do everything to prevent a war.
|
| #m
| --
| [...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview
mirror.
| Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing
one day,
| just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
|
<http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> > The alternative was?
>
> would have been: not start a war in the first place.
>
> for the future: do everything to prevent a war.

at any cost?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > The alternative was?
>
> would have been: not start a war in the first place.
>
> for the future: do everything to prevent a war.

Hey -- great idea!

Of course, that doesn't work too well unless everyone is on the same
sheet of music. Or do you think the Polish people should have done
something more to avoid war with Germany?

France, too? Or Britain? How about America?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
>>> for the future: do everything to prevent a war.

>> at any cost?

> the theoretic answer: yes, sure.
> the more practical answer: I have no idea how I personally would react.
> I'v never been to such a situation where my life was at stake.


The Romans had a little thing that was called Carthaginian Peace.

http://www.answers.com/topic/carthaginian-peace


Montblack

[Dave Stadt]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>
>> > I
>> > hear here saying it like she is standing right here now: "no war, I
>> > don't
>> > want a war - it was so awful".
>>
>> The alternative was?
>
> would have been: not start a war in the first place.

The alternative was to live under Hitler. Most people would and did prefer
war. I find it hard to believe there are people now and then that cannot
figure that out.

> for the future: do everything to prevent a war.
>
> #m
> --
> [...] Then I drove home with one eye glued to the rearview mirror.
> Didn¹t see anything suspicious but if I turn up missing one day,
> just forward my mail to General Delivery, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> <http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7624.shtml>

[Newps]

> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
>>for the future: do everything to prevent a war.


Of course but the problem for the EU is that your new paradigm is called
Olympianism and it will be your downfall. You now believe there is
never a good reason for a war, every disagreement can be overcome simply
by talking it out. Also that the EU as a whole is more important and
takes precedence to any one nation of the EU. Once again you are
heading down the wrong path. Don't worry, we'll be here to pull your
nuggets out of the fire again.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:


>
>
>> You now believe there is
>>never a good reason for a war,
>
>
>
> you say there are good reasons to _start_ a war?

Yes and the question proves my point.


>
>
>>every disagreement can be overcome simply
>>by talking it out. Also that the EU as a whole is more important and
>>takes precedence to any one nation of the EU.
>
>
> in the USA there is only Texas that seems to be more important than any
> other state :-) .. or they believe so.


Apples and oranges. Your states over there are soverign countries
assembled into a loose federation kind of like a country. Our states
are not like that.

[Grumman-581]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:40:18 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:
> in the USA there is only Texas that seems to be more important than any
> other state :-) .. or they believe so.

Well, we were our own country for nearly 10 years, having fought for
independence from Mexico... After another 15 years, we realized that
we had made a mistake and left the union... After 4 years of fighting,
the US installed a repressive puppet government, of which we are still
afflicted by today... There are some who still work today to regain
independence...

http://www.republic-of-texas.net