We Are All Spaniards

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
You said, and I quote "But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with
the help of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
since the war." Sounds like your lumping ALL Iraqi's together (or
did you snip too much?).

I'm sorry, I just don't see how pointing out that there are Iraqis on
two different sides of a conflict lumps them all together. Perhaps you
could explain.

I'm guessing you meant (if you did't have such a propensity for sniiping
EVERYTHING that sets context we wouldn't have the issue) that "But Iraqis
ARE the opposition, too," means they are on both side of the battle. Now,
we might as well close because the origin of discussion is lost and it's
down to vauge, obtuse snippets.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
So they cram in twice the crap. Hell, our commercials are better then
BBC
TV.

Well, I have to wonder why US tv has had to buy so many show formats
from the BBC, then.

"Has" to? It's called a free market. The only ones who buy them is our
Public TV (PBS) and they come in down around 87th in ratings (Unless it's
Monty Python).

Geez...how far would the BBC go without a state monopoly? No wonder you
can't figure out why things are getting better.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source.
The hydrogen comes
from oil, and you lose some of the oil's energy in the process.

Misleading and/or just plain wrong.

Why is it wrong?

If hydrogen is an energy source, where are the hydrogen wells/collection
facilities? Answer: there are none.
Hydrogen either must be obtained by breaking chemical bonds in oil
(therefore using oil), or breaking the chemical bonds in water (with,
for example, electrolysis). Breaking chemical bonds takes energy and
resources. There just isn't a bunch of hydrogen floating around for us
to extract - the hydrogen is all bonded to some other atom (bummer).

How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
required for fueld cells?

Or do you have a marvellous scheme for breaking the laws of
thermodynamics?

Do you have anything other than weaseling?

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
stuff.

Absolute Bull****!!!

If that's absolute bull****, why did the PM programme on Radio 4 last
week have a substantial article on how things have improved in Iraq last
week?

Last week, huh?

Why have they been mentioning improvements in the general life of
Iraqis, including interviews with people living there on several
occasions over the last few weeks?

Wow...after a year of propaganda...


You are clueless, I'm afraid.

And you're gullible...I'm sure.

"Shiver Me Timbers" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:

And you're gullible...I'm sure.

And you talk too much... I've noticed

And what business is it of yours, SFB?

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
required for fuel cells?

Auburn University has developed a method of separating the hydrogen from diesel
fuel. Preliminary results indicate that a truck using fuel cells fed by their
separator gets about 3 times as many miles per gallon as a conventional diesel
truck of the same size. I only saw the one AP article about it, however, and
who knows how accurate it is. One of the unanswered questions is what happens to
the carbon and sulphur which is separated out. The article also said that the
military is getting involved. That would slow down its availability in the
civilian market if the Army wants to keep a competitive advantage (which they
will).

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

And you're gullible...I'm sure.

And you talk too much... I've noticed

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Even our "failed" puppet governments in South America during the 70s and 80s
are now being viewed as battle-fronts of the Cold War. Installing a corrupt
leader in Guatemala may have appeared awful at the time, but in the titanic
struggle against the Soviet Union, even these "defeats" may have contributed
decisively to our ultimate victory.

It's certainly possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that
those actions made *more* countries want to side with and support the
soviets. After all, it made siding with *us* seem unacceptable, and
what else was there? So perhaps it greatly strengthened the SU and
greatly extended the cold war.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Well, I have to wonder why US tv has had to buy so many show formats
from the BBC, then.

"Has" to? It's called a free market. The only ones who buy them is our
Public TV (PBS) and they come in down around 87th in ratings (Unless it's
Monty Python).

I said "formats" not "shows". There are plenty of commercial TV stations
in the US which show programmes with US "cast" but which the format was
bought off the BBC.

Geez...how far would the BBC go without a state monopoly? No wonder you
can't figure out why things are getting better.

What monopoly? Last time I looked at my dad's digital TV channel
listing, the BBC had 4 of possibly 200 channels. Hardly a monopoly.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Hydrogen either must be obtained by breaking chemical bonds in oil
(therefore using oil), or breaking the chemical bonds in water (with,
for example, electrolysis). Breaking chemical bonds takes energy and
resources. There just isn't a bunch of hydrogen floating around for us
to extract - the hydrogen is all bonded to some other atom (bummer).

How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
required for fueld cells?

It doesn't matter how much - energy will be lost in the process. If you
do make a more efficient system utilizing a fuel cell (which you should
be able to - for a vehicle, fuel cell + battery + regenerative braking
should be much more efficient than today's internal combustion engines +
friction brakes) you are still using a resource that is very definitely
finite. It still doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics (no free
lunch) and our burgeoning population is still dependent on oil to feed
itself.

All you've offered is vague insults, and you still haven't explained why
my belief in the laws of thermodynamics is somehow "misleading" or
"inaccurate".

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"