magnetic field

[C What I Mean]

You guys are all sick!... that transformer blow up wasn't some thing to
marvel over..... It didn't explode loud enough!....LOL!!!!


"LesioQ" <Piotr.Kucharski@stream.pl> wrote in message
news:1ed6861.0306270330.2c5170cb@posting.google.com...

Would make a nice crescendo to a laser show.

Could try some remote beam ignition FX ... 1 gallon plastic fuel can
shot by series of BIG pulses .... ?
LesioQ

 

[Precious Pup]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Stealing begins and ends WHENEVER YOU cause a man to work more hours
for YOU than YOU do for HIM and try to call that a fair bargain!!!

I fell asleep. Remind me about what the fuck you're buzzing on and on about.

 

[Precious Pup]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:03:06 -0700, Precious Pup
<barking@wrongtree.org> wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:


Stealing begins and ends WHENEVER YOU cause a man to work more hours
for YOU than YOU do for HIM and try to call that a fair bargain!!!

I fell asleep. Remind me about what the fuck you're buzzing on and on about.

It was actually a pretty deep point all by itself, if take the
careful time to think about it and remember your Western
Civilization courses. Transitions to sedentary groups had an
almost invarient social stratification which took place, then.
(Except, it appears, for the New Guinea population which also
invented agriculture about 7000 years ago and never did stratify
-- still rather egalitarian, there. Perhaps they just didn't
develop the gene others did.) Anyway, some people took
advantage of accidental providence or sheer strategy to place
themselves in better circumstances and to keep it that way.
It's easy to see how evolution may encourage that as a
successful phenotype. But social progress is often a matter of
opposing those natural tendencies -- certainly, the development
of the scientific method qualifies, in this regard.

Anyway, I hadn't been following any of these conversations
except to skip over them. But this one stuck out as a gem, all
by itself. Didn't even need a context.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

Precious Pup <barking@wrongtree.org> wrote in message news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1@wrongtree.org>...

Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[ActualGeek]

In article <7c584d27.0306260958.589069db@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:<ActualGeek-D67C63.23481325062003@corp.supernews.com>...
In article <3EF8E351.1857@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

snip

But this is typical for americas education system-- they don't teach
the
difference... in fact, I think not knowing the difference is their
educational goal.
------------------
You're a shit and a liar.
-Steve

You and I both know that I am the one who has been honest here

Your claim to "honesty" just means that you have either a poor, or a
very selective memory.

... which
is why I'm calm, while you are tearing your hair out.

Got any evidence for this claim? It is a lot to read into a seven word
declarative sentence.

It doesn't have to be this way.

You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

You are repeating my complaint against you back at me?

Sorry, that just shows I was right in the first place (And you're not
very creative.)

But then, if you had an argument in support of socialism (say, one that
doesn't involve pretending that walmart doesn't exist, or that
capitalism is failing in ways it isn't) you'd present it (we'd hope.)

Until you do, you have nothing.

 

[ActualGeek]

In article <3EFBAD73.3165@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3EF8DDED.7E92@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Actually, I'm not ignoring it-- I'm pointing out that by eliminating
the
medium of exchange, you elimiante the division of labor, forcing people
to live a life uf subsistance.
--------------------------
Nonsense. Labor is the only medium of exchange, we keep track of our
social contribution of authorized labor hours by publically accessible
computers using simple secure servers software.

And when I refuse to participate, I assume you'll hunt me down and kill
me?
-------------------
We won't have to, you'll starve because you can't buy food without doing
your job.

On the contrary, here living in a land that is far from the workers
"paradise" you advocate, I am not starving. On the other hand, when
we've had starvation in the last 100 years, it was always when people
were trying to create the system you describe.

Funny how starvation is so closely correlated with socialism. Could it
be a coincidence? Or have you got a better explanation>?

Except that many of the people subject to your system will be gladly
trading their un-AUTHORIZED labor with me for the commodities your
tyranny fails to provide them.
----------------------
Nope, they will be killed immediately by public torture and their
relatives forbidden to ever mention their name.

Yes, and after you kill everyone with ability, what will you do then?
Stalin did this and millions starved. There's that starvation again.

And they will defend me and keep me
hidden-- they know a good thing when they see it.
-----------------------
We don't need a warrant to will do spot checks of absolutely everywhere.
You can live in a hole and eat bugs.

Ah, the totalitarian petty dictator comes out!

You must have some mighty insecurities to drive you to such a level of
psychosis!

This has been tried, and BETTER! You knwo what they say-- those who are
ignorant of history are doomed to repeate stupid ideas on the internet.
--------------------------
Nope, hasn't. The methods are universal, that's what confuses you.
This will be a system nobody even WANTS to frustrate, you'll have
far too much to lose and so much to gain by cooperating. No rent,
no eviction, universal health, power, education, DSL and cable,
educational TV that isn't crap, no worries, simply work a part time
job in a pleasant surrounding and sign up for more work if you want
to buy a consumer item.

Yes, that's always the cumon with you guys. But as you admitted below--
there is no freedom in that society-- if you disagree, if you think
different, you will be hunted down and killed.

So, as you clearly indicate, you are offering slavery with allegedly
nice perks--- and you don't even have a way to show how there won't be
mass starvation as has happened in the past when people sold the very
same snake oil you're selling.

You're a psychopath-- you have repeatedly called for mass death, and
advocated the starvation, or execution of millions.

I've got news for you Steve, when you come to try and kill me, you will
be the one who dies.

No landlords, no debt, no opression.

No freedom, no intellectualism allowed, nothing but oppression, and
death, is your proposal.

The real question is, why do you want to enslave everyone?
---------------------------
Only the rich would see it as "enslavement", and only because THEY
would be forbidden to enslave others!! The rich see enslaving others
as some kind of a weird "freedom". That's a LIE!
Steve

Ah yes, if we only did what you told us, under penalty of death to do-
we'd truely be free!

Doing what we want is slavery, you say! Ha!

You're definately a psychotic. Just like all socialists... you're just
aren't hiding it very well.

 

[ActualGeek]

In article <3EFBB3E5.4DE8@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3EF8E31B.5CB6@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

In article <3EF2CEFD.10EB@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

ActualGeek wrote:

IF you think Coca-Cola doesn't know how many cans of soda they sell
in
every zip code in the country, every week of the year, going back
decades-- so that they can predict exactly how many will sell next
week
using that data-- you're not thinking very well.
-----------------
That's NOT some Capitalist "magic", you know, all it takes is
delivery
records, those are independent of the economic system.
-Steve

Gee, yet you think even delivery records don't exist in capitalism!

How sad!
---------------------
No, moron, I said that capitalism has no claim of magical "unseen hand"
free-market joo-joo based on purchase and delivery records,
since EVERY system has that, even Communism!

-Steve

You can't even be honest about what you said, let along about what
others have said.
--------------------
You fucking liar, you try to twist out of every decent point of
discussion, you're no more than disingenuous dishonest scum.
-Steve

How can we have a discussion when you are never able to rise above
calling me names and threatening to kill me, and millions like me?

 

[ActualGeek]

In article <7c584d27.0306281505.24150f8@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Precious Pup <barking@wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1@wrongtree.org>...
Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

 

[Charles Schuler]

"Andre" <testing_h@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cf14c.0306261126.1597a8b2@posting.google.com...

http://205.243.100.155/frames/mpg/XfrmBlast1.mpg

So, what actually happened? Did a squirrel get into the substation? Or, a
golfer looking for a ball?. Never mind ... same thing.

 

[Larry]

"Idiots" huh?

I believe that name calling also violates the Usenet etiquette rules which
pretty much cancels out your opinion on the matter. Top posted for your
pleasure...

Larry

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:mliufv0filab6v6rfnmtjk4ku5omdnipoc@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:51:51 GMT, "C what I mean" <pythan@pacbell.net
Gave us:

LOL!!!


Why do all you idiots top post? This is usenet. I mean, I know
that it is easy to follow Bill and his stupidity with Outlook and
Outlook Express, but people please... BONE UP on usenet posting
protocols.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Andre]

"Charles Schuler" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<V_ScnWrEOoclzWKjU-KYvQ@comcast.com>...

"Andre" <testing_h@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cf14c.0306261126.1597a8b2@posting.google.com...
http://205.243.100.155/frames/mpg/XfrmBlast1.mpg



So, what actually happened? Did a squirrel get into the substation? Or, a
golfer looking for a ball?. Never mind ... same thing.

The result after that lot, it would be difficult to determine who or
what caused it !

-A

 

[DarkMatter]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:56:05 -0700, "Larry"
<nospam@sorry.wishididnhaveto.com> Gave us:

"Idiots" huh?

I believe that name calling also violates the Usenet etiquette rules which
pretty much cancels out your opinion on the matter. Top posted for your
pleasure...

There is a big difference between protocol and etiquette, obvious
idiot.

 

[Skywise]

serotone@hotmail.com (Adrian Pistritto) wrote in
news:8b41ac58.0306301824.307c3dbe@posting.google.com:

I take it that was a substation behind a big fence...bit hard to tell
but what the hell are they doing running gas pipes that close to high
voltage? bit silly me thinks...

Are there any websites with this on there describing what exactly we
are looking at? I could only find the video on one site and didn't
explain what it was...


Snipola

I got the impression that it was an electrical fire probablt in a
transformer. After a while it appears that there was some sort of
woter spray, possibly an automatic fire system and that seemed
to initiate the explosion. My guess was that the fire was then
being fed by the oil from the ruptured transformer.

Brian

 

[Richard Parris]

"Bert Hickman" <bert.hickman@delete_this.aquila.net> wrote in message
news:3F01024A.7000706@delete_this.aquila.net...

Adrian Pistritto wrote:
I take it that was a substation behind a big fence...bit hard to tell
but what the hell are they doing running gas pipes that close to high
voltage? bit silly me thinks...

Are there any websites with this on there describing what exactly we
are looking at? I could only find the video on one site and didn't
explain what it was...


Hi Adrian,

Here's a likely scenario:
This is a substation that was used to step down a relatively high power
transmission voltage to a lower voltage for local power distribution
within a community. It consisted of a rather large oil filled
transformer and associated switchgear. For some reason, the low voltage
side of the substation developed an arcing fault, probably to ground.
The arc could have even been initiated by a small animal, such as a
squirrel. The arc is like a huge welding arc that's several feet long,
and it's destroying any piece of equipment that lies in its path. For
some reason the substation's safety hardware fails to detect the
problem, so high voltage power remains on, continuing to wreak havoc
inside the substation. The fault current eventually overheats and fries
the substation's transformer which ultimately fails spectacularly.

The loud humming sound is from the low voltage arc and from 120 Hz
vibrations of the windings as tremendous repulsion forces act between
the primary and secondary (Lenz's Law). There are no gas pipes - what
you are seeing is superheated oil vapor venting from the overheated
transformer as a white mist, which then catches fire. This appears to be
followed by the a structural failure of the transformer's tank, allowing
burning oil to spill out of the burned out transformer. The big
blue-white flash and load explosion is from either a substation
expulsion fuse blowing (which sounds like a stick of dynamite going off)
or from a brief phase-to-phase short-circuit which caused an upstream
oil circuit breaker to open. This finally kills power to the now
devastated substation.

That's the impression that I got too. Rather nasty end to a transformer...

Best regards,

-- Bert --
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by Ultrastrong Fields,
Lichtenberg Figures (electrical discharges in acrylic), & Scarce OOP
Technical Books. Stoneridge Engineering -- http://www.teslamania.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[idlemuse]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0306290900.617c90be@posting.google.com>...

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4CF873.01551929062003@corp.supernews.com>...
In article <7c584d27.0306281505.24150f8@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Precious Pup <barking@wrongtree.org> wrote in message
news:<3EFC791A.2B38A0A1@wrongtree.org>...
Bill Sloman wrote:


Go away and
try to learn what honest arguement involves.

Go away and try to learn.

Go away, I wasn't talking to you.

You need to learn how to construct some kind of sequential arguement,
before we can get onto difficult concepts like "honest" and
"dishonest".

Actual Geek can more or less manage that (though his attention span
leaves something to be desired) and in this respect he leaves you
trailing in the dust.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Getting back on the point.

Bill, you have failed to show how there's an information problem in
capitalism, and you haven't even tried to explain why we need to solve
it.

I've just been reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression
Economics" ISBN 0-14-028685-3 which fairly clearly indicates that
there is an information problem with modern more-or-less free market
capitalism, and that the people in the business of regulating the free
market economies of the world don't have enough information to be able
anticipate and smooth out the instabilities of the currency and
capital markets.

Krugman has been hoping for a return of depression economics for
decades. Any problem faced by the economy at large will be faced by
the regulators of the economy. There is hubris in pretending that you
know what the market is supposed to be doing, and Krugman just can't
shake that control fetish. Let the decentralized decisions of market
participants act on the information they have and regulate to the
least extent possible, and you might avoid a catastrophic unintended
consequence of regulations that affect all market participants.

The information about the economy that these people are working with
is what is manifest on the stock and currency markets from day-to-day,
and what governements reveal about their current and expected incomes
and expenditures. Everything is denoted in terms of its monetary
value, and the purchase of a single 747 which took nearly a year to
build and is expected to keep flying for twenty to thirty years could
be equated with the sale of ten million Harry Potter books.

As a scheme, it works surprisingly well - better than anything else
that has been tried so far - but it is obviously sub-optimal.

It works surprisingly well because people make continual adjustments
every second of every day. Check the price of ten million Harry Potter
books the day after they are bought and compare it to the price of a
747 the day after it is bought. Interference in the incentives of the
market lead to perverse choices on the part of market participants,
who no longer can trust the information that prices were supposed to
be giving them.

Finally, you would then need to explain how a centralized economy would
be able to do a better job than a distributed one... given that
distributed economies are successful because decisions get made at the
place where the people with the most understanding of the situation can
make the decision.

I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and if
we could find a way of making this information available outside the
firms who collect the data for their own use, we should be able to
devise a *distributed* control system that ought to be more stable,
and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

The price, at least theoretically, contains all of the information you
might be interested in, doesn't it?

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed,
or been far less successful than less centrally planned economies of
similar conditions.

Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy this is
irrelevant, though a centrally planned economy with modern data
collection and processing ought to be more efficient than the system
that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have more
central planning than India, and grew their economies twice as fast
during the catch-up phase, some central planning would seem to be a
good idea.

That is a murky issue. I don't know that I'd hold up India as an
example of notably less government interference than most other
developing countries, it only has less government interference than it
used to have. Its reduction in regulation allowed it to grow at all,
which was not the case before. To compare across countries would be a
much larger task.

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since they
gave up central planning and curtailed government interference-- they
have doubled the incomes, on average, of a billion people.

Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year - respectable
for a third world economy catching-up, but half the rate achieved by
Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up phases. Neither Japan,
Korea nor China gave up central planning and government interference,
though this has been used more to direct capitalist investment than to
control it.

Japan, for example, flung open the export doors right out of the gate.
A good portion of their growth had to do with the extent to which they
adopted market friendly policies. We will never know exactly, of
course. Krugman would argue one way and P.T. Bauer would argue the
other looking at the same cases.

They've done more in 20 years to defeat poverty-- using capitalism--
than all the socialist systems ever tried.

That depends what you mean by "socialist".

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every time.

If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest 30
or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started dismantling
welfare?

It doesn't work poorly. It only works poorly if you discount
charitable giving from poverty alleviation, and if you discount that
the amount of goods available for redistribution is greater.

The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
eventually more productive workers.

More productive? I would have to see those figures. You are telling me
that countries with near infinite unemployment benefits, mandatory 30
hour work weeks, mandatory breaks during the day for all laborers,
regulations that prevent anyone from firing incompetent labor, and
extremely high debt to GDP ratios have more productive labor forces?

Will Hutton's "The World We're In"

ISBN 0-316-86081-6 reviews a great deal economic research on this and
other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
long out of date).

Lots of books paint pictures about the U.S. Not all pictures are
accurate. Europe has been waiting for us to grow up and become
civilized socialists with no respect for individual liberty for a long
time. We just as a culture have different ideas about what
constitutes progress. A state where everyone can wait in line for an
asprin with equal ability has some virtues, but so does a state where
some people can get brain surgery.

Unsurprisingly, it is out of stock a www.amazon.com (but US dealers
will sell you an airmailed copy of the U.K. edition for $25.72).
www.amazon.co.uk have stocks of the paperback at eight U.K.pounds per
copy (about $12).

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Ben Bradley]

In sci.electronics.design, "Frank Bemelman"
<bemelmanx@euronet.nl.invalid> wrote:

What if ISP's charges 1 cent for every email/usenet posting they
process? Wouldn't that put a hold on most spammers? I don't mind
paying 1 cent per email or posting.

This would work if all email went through the respective ISP's
servers. Almost all legitimate emails do. Most spammers abuse insecure
systems (usually in foreign countries such as Korea) which relay
emails for anyone (who knows a few technical details and how to find
these open servers), so spammers are already going around the ISP that
would be charging for email. They've been doing this "relay rape" for
years.
One problem with charging is if you charge for every recipient
message generated by your sending a message (which would be how it
would have to work to make spam pay its own way), mailing lists would
no longer be viable. I'm on a couple of lists with over 500
subscribers. A single post to such a list would then cost five
dollars.
Usenet operates differently, but probably has as many security
holes in it as email. Half the people on the Internet don't know what
Usenet or newsgroups are, and ISTR that only 20 percent of people
online ever read or post to newsgroups, so unless there's an easy fix
that gets implemented, I have less hope that anything can or will be
done to stop Usenet spam, and I'm not that hopeful about stopping
email spam.

Yet another link with antispam information:
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l
This site is down at the moment, but ISTR there was a mirror
somewhere. I just asked and will post the URL if I get it.

I subscribed to spam-l in 1997, thinking that the spam problem
would be essentially solved in a year or two. I was so naive...

--
Thanks,
Frank Bemelman
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030630192304.18833.00002241@mb-m20.news.cs.com...

Sure, and the cost will be how many dollars per mile?

I would guess about $0.05/mile.

OK, and I'll guess $100.00/mile. Since they're
both just unsubstantiated guesses, mine's as likely to be
correct as yours is.

Now SHOW me I'm wrong....


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030630200253.18833.00002245@mb-m20.news.cs.com...

Nope, you're not even close. You've given no clue of any practical or
even
possible means of achieving what you propose, especially since it's
already
been pointed out that your notions of what
is basically ultrafine etching don't get you anywhere.

The general idea is still good.

Not until you show WHY you think it's still good.

I can't help it if you don't understand this.

I can't help it if you have no vision.

Vision, I've got plenty of. What I also have, though, that
you seem to lack, is the ability to back up my statements
with evidence and reasoning.

No, no, no no. I do not believe this to be irrelevant or ignorable - I
believe
this to be the central point of eer. Eer would collect and store ALL the
energy we wanted, from ANY source.

No, it wouldn't. Show me I'm wrong.

But you're not even at the point of actually HAVING a valid opinion on
this,

Say YOU!

Yes, says me. Again, SHOW that I'm wrong.

Or here's an even better check on exactly how valid your
opinions are - simply answer the following question:

What are the DISadvantages of "EER"?

Think very carefully before responding with "there aren't
any!". Do you REALLY want to be claiming that there is such
a thing as a perfect system? To do so involves certain very
interesting contradictions, and will only demonstrate that you
don't understand what you're proposing very well at all. A
person who REALLY understands their proposal knows both
its good points and its bad points - so what are the bad points
in yours?

so the above statement is irrelevant. Come back with an informed
opinion,
and we'll talk further.

You are just stupid.

Yup, that's me. Stupid, not to believe in crackpot "free
energy" ideas that violate the most basic concepts in physics.
But perhaps I can still be educated - it would be nice if
SOMEONE would come along and explain just how these
things are supposed to work, to achieve this energy utopia
of yours.

Suppose we WOULD somehow manage to capture all of the solar energy
that
strikes the Earth, and that feeds a system that is so inefficient that
only
1% of that energy actually winds up as usable in the end. You would say
"no
problem - we have a big enough energy source that even that 1% is more
than
enough, and the energy we
put into the system at the start is so cheap that that 1% is still
practically 'free'!" That's fine - but what do you think happened to the
99%
that DIDN'T make it "out the end of the
pipe"?

Who CARES, actually!

You do - you just are so ignorant of anything relevant to this field that
you
don't realize it yet.

A long time ago, I realized that there was a blindness in here.

And yet you persist. You know, one of the more common
simple definitions of "insanity" is repeating the same action over
and over again, and hoping for a different outcome....

Well, you could easily move "EER" into a different category than Mr.
Claus
through one simple step: show an example.

Eer is it's OWN category.

Yes - it's still nonsense, while at least Santa Claus is
charming, traditional nonsense.

Until you do that, you're just blowing hot air. And come to think of it,
that's the only energy source you've REALLY contributed since you started
all
this nonsense.

It is the only one we NEED!

Hot air? Apparently....


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"Bill Bowden" <**76606.611_@compuserve.com*> wrote in message
news:MN9Ma.30998$3o3.2258423@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Well, Bush would prefer Davis remain in office so he can win California
in 2004, so this whole thing may be a catch 22. Whoever holds the
governor's office in 2004 is bound to be thrown out,

Oh, come on, Bill - surely the good voters of California won't
turn around and through out Ahhhhnold just a year after they
put Gov. Terminator in office, will they?

Bob M.