Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[daestrom]

"Jed Checketts" <jedcheck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e98177f2.0407212044.35090f5d@posting.google.com...

Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:<40FE87F6.549B6C6@tinaja.com>...
"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FDC08C.CDEE8A96@tinaja.com...
Jed Checketts wrote:
...
HYDROGEN WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE ENERGY BY MASS THAN GASOLINE.
PERIOD. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.
...
CONTAINED TERESTRIAL HYDROGEN HAS MUCH --->LESS<--- ENERGY BY MASS
THAN
CONTAINED GASOLINE!

This is simple engineering fact.

Pay attention Don. He proposed storing the hydrogen in Sodium Aluminum
Hydride. The design of such a system may need work, but it is not the
same
as storing the gas. In principle, I expect it is possible to argue
that
NaAlH (and water) could be stored in thin walled tanks, and that the
converter and NaALOHx storage would not require that much additional
weight.
Not sure I believe that but it should be discussed and you didn't do
that.

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum into
the tank, of course.

Much worse than what?

Sodium aluminum hydride:

NaAlH4 + 2 H2O --> NaAlO2 + 4 H2

Note that you produce 8 Kg of hydrogen for each 54 Kg of Alanate.

Okay, so check my math here....

For 90 kg of reactants (54kg of NaAlH4 and 36kg of H2O), you get 8kg of H2.
For each 1kg of H2 you can expect about 141.9 MJ of energy. That works out
to about 12.6 MJ per kg of reactants. If you don't carry the 2H2O, then it
would be 21 MJ per kg of NaAlH4.

And gasoline carries about 43.8 MJ/kg when reacted with air.

So, explain again how 12.6 MJ per kg is so competitive with 43.8 MJ/kg????

For the above example, 8 Kg of hydrogen are produced from each 23 Kg
of Lithium Borohydride.

Re-working for LiAlH4, I get 38kg for every 8kg of H produced, not 23kg
(7+27+4*1). But add on the 36kg of water and we have 74kg of reactants for
8kg of H. That works out to about 15.3 MJ per kg of reactants. Excluding
the water, we get about 29.87 MJ per kg of LiAlH4. Better, but not
tremendously so.

Don often points out how how energy dense gasoline is as if it is the
ultimate energy storage medium. It isn't. He may be a proponent of
gasoline but the SCIENCE is straightforward. Lithium Borohydride and
other hydrides contain more energy by mass AND VOLUME than gasoline.

Hmm, the above shows that LiAlH4 carries *less* energy per kg than gasoline.

And you seem to be forgetting about carrying the water needed. Gasoline at
least has the advantage that the other reactant can be taken directly from
the atmosphere. Getting these amounts of H2O directly from the atmosphere
is *not* as simple.

This is verifiable scientific fact.

Unless I made an error in my calculations, the 'scientific fact' would be
that hydrides still carry less energy per kg than gasoline.

Claiming that gasoline contains more energy than hydrides like lithium
aluminum hydride are contradictory to scientific fact.

Oh? Please show me the error in my calculations that shows 38kg LiAlH4
liberates 8kg of H for an energy of 8*141.9 = 1135.2 MJ from 38kg of 'fuel'.
And that is 1135.2/38 = 29.87MJ/kg. While gasoline contains ~43.8MJ/kg.
And that is *assuming* the water reactant doesn't have to be carried.

daestrom
P.S. Energy values for hydrogen and gasoline taken from...
http://www.uvi.edu/Physics/SCI3xxWeb/Energy/GasolineFAQ.html

 

[daestrom]

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FF3FE1.2080205@lakeweb.com...

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FEC92C.7020001@lakeweb.com...

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:

"David Harper" <dave.harper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:364fd697.0407210748.7bc0400f@posting.google.com...
...


No surprises for a century? I think you're missing the forest for the


Dan, your attribution tree is really munged. Most (but not all) of your
comments appear as if they were directed toward my comments to David's
epistle, by their position carrots, but in fact refer to David's orignal
post comments.

Most of the development of our modern world is a result of finding that
there is a simple way to solve what appeared to be an intractable
engineering problem, combined with finding out that there is no simple,
and
even no very complex, solution to what was otherwise thought to be easy.
Fusion was easy. A practical bomb only took a few years to develop.
Practical stable fusion reactors couldn't be that hard. But I recall
studying the plasma physics 40 years ago, and occasionally catching up
since. Some truly ingenious ideas were tried, and some truly bizarre
reasons
developed as show stoppers. For every process that progressed as the
best
technical minds imagined, there are at least 10 that simply never got
out of
the garage, for reasons we sometimes do not know even today. I.e.. Is
Microsoft the real reason we do not have real AI?

Well, if it were not for Microsoft and your use of outlook, the thread
may not have been mangled. I take the responsibility as I'm the one
who replied. I've often dropped a microsoft mangled thread because it is
not worth the effort. You may want to look into using netscape if only
for your newsreader.

But, to answer your question, no. AI, I believe, (as I don't have enough
knowledge under my belt), is unobtainable because the human physique
doesn't fit in the rules of a turing machine. There may be quantum
computing...

Best, Dan.

I think you'll find it isn't the news-reader that 'mangles' such threads.
It is the posting thru different news-servers. Such as I, that post via a
time-warner RR server. The messages don't get forwarded to all other
news-servers instantly. So someone reading/posting on another news-server
will see things out of order.

Blame it on the speed of conversation and that not all news-servers are
synchronized.

daestrom

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:23:51 GMT, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Sporkman" <sporkedUNDERLINEagainMUNGE@bigfootDOT.com> wrote in message
news:41000BF7.D120@bigfootDOT.com...
DaveC wrote:
CNN's pretty mute on this "news". URL?
--
Please, no Google links. I wouldn't ask a
question here if I hadn't done that already.

You really don't want to go there. This is undoubtedly a trick to get
people to open an executable file nested in the ZIP file, and I'll give
you three guesses as to what is most likely to be in the executable file
(hint: it's not pictures).

It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

Really?? All the ones I've seen are purported to be of Christina
Aguilera, which is why I've not bothered to look. There's enough trash
on my computer without that old trollop adding to it.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

Ken

 

[pragmatist]

ZHEN <zhenf@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40FADC7D.E9F7C954@hotmail.com>...

My aim is to get H2 from H2O2 solution at room tempertaure using Na or
Ca at room temp, then heat H2O2 to O2 to do H2 combustion work.

If energy from H2O2 is the goal, why not just use the O2 from
catalytic decomposition of the peroxide, (there is also energy
produced), combined with an easier to obtain reducing agent than
alkalai metals?
There are no free lunches.
H2O2 is an oxygen source.
As reducing agents Na or Ca are more expensive than other fuels.
You have to use energy to split off the Hydrogen to act as a reducing
agent so why not simply supply a reducing agent in a more economical
way?

The energy cost of H2O2 is high as are the energy costs of Na or Ca.
What you propose makes little sense unless for a very special
application.
As others point out, the reactions are likely to be violent.
What are you up to?

As a side note, H2O2 was once used with alcohol as torpedo fuel, (WW
I IIRC), but this was a special case where oxygen had to be provided
to run a compact, isolated, high energy system with technology that
was primitive compared to what is now available.

Pragmatist -"Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the
Restraints."

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Taylor <ken123@xtra.co.nz>
wrote (in <2mav2aFe2aidU1@uni-berlin.de&gt about 'Osama Found Hanged
272', on Fri, 23 Jul 2004:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

Do you have intelligence from the CIA about that?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Gareth]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:08:36 GMT, davidanderson@columbia.edu wrote:


Osama Bin Ladin was found hanged by two CNN journalists early Wedensday evening.

As evidence they took several photos, some of which i have included
here. As yet, this information has not hit the headlines due to Bush
wanting confirmation of his identity but the journalists have released
some early photos over the internet..

Just remember, folks, you read it here on Usenet first...

According to The Register it's a Trojan horse:

"Virus writers are trying to trick users into opening a Trojan horse on
their PC by passing malicious code off as a "suicide photographs" of
Osama bin Laden. At a result, Usenet newsgroups are overflowing with
bogus messages claiming that journalists found the terrorist leader's
hanged body earlier this week."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/hackarmy_trojan/

For anyone who did download the Trojan there is more information about
it here:

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojhackarmya.html

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

 

[Kevin]

"Osama Bin Ladin was found hanged by two CNN journalists early

Wedensday evening.

Are the two journalists that hanged Bin Ladin going to get a reward?

Kevin Aylward
Hopefully !!!

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:40FF3FEE.1090502@lakeweb.com...
...

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well

understood.

^^^ note the dangling 'understood' generated by outlook....

Dan. Suppose that black powder were still the only fuel available. As you
know, you cannot get to the moon even on a mountain of black powder.

You have the physics to understand that.

You
would then have this wonderful physics to get to the moon, understand the
orbital mechanics in detail, but not be able to get there.

Yes, you have the physics to understand that.

The real physics
of going to the moon includes such disparate issues as making a reliable
engine. Finding a fuel that we can afford, that we can store (monatomic
hydrogen would make a great fuel), that will give us the performance we
need.

This describes technological advancement that would have to be evolved.
In 1965 we knew we would have pentium computers by now, but we couldn't
build them in 1965. The only physical surprise we have seen since 65 in
the field that I know of deals with magnetic domains. Lucky for us or we
would not have such powerfully dense and cheap hard drives.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

daestrom wrote:

"Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message

Well, if it were not for Microsoft and your use of outlook, the thread
may not have been mangled. .....

I think you'll find it isn't the news-reader that 'mangles' such threads.
It is the posting thru different news-servers. Such as I, that post via a
time-warner RR server. The messages don't get forwarded to all other
news-servers instantly. So someone reading/posting on another news-server
will see things out of order.

Blame it on the speed of conversation and that not all news-servers are
synchronized.

Hi,
Please see the post where I point out the mangling of the position of
the word 'understood'. This is what I was speaking of.

daestrom

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

David Harper wrote:

Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic20@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<40FF3FEE.1090502@lakeweb.com>...


Please look at the above and make a distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'.


That was the main point of my entire response. One of the first
things I said was:


But that's beside the point. Agreed: the physics of using hydrogen is
understood. It's just a matter of what technological advances "could"
happen to make it a reality (such as nanotech or whatever).


Was that unclear?

What kind of technological advance do you have in mind that doesn't
require the precursor of a new physics?

Then go back and read the thread. You
will see I have continually made the distinction between 'the physics'
and 'developing the technology'. Then look at where I started, "Hydrogen
as a 'fuel' has serious physical limitation." Technological innovation
does not defeat physical limitations.

And the only "physical limitation" you cited was that it was not an
energy "source", but a "currency". I agreed with this in a later
post, when I understood exactly what you meant. Using it as a
currency eliminates the physical limitation you cited. This became a
non-issue.

Sources of energy are now a non issue? Sure, in that case, hydrogen
makes a wonderful fuel because now it is cheaper than fossils.

I'll repeat:
As hydrogen is not an energy source, the cost of the source is
compounded by the losses in the hydrogen vector. The limitation is
physical, and vision doesn't change that.

When I traced back, the drive behind most of my comments originated
from your following statement:

You know as well as I do that the first non fossil source of hydrogen
would have to come from a nuclear driven thermochemical processes.

This statement assumes technological progress in other fields (i.e.
nanotech) won't become viable options first. That's when I questioned
your ability to foresee the future of technological innovation.

I'll repeat:
Probably science fiction for another 5 or 10 decades.

Perhaps our entire clash boils down to the fact that I'm more of an
optimist in terms of technological advances.

I'll repeat:
A new discovery in physics is rather unlikely and if/when it happens, it
won't just make hydrogen practical. As far as advancements go, they have
been very predictable. Look at Moore's Law for an example. Other than
the likes of high temperature superconductors, there have been no
surprises for going on a century.
---
Technological advancement is predictable based on known physics...

My comment: 'In 1950 the physics of going to the moon was well
understood.', stands. At that time they knew they would have to evolve
the technology, and to what extent, because the physics was well understood.

"The U.S. rocket program hit a wall in the late 1940's due to a lack
of understanding of supersonic physics."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec05.html

...(enter stage left) the X-15 program: to better understand
supersonic physics and figure out what was (and was not) possible.
But this is really a side point to our original discussion.

You can say the orbital mechanics was well understood. However, you
can't get to the moon with orbital mechanics alone. Other areas, such
as fluid mechanics, were also needed to get to the moon...and, as
mentioned before, the fluid dynamics of hypersonic flow was *NOT* well
understood. Two other major areas within the realm of physics that
had to be better understood to get to the moon include
super/hypersonic heat transfer (both in the engines and on re-entry
surfaces, also aided by the X-15 program) and solar physics/radiation
outside the Van Allen belts. There's plenty of others areas I'm sure
I'm forgetting or not aware of.

And all about evolving technology based on known physics. If they could
not have developed > mach 1 travel, it would have implied a new physics.

Dave

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

 

[Jed Checketts]

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:<42XLc.77933$bp1.41753@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...

"Jed Checketts" <jedcheck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e98177f2.0407212044.35090f5d@posting.google.com...
Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:<40FE87F6.549B6C6@tinaja.com>...
"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:

"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:40FDC08C.CDEE8A96@tinaja.com...
Jed Checketts wrote:
...
HYDROGEN WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE ENERGY BY MASS THAN GASOLINE.
PERIOD. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.
...
CONTAINED TERESTRIAL HYDROGEN HAS MUCH --->LESS<--- ENERGY BY MASS
THAN
CONTAINED GASOLINE!

This is simple engineering fact.

Pay attention Don. He proposed storing the hydrogen in Sodium Aluminum
Hydride. The design of such a system may need work, but it is not the
same
as storing the gas. In principle, I expect it is possible to argue
that
NaAlH (and water) could be stored in thin walled tanks, and that the
converter and NaALOHx storage would not require that much additional
weight.
Not sure I believe that but it should be discussed and you didn't do
that.

It gets much worse when you throw heavy sodium and heavy aluminum into
the tank, of course.

Much worse than what?

Sodium aluminum hydride:

NaAlH4 + 2 H2O --> NaAlO2 + 4 H2

Note that you produce 8 Kg of hydrogen for each 54 Kg of Alanate.


Okay, so check my math here....

For 90 kg of reactants (54kg of NaAlH4 and 36kg of H2O), you get 8kg of H2.
For each 1kg of H2 you can expect about 141.9 MJ of energy. That works out
to about 12.6 MJ per kg of reactants. If you don't carry the 2H2O, then it
would be 21 MJ per kg of NaAlH4.

And gasoline carries about 43.8 MJ/kg when reacted with air.

So, explain again how 12.6 MJ per kg is so competitive with 43.8 MJ/kg????

If we are talking about providing hydrogen to a fuel cell, the above
is already competitive from an overall energy density standpoint.
Remember, 43.8 MJ of energy in the form of gasoline will give you far
less energy than this in the form of hydrogen if a gasoline to
hydrogen reformer is used.

Hydrogen energy converted to electrical energy in a fuel cell is more
efficient than gasoline energy converted to mechanical energy via
pistons and a crankshaft. This efficiency greatly impacts the numbers
for overall energy density of the system including the fuel.
Likewise, if you are going to convert gasoline into hydrogen you need
a gasoline reformer which takes up space and is in many cases a large
component of the system. This must be factored into the energy
density numbers as it is part of an overall system.

For the above example, 8 Kg of hydrogen are produced from each 23 Kg
of Lithium Borohydride.


Re-working for LiAlH4, I get 38kg for every 8kg of H produced, not 23kg
(7+27+4*1). But add on the 36kg of water and we have 74kg of reactants for
8kg of H. That works out to about 15.3 MJ per kg of reactants. Excluding
the water, we get about 29.87 MJ per kg of LiAlH4. Better, but not
tremendously so.

It should be (7+11+4) (I could be wrong about the 11 for Boron, it
could be 11.5 or something and I don't have this one memorized but 27
is for Aluminum). There is a big weight savings by substituting Boron
for Aluminum. However, when the entire system is considered, for a
variety of reasons including that the aluminate is easier to recycle
than the borate, my money is on Aluminum.

Don often points out how how energy dense gasoline is as if it is the
ultimate energy storage medium. It isn't. He may be a proponent of
gasoline but the SCIENCE is straightforward. Lithium Borohydride and
other hydrides contain more energy by mass AND VOLUME than gasoline.


Hmm, the above shows that LiAlH4 carries *less* energy per kg than gasoline.

And you seem to be forgetting about carrying the water needed. Gasoline at
least has the advantage that the other reactant can be taken directly from
the atmosphere. Getting these amounts of H2O directly from the atmosphere
is *not* as simple.

This is verifiable scientific fact.


Unless I made an error in my calculations, the 'scientific fact' would be
that hydrides still carry less energy per kg than gasoline.


Claiming that gasoline contains more energy than hydrides like lithium
aluminum hydride are contradictory to scientific fact.


Oh? Please show me the error in my calculations that shows 38kg LiAlH4
liberates 8kg of H for an energy of 8*141.9 = 1135.2 MJ from 38kg of 'fuel'.
And that is 1135.2/38 = 29.87MJ/kg. While gasoline contains ~43.8MJ/kg.
And that is *assuming* the water reactant doesn't have to be carried.

daestrom
P.S. Energy values for hydrogen and gasoline taken from...
http://www.uvi.edu/Physics/SCI3xxWeb/Energy/GasolineFAQ.html

For Lithium Borohydride it would be 1135/22 (I'm assuming you are
correct on the 1135 number) This is 51.6 MJ/kg which is higher than
the 43.8 MJ/kg you report for gasoline. And the energy density
number for the lithium hydride is MUCH higher than gasoline than even
the 51:44 ratio once you factor in the efficiency difference between a
fuel cell and a combustion engine.

About the water issue: Assuming that water doesn't have to be carried
is reasonable since MORE water is produced by the fuel cell than what
the hydrolysis would need:

4 H2 + 2 O2 --> 4 H2O *FUEL CELL*

LiAlH4 + 2 H2O --> LiAlO2 + 4 H2 *HYDROGEN TANK*

(Note that 2 times more water is produced by the fuel cell than what
is needed, meaning that water recovery from the fuel cell only has to
be a sloppy 50%. The rest could be converted to pure drinking water.
Not such a bad byproduct.

Jed Checketts
Searles Lake, CA

 

[JW]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:12 +1200 "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote
in Message id: <2mav2aFe2aidU1@uni-berlin.de>:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

No. Osama shaved his off to avoid identification.

(You heard it here first.)

 

[JW]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:53:01 +0100 Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in Message id:
<k7h0g0df7ejldm43to9lkqno5rfaconi28@4ax.com>:

[.]

Really?? All the ones I've seen are purported to be of Christina
Aguilera, which is why I've not bothered to look. There's enough trash
on my computer without that old trollop adding to it.

Old?

 

[Who cares!]

"JW" <none@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:5pb5g058coviughq477dr9i36prmdjvvcq@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:12 +1200 "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote
in Message id: <2mav2aFe2aidU1@uni-berlin.de>:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because
that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

No. Osama shaved his off to avoid identification.

(You heard it here first.)

I heard Osama shaved it off because when he was going down on the donkeys,
one of them kicked him - which also led to the "kidney rumor". He had to
mend his wounds, from being kicked near there! Apparently, his beard tickled
them, and it was not liked Oh well! Osama didn't get round lips from kissing
women! Always thought Osama was a bit queer. WC

 

[Who cares!]

"JW" <none@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:tsb5g0h897g7jotp95jbhkl533uj7f3f44@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:53:01 +0100 Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in Message id:
k7h0g0df7ejldm43to9lkqno5rfaconi28@4ax.com>:

[.]

Really?? All the ones I've seen are purported to be of Christina
Aguilera, which is why I've not bothered to look. There's enough trash
on my computer without that old trollop adding to it.

Old?

EH, what the hell, her and Brittany are both has - beens..... Ole Brit
is/will be an ole married maid soon. Spitting out kids, doing her thing.
Teeny bopping days are over. They got the slut generation started, now
they'll sit back and see what they did. WC

 

[Keith]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:12 +1200, Ken Taylor wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

Sure. Britney.

--
Keith

 

[half_pint]

Yes it suggests it does not affect w98 not it is not explicit.
Poor show for an anti-virus company??????????

I saw another about Arnold Swatchaniger? but the zip
file passed a virus check.

Here it is
=================

Early this morning Arnold Schwarzenegger was found hanging by his neck from
the large oak tree in his Californian garden. In a suicide note found at
the scene he tells of his sordid sex life and lack of will to live. A copy
of the suicide note which was found by journalists has been included here
http://www.theparadise.x-y.net/ArnoldSchwarzenegger.zip


===================


"Gareth" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2md9j1Fljl08U1@uni-berlin.de...

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:08:36 GMT, davidanderson@columbia.edu wrote:


Osama Bin Ladin was found hanged by two CNN journalists early Wedensday
evening.

As evidence they took several photos, some of which i have included
here. As yet, this information has not hit the headlines due to Bush
wanting confirmation of his identity but the journalists have released
some early photos over the internet..

Just remember, folks, you read it here on Usenet first...


According to The Register it's a Trojan horse:

"Virus writers are trying to trick users into opening a Trojan horse on
their PC by passing malicious code off as a "suicide photographs" of
Osama bin Laden. At a result, Usenet newsgroups are overflowing with
bogus messages claiming that journalists found the terrorist leader's
hanged body earlier this week."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/23/hackarmy_trojan/

For anyone who did download the Trojan there is more information about
it here:

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojhackarmya.html

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

 

[Asimov]

"JW" bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jul 04 14:50:52)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Osama Found Hanged 272"

JW> From: JW <none@dev.nul>
JW> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:12 +1200 "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz>
JW> wrote in Message id: <2mav2aFe2aidU1@uni-berlin.de>:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

JW> No. Osama shaved his off to avoid identification.

JW> (You heard it here first.)

He's probably wearing a wig, falsies, and a burhka too!

.... Puddy-tat's not so bwave in Gwanny's microwave!

 

[Mjolinor]

"JW" <none@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:5pb5g058coviughq477dr9i36prmdjvvcq@4ax.com...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:12 +1200 "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote
in Message id: <2mav2aFe2aidU1@uni-berlin.de>:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:7BHLGCIJ9BABFwJv@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mjolinor <mjolinor@hotmail.com
wrote (in <rnVLc.26$A8.24@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net&gt about 'Osama Found
Hanged 272', on Thu, 22 Jul 2004:
It's bound to be Britney with no clothes on, they all are because
that's
what most of them say they are.

I would have thought that even CNN reporters could tell the difference
between Britney Spears and Osama bin Laden.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Doesn't one of them have a beard?

No. Osama shaved his off to avoid identification.

That's easy then, if it has a beard it's Britney.