Talc as Rust Protection

Page 4 of 8  


None of this has anything to do with those people being Republicans, and these alleged beliefs do not extend to all Republicans. There are probably even Democrats who don't understand science, believe it or not.
Hell, there are Democrats who don't even know what the word "ban" means - they must not, since they claim that "We won't use federal money to fund any NEW LINES of stem cell research" means "George Bush banned stem cell research".

Because an anonymous coward's opinions are worth exactly nothing. You can't back up your noise with any sort of facts, and you're hiding who you are. Just noise in the background. If you cared about what you say, you'd have the balls to back it up with who you are.

So subscribe to a spam filtering service, or buy a program that does it, or install SpamAssassin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dave, generally, I have agreed with your points in this "debate", but here you are beating a dead horse. He provided the requested way to contact him via email, in the portion of the post you did not quote. Like him, I have recently changed emails, and while the bayesian filter did a great job before, it is even better not to get any, so that the annoying 1-2% doesn't slip through.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, he did provide it after being asked, that's true. I am pointing out that there are more effective ways to do it. zaep (from zaep.com) is a challenge/response program that runs on Windows; a sender has to do a one-time "Yes, I'm a real person" in order for their emails to get through. 30 bucks or something, and unless your whitelisted people turn into spammers, 100% effective. Spamcop.net, for 20 or 30 bucks a year, is about 99% effective, does pop and imap, and webmail.
When someone is posting bullshit anonymously, and proposes that their reason for being anonymous is for anti-spam, rather than because they just want to make noise and not say who they are, that explaination is suspect at best.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I post under my real name. Exactly what is proved by using an email address? I can fake an email address as easily as a name.
If you want the source of my info, go to the library and start sifting through back issues of Time magazine. I have better things to do than try to appease a suspicious jerk like you.
Cheers, Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great cite, Mike. Good to know you can back up your statements with facts. Now we just have to work on the part about it being irrelevant to anything at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're that cranky about someone making a joke at the expense of Republicans, all I can say is grow up.
Cheers.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:03:46 -0500, Robert Galloway

There are serious petroleum scientists who cite the association of Helium with petroleum deposits as evidence that Petroleum, unlike coal, is not a "Fossil Fuel" but has some other geologic source. No known biological process generates Helium, but the Earth's core releases it as its radioactive components decay.
Right now, we're using deposits that are reletively easy to find and relatively easy to extract, so the idea of oil from a hole in a Swedish volcano remains a curiosity. But it is under investigation.
"All the oil mankind can ever use" is a nonsequitor--at some point, petroleum will become expensive enough that we stop using it and hence we won't, strictly speaking "run out," so much as switch to alternatives as they become available.
Woe betide all those highly skilled Diesel road sign maintainers now that their jobs have been displaced by solar LED signs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:39:04 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles

Scientist singular, not plural.
Fred Hoyle, and he was a Loon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But he was a Republican, don't you see what that means, Andy?
Dave "Oh wait, Mike wazzizname was just _joking_" Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Dingley wrote:

If you're talking about Fred Hoyle the astronomer, he was hardly a "loon". And it is a reasonable question--where did the helium come from and why is it in those deposits and no others?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alpha particle, produced by radioactive decay, electrified. Any where but under a lot of cover, gone to space.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/AlphaParticle.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

So why only in gas wells? There are plenty of places on Earth where there is "a lot of cover" and no helium.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:14:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"

But where else do we go drilling for it, into a large volume where the lighter gases have already had a chance to stratify.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Precisely. The geology of helium wells is fairly unique, but the real reason for examining it is the methane.
Then there's the question of radioactive source, which we're unconcerned about, but is required for the phenomenon.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And thomas gold.
For a discussion of various things petroleum, with citations:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/energy.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ...

It all depends on how you look at it. I personally have never been involved in drilling a "dry hole" ... they were all "geological successes, but a hydrocarbon failures".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guys, there two basically different kinds of scientific findings. One kind looks at the past and draws conclusions. Workers in certain industries died younger and in larger numbers than others. For example, asbestos (or other) particles were found on the microscope in the center of their malignant lesions. Cause and effect? Remains to be proven, but looks suspicious. (In some cases proven beyond a doubt.)
Trends (look pretty certain but not proven) seem to be associated with certain effects ( greenhouse gasses, ozone etc.) (Skin cancer, global warming, etc.) No intelligent person ignores the finding of science. If you want to do that, let's quit spending all the money we spend to keep these scientist busy. When evaluating their findings and predictions, you have to remember that 1. Scientists can have non-scientific, political agendas and 2. Others with even greater political agendas can use the results of science to bolster their position.
Use your intellect to determine whether the findings support the recommendations. Predictions of depletion of oil reserves were based on what was known at the time (more or less). We discovered more oil, we conserved. Is there an infinite amount of oil on the planet? Will some finite additional amount be discovered? Will the canny human animal find substitutes "just in time" to move foreword with civilization and a comfortable existence without undue deprivation due to that expiration of the petroleum supply? I'd bet on it!! Oil reserves cannot be infinite by my limited perspective but I'm not on the doomsday bandwagon. Mankind has been pretty clever in the past.
bob g.
George wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How can there be an infinite amount of anything on a finite planet? Well, besides stupidity.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, you'll accept "trends" and "suspicions" as science?
How about trendy conclusions from suspicious people?
I'd reevaluate, if I were you. Science is an investigative process which does not assert, but assumes a fact until proven otherwise. The rest is pap for the intellectually undeveloped.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:58:09 -0500, Robert Galloway

And in our present situation, one small part of said humankind, not having enough oil of its own, sacrifices its 18 yr olds and a whole bunch of ingrate "sand nggers" in order to assure a plentiful supply to burn up in 5,000 lb vehicles and 12 ft "cathedral" ceilings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.