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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"
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.