alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=enalt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Gulf Spill... New estimate... - 19 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/46750e7d8e63c05b?hl=en
* Jenkins back - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/5ab06afcfcf0f6c2?hl=en
* Sporting News picking Jets - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/916544c46a0f3470?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gulf Spill... New estimate...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/46750e7d8e63c05b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:12 am
From: Michael
On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> graybeard wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0400 "papa.carl44"
> > <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> I like Lewis Black's take on it...we are under attack, just like
> >> 9/11 or Peal Harbor. We should set our sights on BP, go after them, take
> >> over their buildings world wide and occupy them. Their "citizens" would
> >> have to go to work for us in some kind of reparations program and we could
> >> have Judgement in Gulf Shores for the trial site. Hell, they are bigger
> >> than lots of countries.
>
> > If this had been caused by the actions of terrorists from, say, Syria,
> > we would by now be leveling their country with cruise missiles.
>
> There are some theories floating around that a N. Korea sub caused this
> because they hoped it would prompt the US to use a nuke to stop the
> flow. This was in a UK newspaper. I don't find it very credible, but
> lots of people are talking about it.
there is talk that top brass at PB... the ones that ignored the
dangers of deep oceanic drilling... are the ones that started the talk
about a phantom sub going around blowing up well heads
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:26 am
From: graybeard
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:00:22 -0400 MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>graybeard wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>> <papadotcarl@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>>
>> I proposed in this very group a couple of years ago that gas prices
>> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
>> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
>> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
>> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
>> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
>> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
>> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
>> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
>> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
>> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
>
>
>But what's the point? A guy driving an Escalade is already paying 4x as
>much as a guy driving a Honda. The price factor is already there.
What price factor? The initial cost of the vehicle? The gas guzzler tax?
Both one-time expenditures which the customer can afford, or he/she
wouldn't be buying the vehicle, and often tax write-offs to boot. Not to
mention the equity value. Operating expenses are more likely to make an
impression on out-of-pocket cash flow.
>Also, your system doesn't take into account driving habits, which are
>probably even more important than mpg. If the guy in the Escalade only
>drives to the store and back, he's consuming less gas than the guy in
>the Civic who drives all day long or decides to go on road trips every
>weekend.
Isolated instances can always be used to support any argument. The
little old lady from Pasadena is not going to be spending that much on
gas anyway. The fact is that, in the aggregate, Escalades are going to
consume a lot more gas, as well as create a lot more pollution, than an
equal number of Civics.
>I don't think anybody should be punished for using gas. I just think
>they need to pay the going rate. When people were screaming about high
>gas prices last year, my response was usually.. "it costs what it
>costs." Most people realized this too, as SUV sales plummeted over
>those months. Prices are usually a fairly decent indicator about
>supply, even in a cartelized industry. What I oppose more than anything
>is artificially lowering the price through questionable means just so
>that people squawk less.
I'm not proposing that prices be artificially lowered. I'm proposing
that taxes be increased on those who are profligate in consuming limited
resources.
--
graybeard
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:30 am
From: graybeard
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net>
wrote:
>On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> graybeard wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>> > <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I like Lewis Black's take on it...we are under attack, just like
>> >> 9/11 or Peal Harbor. We should set our sights on BP, go after them, take
>> >> over their buildings world wide and occupy them. Their "citizens" would
>> >> have to go to work for us in some kind of reparations program and we could
>> >> have Judgement in Gulf Shores for the trial site. Hell, they are bigger
>> >> than lots of countries.
>>
>> > If this had been caused by the actions of terrorists from, say, Syria,
>> > we would by now be leveling their country with cruise missiles.
>>
>> There are some theories floating around that a N. Korea sub caused this
>> because they hoped it would prompt the US to use a nuke to stop the
>> flow. This was in a UK newspaper. I don't find it very credible, but
>> lots of people are talking about it.
>
>there is talk that top brass at PB... the ones that ignored the
>dangers of deep oceanic drilling... are the ones that started the talk
>about a phantom sub going around blowing up well heads
Probably after a secret conference with the top brass at Halliburton ;-)
--
graybeard
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:43 am
From: MZ
graybeard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:00:22 -0400 MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>> graybeard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:44:21 -0400 "papa.carl44"
>>> <papadotcarl@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>>>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>>> I proposed in this very group a couple of years ago that gas prices
>>> should be variable at the pump for non-commercial vehicles and depend
>>> upon the mpg rating. Let the bozos who think that the perceived size of
>>> their dick is determined by the size of their Hummer or Escalade pay
>>> $6.00 a gallon to fill up, while those who choose to drive cars that get
>>> better gas mileage pay something less, depending on the mpg.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> 40+ mpg $2.50/gal
>>> 35-39.9 mpg $3.00/gal
>>> 30-34.9 mpg $3.50/gal
>>> 25-29.9 mpg $4.00/gal
>>> 20-24.9 mpg $5.00/gal
>>> Under 20 mpg $6.00/gal
>>
>> But what's the point? A guy driving an Escalade is already paying 4x as
>> much as a guy driving a Honda. The price factor is already there.
>
> What price factor? The initial cost of the vehicle? The gas guzzler tax?
> Both one-time expenditures which the customer can afford, or he/she
> wouldn't be buying the vehicle, and often tax write-offs to boot. Not to
> mention the equity value. Operating expenses are more likely to make an
> impression on out-of-pocket cash flow.
Price factor = the fact that an Escalade driver's gas bill is a hell of
a lot higher than a Civic driver's.
>
>> Also, your system doesn't take into account driving habits, which are
>> probably even more important than mpg. If the guy in the Escalade only
>> drives to the store and back, he's consuming less gas than the guy in
>> the Civic who drives all day long or decides to go on road trips every
>> weekend.
>
> Isolated instances can always be used to support any argument. The
> little old lady from Pasadena is not going to be spending that much on
> gas anyway. The fact is that, in the aggregate, Escalades are going to
> consume a lot more gas, as well as create a lot more pollution, than an
> equal number of Civics.
Is this true? I mean, let's throw away the escalade thing for a minute.
Let's talk about gas guzzlers vs. efficient vehicles in general.
Sure, old ladies aren't buying Escalades, but they're also not buying
hybrids. I don't think it's "isolated" to suggest that driving habits
vary considerably and probably have a bigger impact than mpg.
>
>> I don't think anybody should be punished for using gas. I just think
>> they need to pay the going rate. When people were screaming about high
>> gas prices last year, my response was usually.. "it costs what it
>> costs." Most people realized this too, as SUV sales plummeted over
>> those months. Prices are usually a fairly decent indicator about
>> supply, even in a cartelized industry. What I oppose more than anything
>> is artificially lowering the price through questionable means just so
>> that people squawk less.
>
> I'm not proposing that prices be artificially lowered. I'm proposing
> that taxes be increased on those who are profligate in consuming limited
> resources.
Oh, I know. You want to increase prices, and I understand where you're
coming from. I'd be content if they just didn't DECREASE prices by,
say, going to war in the middle east or bailing out oil companies.
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:17 am
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 16, 5:38 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 6:19 pm, Johnny Morongo
>
>
>
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 3:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> > > well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> > > Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> > > much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> > > there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> > > 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> > > it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> > > have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> > > water.
>
> > > Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> > > gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> > > head....
>
> > > Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> > > and the went and drilled any way...
>
> > And, Michael, that's not counting the probable escape of untold
> > billions of air-borne oil related poisons that are even now likely to
> > be bubbling up into the atmosphere. Now all we need is a hurricane in
> > the Gulf to move it right along.
>
> > MASSIVE proportions, this.
>
> Johnny, possibly but keep in mind the earth takes a pounding from
> volcanoes far worse that what this has thrown at us. It is not only
> during eruptions but daily.
>
> I am not minimizing what happened here as I am smart enough to know we
> don't know the full extent of this. I do know that this is not the
> worst spill that the Gulf has been hit with.
>
> http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-oil-spill-ixtoc.html
>
> I am trying to hope that this will work like it did 30 years ago but
> like anyone with a brain I am concerned.
There are a few items in he body of this report that are still
chilling:
1. "Compared to the 5,000-foot depth of the Deepwater Horizon spill,
the Ixtoc I came from much shallower waters, about 160 feet, still
within the reach of divers."
2. "Beaches, mostly in Mexico but to some extent also in the United
States, were hit, and birds succumbed in large numbers, despite the
dispersion efforts. Because of the dispersion, shrimp, squid, and some
fish populations suffered, with fisheries hit even harder."
3. "Despite the similarities of the Ixtoc I and Deepwater Horizon
spills, there is one major difference: wetlands. Linden said: "We
didn't have the extensive wetland contamination we are talking about
now."
And none of this speaks about the toxic gases that will inevitably get
into the air streams coming up from the Gulf. Hope you won't have to
deal with those down in Houston. But you'll make a better canary in a
coal mine than me. ;)
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:20 am
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 16, 6:27 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 7:29 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd-88df-bbea1aec82ba@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 15, 9:34 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > > Ray OHara wrote:
> > > > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:EcOdnXh2i5TmvIXRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > >>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> > > >>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > > >> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > > >> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away
> > > >> from our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all
> > > >> the people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor
> > > >> folks
> > > >> on pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal
> > > >> with and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> > > >> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't
> > > >> think anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> > > >> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.
>
> > > > when you invest in a company you take every risk that company takes.
> > > > but the "get the govt out of business" crowd wants the Govt to protect
> > > > their
> > > > profits no matter what.
>
> > > Well put. The hypocrisy on that side is astounding.
>
> > The true conservatives certainly don't think it is the govt's job to
> > protect profits. I would say both parties are guilty of the "too big
> > to fail" which is abused more & more as the grounds for bail outs. BP
> > doesn't need bailing out& no one thinks they should walk away the
> > concern is that the law, as it was with the GM bondholders, will be
> > tossed aside.
>
> > Things get scary for people when civil rights are ignored. Economies
> > can fall apart if the perception is that property rights are no longer
> > secure.
>
> > Especially for those who own most of the property. When the distribution of
> > the total wealth shifts to where fewer and fewer own more and more, the
> > cries about that seem to really escalate. I had very little choice when the
> > County and State took about 9 feet off my front yard to "redirect" the road
> > out front....I expect the rules to be about the same for all...and they
> > aren't.
>
> Eminent domain sucks when you are the victim so I am sorry to hear
> that story but at least that has always been the law. What Obama did
> to teh bondholders are GM & what he may be soon doing to BP is
> unprecedented outside of war.
>
> >And....where are the true conservatives hiding? I haven't seen or
> > heard any in a long time.
>
> You called them Nazi's & ran them off?
Actually, they're Fascists.
>
> :)
>
> There are less & less. There were never many in print. Brooks is one
> of my favorites. We need more Buckleys to laugh at.
fixed it
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:22 am
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 16, 7:47 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> John C TX wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hv94ag$j36$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b-a8a5-ec00b6a882b9@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> >>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> >>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> >>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> >>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> >>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> >>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> >>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> >>>>> water.
> >>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> >>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> >>>>> head....
> >>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> >>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> >>>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> >>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> >>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> >>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> >>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> >>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> >>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> >>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> >>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> >>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> >>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> >> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> >> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> >> means of income in the gulf now ???
>
> >> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> >> big...
>
> > Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> > called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> > called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> > the oil clean up?
>
> Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too.
We collapsed? Michael, do you hear him? Send a crew out. Remind
him.
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:26 am
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 16, 8:05 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is still achance that this was someone else's fault...
Are you kidding? Maybe you think that Belichick was down there?
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:30 am
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 16, 8:39 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:32d78e24-46db-496f-ab30-4cbb4f9c49c2@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 7:29 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:5aa7b259-6646-4fbd-88df-bbea1aec82ba@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 15, 9:34 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > > Ray OHara wrote:
> > > > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:EcOdnXh2i5TmvIXRnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > >>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> > > >>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > > >> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > > >> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move
> > > >> away
> > > >> from our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to
> > > >> all
> > > >> the people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor
> > > >> folks
> > > >> on pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to
> > > >> deal
> > > >> with and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> > > >> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't
> > > >> think anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with
> > > >> any
> > > >> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.
>
> > > > when you invest in a company you take every risk that company takes.
> > > > but the "get the govt out of business" crowd wants the Govt to protect
> > > > their
> > > > profits no matter what.
>
> > > Well put. The hypocrisy on that side is astounding.
>
> > The true conservatives certainly don't think it is the govt's job to
> > protect profits. I would say both parties are guilty of the "too big
> > to fail" which is abused more & more as the grounds for bail outs. BP
> > doesn't need bailing out& no one thinks they should walk away the
> > concern is that the law, as it was with the GM bondholders, will be
> > tossed aside.
>
> > Things get scary for people when civil rights are ignored. Economies
> > can fall apart if the perception is that property rights are no longer
> > secure.
>
> > Especially for those who own most of the property. When the distribution
> > of
> > the total wealth shifts to where fewer and fewer own more and more, the
> > cries about that seem to really escalate. I had very little choice when
> > the
> > County and State took about 9 feet off my front yard to "redirect" the
> > road
> > out front....I expect the rules to be about the same for all...and they
> > aren't.
>
> Eminent domain sucks when you are the victim so I am sorry to hear
> that story but at least that has always been the law. What Obama did
> to teh bondholders are GM & what he may be soon doing to BP is
> unprecedented outside of war.
>
> >And....where are the true conservatives hiding? I haven't seen or
> > heard any in a long time.
>
> You called them Nazi's & ran them off?
>
> :)
>
> There are less & less. There were never many in print. Brooks is one
> of my favorites. We need more Buckleys.
>
> When I was in college my roomate was VP of the Young Republicans and I was
> Seargent of Arms for the Young Democrats. We used to go to The
> Intercollegiate Conference on Government together, even roomed together at
> those things. We discussed things and argued our points, and sometimes we
> agreed. The old school conservatives were Americans first, the new school
> conservatives are not, they are Business first and always and they throw in
> some phony patriotism and religion to look good. I was never questioned in
> regards to my "Americanism" or my "Patriotism" because I was a Democrat back
> then...and we were just as disorganized as Democrats today. That is just
> the nature of a more liberal view of things, diverse ideas. But, I think
> those diverse ideas used to exist in Republicans too. This new stuff is way
> off base in that regard. I never called any REAL conservative a
> Nazi..never, but I do think some of the neocons are coming close to the
> fundamental principals that drove certain aspects of that
> movement....primarily being the desire to eliminate any opposition or
> opposing points of view. I do not think the new right is a conservative
> movement at all.
Papa, "new school conservatives" are fascists.
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:43 am
From: Michael
On Jun 16, 2:22 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 7:47 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John C TX wrote:
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:hv94ag$j36$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b-a8a5-ec00b6a882b9@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> > >>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> > >>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> > >>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> > >>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> > >>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> > >>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> > >>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> > >>>>> water.
> > >>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> > >>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> > >>>>> head....
> > >>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> > >>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> > >>>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> > >>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > >>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > >>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> > >>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> > >>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> > >>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> > >>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> > >>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> > >>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> > >>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
> > >> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> > >> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> > >> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> > >> means of income in the gulf now ???
>
> > >> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> > >> big...
>
> > > Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> > > called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> > > called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> > > the oil clean up?
>
> > Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too.
>
> We collapsed? Michael, do you hear him? Send a crew out. Remind
> him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:47 am
From: Michael
On Jun 16, 2:22 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 7:47 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John C TX wrote:
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:hv94ag$j36$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b-a8a5-ec00b6a882b9@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> > >>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> > >>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> > >>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> > >>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> > >>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> > >>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> > >>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> > >>>>> water.
> > >>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> > >>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> > >>>>> head....
> > >>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> > >>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> > >>>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> > >>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> > >>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> > >>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> > >>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> > >>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> > >>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> > >>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> > >>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> > >>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> > >>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
> > >> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> > >> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> > >> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> > >> means of income in the gulf now ???
>
> > >> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> > >> big...
>
> > > Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> > > called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> > > called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> > > the oil clean up?
>
> > Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too.
>
> We collapsed? Michael, do you hear him? Send a crew out. Remind
> him
I tried to join a crew once, but i was dissmissed my first day on the
job. The boss sent me to "straighten someone out" and he heard that I
used a wiffle ball bat.
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 12:10 pm
From: Johnny Morongo
On Jun 15, 3:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> water.
>
> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> head....
>
> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> and the went and drilled any way...
And the latest: Scientists now say ruptured Gulf well is leaking
between 1.47M and 2.52M gallons of oil a day
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0616/scientists-bp-leak-equivalent-exxon-valdez-days/
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 1:09 pm
From: John C TX
On Jun 16, 10:34 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> John C TX wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 9:47 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> John C TX wrote:
> >>> X-No-Archive: Yes
> >>> On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:hv94ag$j36$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b-a8a5-ec00b6a882b9@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> >>>>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
> >>>>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> >>>>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> >>>>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> >>>>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> >>>>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> >>>>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> >>>>>>> water.
> >>>>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> >>>>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> >>>>>>> head....
> >>>>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> >>>>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
> >>>>>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
> >>>>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
> >>>>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
> >>>>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
> >>>>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
> >>>>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
> >>>>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
> >>>>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
> >>>>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
> >>>>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
> >>>>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
> >>>> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
> >>>> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
> >>>> means of income in the gulf now ???
> >>>> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
> >>>> big...
> >>> Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
> >>> called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
> >>> called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
> >>> the oil clean up?
> >> Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too. Oh well.
>
> >> The fact is that BP was doing a lot of risky things that, at least in
> >> hindsight, they shouldn't have been doing. If they're no longer allowed
> >> to do those things, then they say oil prices will go up (I'm not
> >> convinced of this, but whatever...). There. You don't have to tax
> >> gasoline now. :)
>
> > MZ, equating BP with the mob is a bit over the top.
>
> It was a demonstration that the ends don't justify the means. You don't
> determine whether or not someone can do something harmful based on its
> economic impact.
MZ, it was weak.
>
> > If they get tossed out of US offshore drilling for proven malfeasance
> > that is their penalty and is a hefty price to pay. There is still a
> > chance that this was someone else's fault & or bad luck. I certainly
> > agree that anyone drilling needs to satisfy the govt that the safety
> > measures work.
>
> John, it's BP's fault, no matter what happened. They were unprepared to
> deal with a catastrophe, and therefore it was gross incompetence on
> their part or, more likely, they took on too much risk.
If you are talking about the initial problem & the failure to stop the
leak i am not sure as I don't know enough about petroleum engineering.
If you want to say that BP wasn't prepared for worst case that is
fair.
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 1:25 pm
From: John C TX
> I will...he is really into UFC stuff...and he is one of those guys who works
> out every single day. They have a gym at his facility (PE tests required)
> and he goes in at 5AM every day to do that first. Over the last year he has
> added yoga to his regimen too. He can still bench well over 300 (450
> something was his max once) and he runs five miles three times a week. How
> in the Hell he got these genes I have no idea. For me, anything over a 100
> yard dash was long distance, I never minded lifting weights but I only ran
> if threatened by something very intimidating or after something very
> inviting. My son has to qualify twice a year in PE and hand to hand combat
> along with firearms...I told him to just give me the firearms training, I
> can handle that. He told me he didn't trust me with a weapon :-)
There are ten cops at this gym & one ranked MMA.
When you show him the video I guarantee he will have heard of it. This
has little running worst days 1.5 Miles.
This guys web site makes a lot of sense and some of it is easy to
incorporate.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 1:47 pm
From: John C TX
On Jun 16, 1:17 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 5:38 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 6:19 pm, Johnny Morongo
>
> > <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 3:19 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
> > > > well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>
> > > > Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
> > > > much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
> > > > there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
> > > > 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
> > > > it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
> > > > have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
> > > > water.
>
> > > > Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
> > > > gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
> > > > head....
>
> > > > Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
> > > > and the went and drilled any way...
>
> > > And, Michael, that's not counting the probable escape of untold
> > > billions of air-borne oil related poisons that are even now likely to
> > > be bubbling up into the atmosphere. Now all we need is a hurricane in
> > > the Gulf to move it right along.
>
> > > MASSIVE proportions, this.
>
> > Johnny, possibly but keep in mind the earth takes a pounding from
> > volcanoes far worse that what this has thrown at us. It is not only
> > during eruptions but daily.
>
> > I am not minimizing what happened here as I am smart enough to know we
> > don't know the full extent of this. I do know that this is not the
> > worst spill that the Gulf has been hit with.
>
> >http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-oil-spill-ixtoc.html
>
> > I am trying to hope that this will work like it did 30 years ago but
> > like anyone with a brain I am concerned.
>
> There are a few items in he body of this report that are still
> chilling:
> 1. "Compared to the 5,000-foot depth of the Deepwater Horizon spill,
> the Ixtoc I came from much shallower waters, about 160 feet, still
> within the reach of divers."
I was wondering if a solution to the fire they encountered exists
today. Technology has advanced but how much?
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 1:54 pm
From: John C TX
On Jun 16, 1:26 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 8:05 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is still achance that this was someone else's fault...
>
> Are you kidding? Maybe you think that Belichick was down there?
I was referring to the blow out & the safety mechanism that was to cut
off the flow not the aftermath.
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 2:30 pm
From: MZ
John C TX wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:34 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> John C TX wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 9:47 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> John C TX wrote:
>>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>> On Jun 15, 8:08 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 15, 8:57 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hv94ag$j36$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:2f738444-fbc0-4f4b-a8a5-ec00b6a882b9@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> CNN: -- "Government officials raise estimate of oil spewing from a
>>>>>>>>> well in the Gulf of Mexico to 35,000-60,000 barrels per day."
>>>>>>>>> Wow... What a surprise... I never could have guessed it was that
>>>>>>>>> much.... At least they are getting close to the real amount... Locals
>>>>>>>>> there say about 3,000,000 gallons a day. Thus far that makes it about
>>>>>>>>> 156,000,000 of oil that has been introduced into the ocen. By the time
>>>>>>>>> it is stopped in August (if in fact the relife drilling works) we will
>>>>>>>>> have had 300,000,000 + gallons of hydrocarbons total added into the
>>>>>>>>> water.
>>>>>>>>> Considering the first PB and government estimate of "no oil to 5,000
>>>>>>>>> gallons per day" even AFTER they saw images of the broken well
>>>>>>>>> head....
>>>>>>>>> Those jeark-off's knew that they could not deal with a spill that deep
>>>>>>>>> and the went and drilled any way...
>>>>>>>> none of the oil companies can deal with such a mess but one wants
>>>>>>>> permission to drill at 8000 feet.
>>>>>>> Some of my conservative aquaintences (not friends) admonished me on
>>>>>>> Saturday for even thinking we should make a massive effort to move away from
>>>>>>> our oil addiction. Their main concern was what would happen to all the
>>>>>>> people counting on their dividend checks from BP, and those poor folks on
>>>>>>> pensions related to BP investments. Fortunately, I only have to deal with
>>>>>>> and be civil to these buffoons once in a rare while for "family"
>>>>>>> reasons...and even that gets harder and harder for me to do. I don't think
>>>>>>> anybody in a position of authority is handling this mess with any
>>>>>>> decisiveness. This whole thing is beyond pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> what would happen to the people expecting dividend check ??? if they
>>>>>> insist on ignoring ecology and thinking about lost moneys... how about
>>>>>> tens of thousands of families that are going to lose their entire
>>>>>> means of income in the gulf now ???
>>>>>> i dont think too many people realize what is happening. it is too
>>>>>> big...
>>>>> Which workers? The workers part of a $72 BN industry in Louisiana
>>>>> called oil & gas or the workers that are part of the $2.5BN industry
>>>>> called fishing that will all get a pay raise this year by working on
>>>>> the oil clean up?
>>>> Lots of people were out jobs when the mafia collapsed too. Oh well.
>>>> The fact is that BP was doing a lot of risky things that, at least in
>>>> hindsight, they shouldn't have been doing. If they're no longer allowed
>>>> to do those things, then they say oil prices will go up (I'm not
>>>> convinced of this, but whatever...). There. You don't have to tax
>>>> gasoline now. :)
>>> MZ, equating BP with the mob is a bit over the top.
>> It was a demonstration that the ends don't justify the means. You don't
>> determine whether or not someone can do something harmful based on its
>> economic impact.
>
> MZ, it was weak.
>>> If they get tossed out of US offshore drilling for proven malfeasance
>>> that is their penalty and is a hefty price to pay. There is still a
>>> chance that this was someone else's fault & or bad luck. I certainly
>>> agree that anyone drilling needs to satisfy the govt that the safety
>>> measures work.
>> John, it's BP's fault, no matter what happened. They were unprepared to
>> deal with a catastrophe, and therefore it was gross incompetence on
>> their part or, more likely, they took on too much risk.
>
> If you are talking about the initial problem & the failure to stop the
> leak i am not sure as I don't know enough about petroleum engineering.
>
> If you want to say that BP wasn't prepared for worst case that is
> fair.
How are the two separable? If you put forth a proposal to do something,
it necessarily requires a part addressing "what if something goes
wrong?" Managing a catastrophe and safeguards to prevent a catastrophe
are intertwined.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 3:56 pm
From: galen_boyer@yahoo.com
John C TX <johnctxjets@gmail.com> writes:
> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
Yup. That's the crux. If you want the market to take care of the
environment then the cost of the environmental care has to be factored
into the cost of products. We have a good amount of that now, for
example, emission standards on cars. We need much more and for a much
much wider spectrum of products.
The issue is that these will be labeled "taxes" in the communist sense
and fought long and hard against. One goes this route and they start
getting labeled UnAmerican blah blah blah. But, the market will not
just take care of this. On the contrary, the market could give a shit
about the environment.
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 4:11 pm
From: MZ
galen_boyer@yahoo.com wrote:
> John C TX <johnctxjets@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I truly believe until people feel the pain of the market via gas
>> prices, electricity, etc. they won't change.
>
> Yup. That's the crux. If you want the market to take care of the
> environment then the cost of the environmental care has to be factored
> into the cost of products. We have a good amount of that now, for
> example, emission standards on cars. We need much more and for a much
> much wider spectrum of products.
>
> The issue is that these will be labeled "taxes" in the communist sense
> and fought long and hard against. One goes this route and they start
> getting labeled UnAmerican blah blah blah. But, the market will not
> just take care of this. On the contrary, the market could give a shit
> about the environment.
>
Again, like clockwork, Galen chimes in with a complete misunderstanding
about how markets work.
There's no component of the market that condones pollution. Just like
there's no component of the market that allows murdering your
competitors (sorry John, but it's an apt analogy). So, blaming the
market for the wrongs that people do doesn't really make much sense.
You can have markets and a criminal justice system. They're not
mutually exclusive entities.
A recent article about how the free market could take care of the
environment:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/fixing-global-warming-for-fun-if-not-for-profit/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jenkins back
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/5ab06afcfcf0f6c2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:20 am
From: Glenn Greenstein
On Jun 16, 12:42 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:677f769e-5804-4b82-a191-cc2f6178c318@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 11:52 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:4b6b84d7-4a14-43a8-8710-d76120a7e566@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 16, 9:12 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good to see this but the end of this column is disturbing. If they
> > > f*** up the off season by the Faneca release it is all on Ryan.
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > I'm taking a guess, but I dont think they felt Vlad could start. I'm
> > thinking they had him with the first team for a while to evaluate him
> > in with the other starters. If you watch any of Vlad's highlights, he
> > appears to have a lot of power and leverage, but he is very raw and
> > even clumsy. I cant imagine the Jets thought he would be a first year
> > starter. I'm also convinced that Slauson looked so good when he
> > started last season, the Jets felt good about sending Faneca on his
> > way. Given all of that, Vlad's move to the second team was an
> > expected part of an evlauation process. They had Slauson as the
> > starter all along. There was no real surprise dissapointment in Vlad
> > as this writer suggests.
>
> > I think they are going to find out that they should have kept Faneca
> > around
> > for a while longer, even if to just be the guy who knows how to do it play
> > execution wise.
>
> +1
>
> Looking back, I knew when I was a senior in college that the kid behind me
> was bigger and stronger. I also knew I was quicker at the moment and knew
> what the Hell I was doing, and he didn't. I got sick before a big game,
> really sick with a stomach thing. The kid started in place of me, he lasted
> three plays, two screw ups in assignment and I played the rest of the way
> and had the best game I ever had. Now, in Faneca's case it is just a
> situation of a guy who "knows" what to do, he may have lost the skills to do
> it or make it happen, but he can still show you how to do it and even get it
> done most of the time in practice...that is huge in a team sport and it's
> usually how the younger guys learn.
Like I said when it happened, for 2 million in an uncapped year, this
made no sense.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:23 am
From: Michael
On Jun 16, 1:07 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 12:50 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> papa.carl44 wrote:
> >>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3c84245b-9066-4e66-8920-7dd9eecf8d51@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jun 16, 11:52 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:4b6b84d7-4a14-43a8-8710-d76120a7e566@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Jun 16, 9:12 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Good to see this but the end of this column is disturbing. If they
> >>>>> f*** up the off season by the Faneca release it is all on Ryan.
> >>>> <SNIP>
> >>>> I'm taking a guess, but I dont think they felt Vlad could start. I'm
> >>>> thinking they had him with the first team for a while to evaluate him
> >>>> in with the other starters. If you watch any of Vlad's highlights, he
> >>>> appears to have a lot of power and leverage, but he is very raw and
> >>>> even clumsy. I cant imagine the Jets thought he would be a first year
> >>>> starter. I'm also convinced that Slauson looked so good when he
> >>>> started last season, the Jets felt good about sending Faneca on his
> >>>> way. Given all of that, Vlad's move to the second team was an
> >>>> expected part of an evlauation process. They had Slauson as the
> >>>> starter all along. There was no real surprise dissapointment in Vlad
> >>>> as this writer suggests.
> >>>> I think they are going to find out that they should have kept Faneca
> >>>> around
> >>>> for a while longer, even if to just be the guy who knows how to do it play
> >>>> execution wise.
> >>> Papa... Faneca was on record saying that he was not asked to take a
> >>> pay cut. I think they felt Faneca was so bad they did not want him
> >>> back even if he took a 1mm pay cut and got his 2010 pay downt to the
> >>> 6mm he walked off with. He could not move the pile and he was the
> >>> worst pass blocking RG in the NFL.
> >>> Do you think Faneca would have been worth keeping as a teacher and
> >>> emergency back-up for the extra 1mm if the kept him ?
> >>> Or, if they had asked him to take a cut...we shall see. If neither of these
> >>> guys gets the job done, you have your answer.
> >> My feeling, and this is based on zero evidence, is that they figured
> >> Slauson is not Adrien Clarke and that Ducasse is a very very intriguing
> >> prospect. So, I think Michael is right in the sense that they probably
> >> have some faith in Slauson, and can count on him to start and not be a
> >> sieve.
>
> >> But I think their hope all along has been (and still is) that Ducasse
> >> would win the job. I don't buy that they were using Ducasse just to
> >> give him reps. Teams generally don't do that. In fact, rookies often
> >> start low on the depth chart this early because they don't know what the
> >> hell they're doing. Even the first round guys are running with the
> >> scout team a lot of times.
>
> >> Also, I find it interesting that they waited until they drafted Ducasse
> >> before cutting Faneca. I think they had every intention of keeping him
> >> if they weren't able to land Ducasse.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mark... I would agree with you for sure that they would have liked
> > Vlad to win the job if not for the Vlad highlights. As much upside as
> > he has, I cant imagine they felt he could be trained up in such a
> > short time. I'm not a coach and I did not play organized football but
> > I a have been watching for a long time and I concentrate on the
> > lines. Vlad has all the physical tools but he needs a lot of work
> > before he can play as a starter even as a guard. I cant imagine the
> > Jets coaches did not see that when they watched him. I think Vlad was
> > on their minds as the heir apparent to Woody's job. To my eyes, he's
> > best fit will eventually be as a RT. Again... All just guess work.
>
> You might be right that he's raw, but it sure wouldn't be the first time
> that a raw rookie lineman won the starting job. Linemen more than
> anyone else can contribute as rookies if they work hard and play hard.
> Saw it on the Pats last year with a very raw Sebastian Vollmer... also a
> 2nd rounder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw Vollmer's early games. Vollmer was green but he was not
awkward. Vlad actually looks awkward. His power below the waist and
leverage in his arms are impressive but for right now, he will get
eaten alive by pro quality d-line guys. When Slauson played, he
looked very clean and had classic movement. Again... It would be
ideal if Vlad can make big strides, but I dont think Vlad played much
into getting rid of Fancea... I think Slauson convinced them that they
coud. Vlad was taken I think to replace Woody in a few years. They
have the time to prep Vlad for that job in may be two more years.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 2:03 pm
From: John C TX
> Like I said when it happened, for 2 million in an uncapped year, this
> made no sense.
Less than $2MM because someone had to replace him.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sporting News picking Jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/916544c46a0f3470?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:32 am
From: "RickyBobby"
"*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hv9jk5$9ns$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:U8NRn.7566$1Q5.1268@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>>
>> "*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4e547822-9371-43fc-96a5-b6446887d58e@30g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>> That's practically the kiss of death.
>>
>> Nah, injuries are the real kiss of death.
>
>
> That and over-confidence. Last year, a lot of the team were making names
> for themselves ( outside NY ). This year they are a team of established
> stars, plus some. Those teams have not historically done well; witness
> Dallas 3 years ago. Plus, we are talking about the Jets.
>
>
>
The Jets have a roster full of current and recent Pro Bowl players and a
fine coach. If the hapless Saints can get good and win that means that
there is hope for every other team. At least the Jets will be much more
enjoyable in the next season than there were during that unfortunate thirty
year span of inept quarterbacks and clueless coaches.
The same old Jets are rapidly becoming the brand new Jets.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 9:50 pm
From: "*ernie"
"RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_V7Sn.15287$3y2.15223@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
> "*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hv9jk5$9ns$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:U8NRn.7566$1Q5.1268@newsfe08.iad...
>>>
>>>
>>> "*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4e547822-9371-43fc-96a5-b6446887d58e@30g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>> That's practically the kiss of death.
>>>
>>> Nah, injuries are the real kiss of death.
>>
>>
>> That and over-confidence. Last year, a lot of the team were making names
>> for themselves ( outside NY ). This year they are a team of established
>> stars, plus some. Those teams have not historically done well; witness
>> Dallas 3 years ago. Plus, we are talking about the Jets.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The Jets have a roster full of current and recent Pro Bowl players and a
> fine coach. If the hapless Saints can get good and win that means that
> there is hope for every other team. At least the Jets will be much more
> enjoyable in the next season than there were during that unfortunate
> thirty year span of inept quarterbacks and clueless coaches.
>
> The same old Jets are rapidly becoming the brand new Jets.
As a life-long New Yorker, I certainly hope you're right. I'm a die-hard
Giants fan but not the type who hates the Jets. Having two games worth
watching every Sunday is appealing.
--
ernie k.
alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 10:09 pm
From: "RickyBobby"
"*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvc9jh$5gv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:_V7Sn.15287$3y2.15223@newsfe11.iad...
>>
>>
>> "*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hv9jk5$9ns$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:U8NRn.7566$1Q5.1268@newsfe08.iad...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "*ernie" <alreadydeleted9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4e547822-9371-43fc-96a5-b6446887d58e@30g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> That's practically the kiss of death.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, injuries are the real kiss of death.
>>>
>>>
>>> That and over-confidence. Last year, a lot of the team were making names
>>> for themselves ( outside NY ). This year they are a team of established
>>> stars, plus some. Those teams have not historically done well; witness
>>> Dallas 3 years ago. Plus, we are talking about the Jets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Jets have a roster full of current and recent Pro Bowl players and a
>> fine coach. If the hapless Saints can get good and win that means that
>> there is hope for every other team. At least the Jets will be much more
>> enjoyable in the next season than there were during that unfortunate
>> thirty year span of inept quarterbacks and clueless coaches.
>>
>> The same old Jets are rapidly becoming the brand new Jets.
>
>
>
>
> As a life-long New Yorker, I certainly hope you're right. I'm a die-hard
> Giants fan but not the type who hates the Jets. Having two games worth
> watching every Sunday is appealing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am not any sort of NFL expert but if you live in NYC I predict that you
will have two game worth watching from the first game until late in the
playoffs.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
