Wednesday, July 21, 2010

- Villas - Dabolim Vasco Goa. Call +91 - 98210 45393

Buzz It
ESTATES, PROPERTIES - FOR SALE
A new listing with title Raj vatika - Villas - Dabolim Vasco Goa. Call +91 - 98210 45393 has just been submitted.

===================================================
http://www.magicingoa.com/index.php?list=advertisement&method=showdetails&rollid=9466&eid=microvinitster@GMAIL.COM
===================================================

Additional message:
Unsubscribe from our newsletters
http://www.egoa.info/unsubscribe.php

alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots - 25 new messages in 3 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* (paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Classic Trainer,Nike Shox
Monster Suppliers. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/252b38cf25f7970b?hl=en
* asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP - 23 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en
* Bookmaker.com sign up code is WAGER - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/33f60a1f823c3972?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: (paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Classic Trainer,Nike Shox
Monster Suppliers.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/252b38cf25f7970b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 20 2010 11:38 pm
From: cntrade08


(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Solas Air Huarache Burst
Tailwind Classic BW.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max 90 Sneakers,
Nike Air Max 91 Supplier, Nike Air Max 95 Shoes Supplier,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max 97 Trainers.
Nike
Air Max 2003 Wholesale, Nike Air Max 2004 Shoes Wholesale,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max 2005 Shop, Nike
Air Max 2006 Shoes Shop.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max 360 Catalogs,
Nike Air Max Plus Tn Shoes Catalogs,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max Plus Tn 2
Women's
Men's Shoes.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Max Plus Tn 3
Customize, Nike Air Max Plus Tn 4 Shoes Customize, Nike Air Max Plus
Tn 6 Supply, Nike Air Max Ltd Shoes Supply.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox NZ R3 R4 R5 VC OZ
LV
TNTL Rival Bmw Ride
Turbo Classic Monster
Dendara Energia TL TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 CL Explodine Junga Respond
Cognescenti, Shox Disobey Vivacity Warrior
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Andalucia Rhythmic Aprisa
Trainer Rollin BB4 Bella IL Electric TR Propulsion XT.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Nz Sale, Nike
Shox
R4 Shoes Sale, Nike Shox R5 Store
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox OZ Shoes Store,
Nike Shox VC Distributor.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox LV Shoes
Distributor, Nike Shox TL Manufacturer,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox TL 2 Shoes
Manufacturer,
Nike Shox TL 3 Running Shoes.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox TL 5 Mens Womens
Shoes, Nike Shox Bmw Wholesaler, Nike Shox Ride Shoes Wholesaler,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Turbo Sneaker. Nike
Shox Elite Seller,
Nike Shox Rival Shoes Seller,
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Classic Trainer,
Nike Shox Monster Suppliers.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Shox Energia Shoes
Suppliers, Nike Shox Dendara Collection.
(paypal payment)(www.cntrade09.com) Nike Air Jordan 1 2 3 4 5 6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Jumpman Series Melo 5.5 Apparels Zero Nu Retro
Melo
1.5, Air Jordan I II III
IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:48 am
From: Larry G


On Jul 20, 7:14 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:57:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 5:39 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 20, 12:21 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <ddcccbc6-5df9-4b9d-b808-5b404a3ed...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Larry G  <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >this is true around the world at those latitudes?  How can other
> >> >> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >> >> >longer life expectancies than us?
>
> >> >> Latitude isn't everything.  Compare England's climate to Canada's sometime.
>
> >> >> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >> >> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >> >> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> >> >> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> >> >Latitude is NOT everything, agree. We use energy to move 2 tons of
> >> >vehicle and one  person while they use 1 ton.
>
> >> Find me a 2000 lb car for sale in the USA that you'd want to drive
> >> from NY to LA that doesn't cost $100,000 'cuz of its carbon fiber
> >> body, titanium frame, and aluminum everything else.
>
> >> The safety nazis have made everything to be built like a tank and the
> >> envirowackos have hung a pile of heavy pollution equipment all over
> >> the car and the result is a mess.
>
> >> >We heat and cool 2000 square feet per person while they only heat/cool
> >> >the rooms they actually occupy.
>
> >> 2000 ft. per person?  A 4 person family has an 8000 sq. ft. house?
> >> What county you living in, anyway?  Al Gore might have that much room,
> >> but I've only got about 1700.
>
> >> >We keep water HOT for showers 24/7 while they heat only what they need
> >> >and use at the time they shower.
>
> >> Something to be remedied in my next house, as it is a good idea and at
> >> least doable here.  The various authorities at least haven't outlawed
> >> in-line water heaters yet.
>
> >> >They ride bikes, motor-scooters,
>
> >> People with death wishes do that around here, too.
>
> >> >and public transit to/from work every day
>
> >> to other people's schedules.  How pedestrian...
>
> >> >and rent a larger vehicle for their vacations.
>
> >> Try to rent an SUV with big knobby tires to go deer hunting in deep
> >> snow.  Good luck.  Not happenin'
>
> >> >We buy large vehicles to make sure we can tote all the toys to vacation but then
> >> >drive it 99% solo to/from work.
>
> >> We buy large vehicles to do everything we want to do when we want to
> >> do it.  Try to rent a Winnebago on the 4th of July.  Good luck.
>
> >> >They pay $6-7 for gasoline which helps them decide priorities and we
> >> >pay under $4 a gallon and complain about the cost of solo commuting.
>
> >> They have much less miles to cover to get where they want to go 'cuz
> >> their countries are smaller.
>
> >> >We don't want to pay what it costs to add wind/solar to the grid but
> >> >then complain when non-attainment rules restrict congestion relief
> >> >infrastructure.
>
> >> Wind and solar is too expensive and unreliable.  They've been building
> >> it for decades and it's still only a few percent of our baseload
> >> electricity.  If the envirowackos don't get the F out of the way and
> >> allow nukes to be built, we'll be building coal plants forever.
>
> >if you include the insurance subsidies necessary for Nukes - the cost
> >is higher than wind and getting closer to solar..
>
> OK, maybe its between wind and solar, but we can build up a terawatt a
> heckuva lot faster with nukes.
>
> >if you required coal to be as clean as nukes, solar and wind - they'd
> >be as expensive also.
>
> It'd simply be undoable.
>
> >the truth is that the environment "subsidizes" coal. Natural gas is
> >much cleaner than coal but more expensive.
>
> And you have to drill it.  The envirowackos are closing off more land
> to drilling all the time.  The NIMBYS wouldn't allow an LNG terminal
> to be built on the US west coast, so now its in Mexico and even if the
> LNG may be coming thru the Panama ditch from someplace on the east
> coast, it'll still be "foreign" 'cuz Mexico gets a crack at taxing it,
> or embargoing it if they want to.
>
> >there is nothing wrong with solar and wind as use-when-available
> >sources. What we lack is a grid that can dynamically load balance a
> >wide variety of sources.
>
> Sure, and the envirowackos are in concert with the NIMBYs to keep that
> from being built, too.
>
> >every kilowatt that solar and wind ...CAN GENERATE - is a kilowatt
> >saved from coal or natural gas or even NUKEs if the NUKE can be
> >moderated.
>
> Fine.  Build 'em.  Just don't expect 'em to save you from building
> something that works - coal, gas, nukes.
>
> >net zero houses are possible right now... and they pay for themselves
> >in under 20 years.
>
> Need a new definition of "net zero."  If you don't put power in there
> somewhere, the "net zero" house in Atlanta in August is still gonna be
> 95 degrees or better, and probably kill some poor old person that dies
> of the heat.
>
> >re: car - okay 2575 and 34mpg....
>
> >http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/honda/fit/101200428/specs.html
>
> Yet it's not 2000 lbs.  There used to be 1800 lb cars for sale before
> the envirowackos and safety nazis.  And 31 mpg combined?  Really?  You
> wanna go from NY to LA in THAT?  REALLY????
>
> The new Mustang with the big 6 that will zero-to-60 so as to scare you
> gets 31 on the open road.  I'll take that, but it ain't nowhere near
> 2000 lbs.
>
> >there are 4 or 5 more in this class.   As a one person commuter car -
>
> Not commuter car.  I can't, and most people can't, buy a commuter car
> and a road car and a hunting vehicle and a camping vehicle and etc.  I
> said something to go to NY to LA, IOW a car that would serve for all
> your needs for basic transport.  Then maybe U can get another car,
> maybe a used car, for the other recreational endeavor - hunting,
> fishing, camping, etc.  That's how people operate here.  If they
> can't, the recreation industry will be gutted.
>
> >it passes all safety specs and uses about 1/2 the fuel as a typical
> >American commuting car - which puts you on par with the Europeans.
>
> Not by a long shot.  The Euros had diesel and some commuter cars that
> do 68 mpg.  The envirowackos have made diesel and almost-impossible
> proposition here.
>
> >and it still lets you have the knobby tire behemoth for giggles and
> >grins
>
> Nope.  Not a commuter / behemouth.  That doesn't work.  I can't drive
> the commuter to Arizona and I wouldn't drive the behemouth to Arizona.
> That's 1700 miles or so.  I need a "road car" and a "behemouth."  My
> behemouth is a 3000 lb, approx, Jeep Cherokee, 1998. Yeah, its only 16
> - 18 mpg, but I only run it maybe 3000 miles a year now.
>
> >your general attitude ... "smartass american" is the basic problem
> >with energy use.
>
> Yep, we're going to continue to do what we've been doing.  If we
> don't, some major industries are going belly up, starting with the
> recreational industries.
>
> >You're not about to give anything up until it hurts you in the
> >pocketbook.
>
> I'm not going to give it up then, either.
>
> >If you had to pay $6-7 a gallon for gas - chances are you be just like
> >most Europeans...   still do your thing ...but find cheaper (less
> >energy use) ways to do what is important to you per your job and life.
>
> I'll find a way.  Probably someone won't like it, but I'll find a way.
> Or I won't, and all the people I was paying for sleeping rooms and
> gasoline and souveniers and etc. all over the country will have to go
> without my business.  Lotsa other people's business, too.  They'll go
> out of business.  More unemployment.  But the envirowackos and the
> NIMBYs and the safety nazis will all rejoice.
>
> >Americans talk-the-talk when it comes to energy and conservation but
> >actually doing it is a whole nother issue
>
> Our real answer will come with electrification.  Somebody just has to
> invent the magic battery, that's all.

not all folks who care bout the environment and want us to adopt
common-sense changes are "wackos" though.

== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:49 am
From: Larry G


On Jul 20, 7:16 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >3. travel less too.
>
> >> Not happenin'.  If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
> >> and then the whole economy will too.  The only "travel less" we can do
> >> is recreational.
>
> >...travel less...  than.... is not the same as NO travel dude.
>
> Its the same as NO _recreational_ travel.  That's the only less we can
> do.  Still gotta go to work, the grocery, the haircut.  After that,
> it's don't go to the movie, don't go to the concert, don't go on
> vacation, don't go to the beach, don't go to the casino in the next
> state, don't, don't, don't.

it's not "no". Even Europeans and Japanese do ALL of these things -
but at 1/2 the energy use.


== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:51 am
From: Larry G


On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 5:43 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:11:49 GMT, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
>
> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >> >In article <nih036tl87k6oerg6pa9da6nc5ctsuj...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Dave Head  <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
> >> >>can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
> >> >>hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now.  People have
> >> >>claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
> >> >>disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.
>
> >> >Yeah, when someone told them to put up or shut up.
>
> >> Yep.  So far the magic battery remains magic.  Somebody still needs to
> >> invent it.
>
> >can't 'create' energy....  only change the form of it.   battery cars
> >are not happening yet... they are further away than cheap solar in my
> >view
>
> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
> power yourself over most of your city without gas.  But if you want to
> crusise the open road, it can do that too.  The lack of the magic
> battery forces a gas engine to make it go after 40 miles.  When the
> magic battery is invented, (if), then it'll likely be retrofitted, and
> the gas engine will be used even less.
>
> If it weren't for the envirowackos, that gas engine would likely be a
> diesel, and this thing would be REALLY efficient.

you might want to pay attention why Toyota does not think plug-in
technology is ready for prime time. What GM is doing is
greenwashing... similar to what they did with their electric car
initiative that they shut down after they got all the PR out of that
they could.l GM was never committed to that direction.


== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:58 am
From: Larry G


On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>  wrote:
>
> >> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
> >> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>
> > Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>
> > Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>
> > Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>
> > mr dude
>
> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>
> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night.  Logic - fine as
> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
> 40 miles.

more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
in more coal plants...


== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 5:03 am
From: Larry G


On Jul 20, 9:31 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <rt2dnZWrV7S7D9jRnZ2dnUVZ_uOdn...@earthlink.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> george conklin <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >"Matthew Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:Ou91o.39937$f_3.25045@newsfe17.iad...
> >> In article
> >> <ddcccbc6-5df9-4b9d-b808-5b404a3ed...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Larry G  <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>this is true around the world at those latitudes?  How can other
> >>>countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >>>longer life expectancies than us?
>
> >> Latitude isn't everything.  Compare England's climate to Canada's
> >> sometime.
>
> >>>If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >>>they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >>>instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> >> No, it means they're twice as cramped as we are.
>
> >   Mostly it comes from very small dwellings.  NYC dwellers use much less
> >energy.
>
> Yeah, well a 650 square foot apartment in Manhattan runs well over
> $2000/month.  No wonder people live in small dwellings.
>
> >But the New York Times published an article which stated that the
> >reason is NOT transporation (transit buses are no more efficient than cars),
>
> True, but the subways probably are.  You've got a point, don't ruin it
> with misleading information.

if the system runs 24/7 and cannot easily adjust schedule and number
of cars to load - they tend to be no more efficient on a per passenger
basis than other modes.

== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 5:09 am
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 7:16 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>
>> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >3. travel less too.
>>
>> >> Not happenin'.  If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
>> >> and then the whole economy will too.  The only "travel less" we can do
>> >> is recreational.
>>
>> >...travel less...  than.... is not the same as NO travel dude.
>>
>> Its the same as NO _recreational_ travel.  That's the only less we can
>> do.  Still gotta go to work, the grocery, the haircut.  After that,
>> it's don't go to the movie, don't go to the concert, don't go on
>> vacation, don't go to the beach, don't go to the casino in the next
>> state, don't, don't, don't.
>
>it's not "no". Even Europeans and Japanese do ALL of these things -
>but at 1/2 the energy use.

They ride their freakin' trains. We don't have trains - not ones that
are worth riding.


== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 5:11 am
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:51:33 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 20, 5:43 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:11:49 GMT, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>
>> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>> >> >In article <nih036tl87k6oerg6pa9da6nc5ctsuj...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >Dave Head  <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
>> >> >>can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
>> >> >>hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now.  People have
>> >> >>claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
>> >> >>disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.
>>
>> >> >Yeah, when someone told them to put up or shut up.
>>
>> >> Yep.  So far the magic battery remains magic.  Somebody still needs to
>> >> invent it.
>>
>> >can't 'create' energy....  only change the form of it.   battery cars
>> >are not happening yet... they are further away than cheap solar in my
>> >view
>>
>> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.  But if you want to
>> crusise the open road, it can do that too.  The lack of the magic
>> battery forces a gas engine to make it go after 40 miles.  When the
>> magic battery is invented, (if), then it'll likely be retrofitted, and
>> the gas engine will be used even less.
>>
>> If it weren't for the envirowackos, that gas engine would likely be a
>> diesel, and this thing would be REALLY efficient.
>
>you might want to pay attention why Toyota does not think plug-in
>technology is ready for prime time. What GM is doing is
>greenwashing... similar to what they did with their electric car
>initiative that they shut down after they got all the PR out of that
>they could.l GM was never committed to that direction.

Dunno what you're talking about. The Volt is Chevy's Manhattan
Project. They will probably live or die on its success.


== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 6:27 am
From: Rich Piehl


On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>>> mr dude
>>
>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>
>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night. Logic - fine as
>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>> 40 miles.
>
> more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
> in more coal plants...

That's right.

And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
late Ted Kennedy)


== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 10:06 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty


On 7/20/2010 10:45 PM, Dave Head wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "mr
> dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>> mr dude
>
> As soon as the F'n envirowackos let people build the only really clean
> solution that works, nuclear, then that will likely continue to be the
> case.


Obama doesn't need it, he already has nuclear weapons....

Only Socialists that want Nuclear weapons need nuclear power.


== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 12:41 pm
From: Larry G


On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
> > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>    wrote:
>
> >>>> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
> >>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>
> >>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>
> >>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>
> >>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>
> >>> mr dude
>
> >> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
> >> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>
> >> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night.  Logic - fine as
> >> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
> >> 40 miles.
>
> > more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
> > in more coal plants...
>
> That's right.
>
> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
> late Ted Kennedy)

not all of them


== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 12:51 pm
From: Larry G


On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
> > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net>  wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>    wrote:
>
> >>>> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
> >>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>
> >>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>
> >>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>
> >>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>
> >>> mr dude
>
> >> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
> >> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>
> >> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night.  Logic - fine as
> >> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
> >> 40 miles.
>
> > more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
> > in more coal plants...
>
> That's right.
>
> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
> late Ted Kennedy)

the problem with Nuclear is not environmentalists despite the
rhetoric. It's a myth for two reasons.

1. - the first is that many folks do not trust the companies nor the
govt to do Nukes properly... you know ...the old "the govt is
incompetent and private industry is out for profits" narrative.

2. - In Virginia, Dominion Power is carefully pursuing the 3rd nuke at
North Anna (which is 10 air miles from where I live) ... and the CEO
made a curious statement not too long ago and it went like this:

" we are pursuing the right to construct but we have not yet made a
decision to construct because we don't want to give our investors a
heart attack".

What he was talking about was the sheer amount of money that would
have to be raised to actually build the 3rd Nuke. It would be almost
too much debt for the company to safely borrow and still be considered
adequately capitalized.

That's the difference between us and France. France underwrites the
capital for the Nukes.

We don't.

And you know why? Because if we did - it's considered "socialism"
instead of capitalism.

It would be considered the US govt favoring what kind of power over
another instead of letting the market decide.

So the idea that environmentalists have stopped the Nukes is a MYTH..
but one that those who tends towards idealogical views tend to prefer
- over the actual realities.

and yes.. I anticipated your next question:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/


== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:44 pm
From: Rich Piehl


On 7/21/2010 2:41 PM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>>>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>>>>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>>>>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>>>>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>>>>> mr dude
>>
>>>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>>>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>
>>>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night. Logic - fine as
>>>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>>>> 40 miles.
>>
>>> more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>>> in more coal plants...
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>> late Ted Kennedy)
>
> not all of them


Not all of which them? Not all the Ted Kennedy's? Not all the nuclear?
Not all the solar? Not all the environmentalist?


== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:50 pm
From: Rich Piehl


On 7/21/2010 2:51 PM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>>>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>>>>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>>>>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>>>>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>>>>> mr dude
>>
>>>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>>>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>
>>>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night. Logic - fine as
>>>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>>>> 40 miles.
>>
>>> more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>>> in more coal plants...
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>> late Ted Kennedy)
>
> the problem with Nuclear is not environmentalists despite the
> rhetoric. It's a myth for two reasons.
>
> 1. - the first is that many folks do not trust the companies nor the
> govt to do Nukes properly... you know ...the old "the govt is
> incompetent and private industry is out for profits" narrative.
>
> 2. - In Virginia, Dominion Power is carefully pursuing the 3rd nuke at
> North Anna (which is 10 air miles from where I live) ... and the CEO
> made a curious statement not too long ago and it went like this:
>
> " we are pursuing the right to construct but we have not yet made a
> decision to construct because we don't want to give our investors a
> heart attack".
>
> What he was talking about was the sheer amount of money that would
> have to be raised to actually build the 3rd Nuke. It would be almost
> too much debt for the company to safely borrow and still be considered
> adequately capitalized.
>
> That's the difference between us and France. France underwrites the
> capital for the Nukes.
>
> We don't.
>
> And you know why? Because if we did - it's considered "socialism"
> instead of capitalism.
>
> It would be considered the US govt favoring what kind of power over
> another instead of letting the market decide.
>
> So the idea that environmentalists have stopped the Nukes is a MYTH..
> but one that those who tends towards idealogical views tend to prefer
> - over the actual realities.
>
> and yes.. I anticipated your next question:
>
> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/

It's not a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html

And it is still very true
http://www.dailytech.com/Environmentalists+Look+to+Block+Nuclear+Licensing+with+Protests/article15313.htm

http://michiganmessenger.com/14545/fermi-3-opposition-takes-legal-action-to-block-new-nuclear-reactor

Sorry, Larry


== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:02 pm
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Larry G

>not all folks who care bout the environment and want us to adopt
>common-sense changes are "wackos" though.

The common sense changes were all accomplished 20 years ago. Anyone
pushing further restrictions is an envirowacko.


== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:03 pm
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:09:33 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
><gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 20, 7:16 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>>
>>> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >3. travel less too.
>>>
>>> >> Not happenin'.  If it does, the recreational industry will collapse
>>> >> and then the whole economy will too.  The only "travel less" we can do
>>> >> is recreational.
>>>
>>> >...travel less...  than.... is not the same as NO travel dude.
>>>
>>> Its the same as NO _recreational_ travel.  That's the only less we can
>>> do.  Still gotta go to work, the grocery, the haircut.  After that,
>>> it's don't go to the movie, don't go to the concert, don't go on
>>> vacation, don't go to the beach, don't go to the casino in the next
>>> state, don't, don't, don't.
>>
>>it's not "no". Even Europeans and Japanese do ALL of these things -
>>but at 1/2 the energy use.
>
>They ride their freakin' trains. We don't have trains - not ones that
>are worth riding.

Oh, I almost forgot... we're also moving most of our cargo around on
nice, efficient (not) TRUCKS!. Again, not enough trackage, and the
rail companies can't seem to move things anyways close to as fast as
trucks.


== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:05 pm
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
><rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>  wrote:
>>
>> >> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
>> >> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>> > Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>> > Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>> > Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>> > mr dude
>>
>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>
>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night.  Logic - fine as
>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>> 40 miles.
>
>more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>in more coal plants...

It'll result in more electric plants being built. If we're lucky, and
want to charge the car cheaply, they'll be coal plants. If we want to
pay for electric out the nose, they'll all be solar.


== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:06 pm
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:41:34 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
><rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
>> > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net>  wrote:
>> >> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>    wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Battery car happens this fall.  Its called the Chevy Volt.  You can
>> >>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>
>> >>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>
>> >>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>
>> >>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>
>> >>> mr dude
>>
>> >> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>> >> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>
>> >> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night.  Logic - fine as
>> >> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>> >> 40 miles.
>>
>> > more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>> > in more coal plants...
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>> late Ted Kennedy)
>
>not all of them

Shouldn't be any of 'em.


== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:20 pm
From: Dave Head


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:51:12 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
<gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>> late Ted Kennedy)
>
>the problem with Nuclear is not environmentalists despite the
>rhetoric. It's a myth for two reasons.
>
>1. - the first is that many folks do not trust the companies nor the
>govt to do Nukes properly... you know ...the old "the govt is
>incompetent and private industry is out for profits" narrative.

'Cuz the envirowackos have been lying to them about that for several
decades.

>2. - In Virginia, Dominion Power is carefully pursuing the 3rd nuke at
>North Anna (which is 10 air miles from where I live) ... and the CEO
>made a curious statement not too long ago and it went like this:
>
>" we are pursuing the right to construct but we have not yet made a
>decision to construct because we don't want to give our investors a
>heart attack".

Well, they better build it, or we're all gonna have rolling blackouts
around here when the electric cars start connecting up. Its 33 air
miles from me, here in King George County.

>What he was talking about was the sheer amount of money that would
>have to be raised to actually build the 3rd Nuke. It would be almost
>too much debt for the company to safely borrow and still be considered
>adequately capitalized.

Wonder what a wind farm costs... one that will provide the same power
delivery.

>That's the difference between us and France. France underwrites the
>capital for the Nukes.
>
>We don't.
>
>And you know why? Because if we did - it's considered "socialism"
>instead of capitalism.

Like to Nationalize all the industries? Think its expensive now...

>It would be considered the US govt favoring what kind of power over
>another instead of letting the market decide.

And of course they wouldn't favor nuclear anyway, not with all the
envirowackos marching up and down with signs and chants.

>So the idea that environmentalists have stopped the Nukes is a MYTH..

No its not.

>but one that those who tends towards idealogical views tend to prefer
>- over the actual realities.
>
>and yes.. I anticipated your next question:
>
>http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/

Yeah, we're in the middle of an economic depression, or the cusp of
it. We'll see the rest of it after the Bush tax cuts expire next
year. But the lack of suppliers, the lack of skilled labor, etc. is
'cuz we're building less and less, requiring fewer and fewer of the
people that can do these things and industries that can supply those
things, and it's all getting concentrated in Asia. They're soon going
to have all the industry, and if we wanna build a nuke, we're going to
have to pay plane fare for all concerned to come from China and do it
for us.

Of course, the income taxes are at the bottom of that, because they
are what makes US industry too expensive to compete in the
international marketplace. Its not the unions - they just want to not
join the contraction of US prosperity that is being experenced by
everyone except the politically connected and the top guys at
industries who are still making $10 million a year.

Repeal the income tax, nuke the IRS, or we'll never see prosperity
again, I believe.


== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 6:14 pm
From: Clark F Morris


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:50:15 -0500, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:

>On 7/21/2010 2:51 PM, Larry G wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>>>>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>>
>>>>>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>>
>>>>>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>>
>>>>>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>>
>>>>>> mr dude
>>>
>>>>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>>>>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>>
>>>>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night. Logic - fine as
>>>>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>>>>> 40 miles.
>>>
>>>> more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>>>> in more coal plants...
>>>
>>> That's right.
>>>
>>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>>> late Ted Kennedy)
>>
>> the problem with Nuclear is not environmentalists despite the
>> rhetoric. It's a myth for two reasons.
>>
>> 1. - the first is that many folks do not trust the companies nor the
>> govt to do Nukes properly... you know ...the old "the govt is
>> incompetent and private industry is out for profits" narrative.
>>
>> 2. - In Virginia, Dominion Power is carefully pursuing the 3rd nuke at
>> North Anna (which is 10 air miles from where I live) ... and the CEO
>> made a curious statement not too long ago and it went like this:
>>
>> " we are pursuing the right to construct but we have not yet made a
>> decision to construct because we don't want to give our investors a
>> heart attack".
>>
>> What he was talking about was the sheer amount of money that would
>> have to be raised to actually build the 3rd Nuke. It would be almost
>> too much debt for the company to safely borrow and still be considered
>> adequately capitalized.
>>
>> That's the difference between us and France. France underwrites the
>> capital for the Nukes.
>>
>> We don't.
>>
>> And you know why? Because if we did - it's considered "socialism"
>> instead of capitalism.
>>
>> It would be considered the US govt favoring what kind of power over
>> another instead of letting the market decide.
>>
>> So the idea that environmentalists have stopped the Nukes is a MYTH..
>> but one that those who tends towards idealogical views tend to prefer
>> - over the actual realities.
>>
>> and yes.. I anticipated your next question:
>>
>> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/
>
>It's not a myth.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html
>
>And it is still very true
>http://www.dailytech.com/Environmentalists+Look+to+Block+Nuclear+Licensing+with+Protests/article15313.htm
>
>http://michiganmessenger.com/14545/fermi-3-opposition-takes-legal-action-to-block-new-nuclear-reactor
>
>Sorry, Larry

I don't see that what you posted directly contradicts Larry. He is
noting that even if the environmentalists went away (and some are
changing their minds), the economics of nuclear are making it
infeasible. His main citation is a Wall Street Journal blog which
can't be dismissed as a left wing source.

Clark Morris


== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 7:15 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 21, 9:14 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
> I don't see that what you posted directly contradicts Larry.  He is
> noting that even if the environmentalists went away (and some are
> changing their minds), the economics of nuclear are making it
> infeasible.  His main citation is a Wall Street Journal blog which
> can't be dismissed as a left wing source.
>
> Clark Morris

Environmental whackos cause many problems:

The clean up of the Exxon Valdez by the "tree huggers" killed many
natural microbes which would have dissolved the oil naturally.

Whackos drove oil drilling out to the deep seas when land drilling is
more safe.

10 percent ethanol in gasoline raised beef and chicken prices by using
corn to compete with fuel and grain prices.

The present Gulf oil spill will cure itself in no time. Nature seems
to solve it's own issues without someone throwing red paint and a fur
coat!

mr dude

== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 7:20 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 21, 9:14 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
> I don't see that what you posted directly contradicts Larry.  He is
> noting that even if the environmentalists went away (and some are
> changing their minds), the economics of nuclear are making it
> infeasible.  His main citation is a Wall Street Journal blog which
> can't be dismissed as a left wing source.
>
> Clark Morris

Environmental whackos cause many problems:

The clean up of the Exxon Valdez by the "tree huggers" killed many
natural microbes which would have dissolved the oil naturally.

Whackos drove oil drilling out to the deep seas when land drilling is
more safe.

10 percent ethanol in gasoline raised beef and chicken prices by using
corn to compete with fuel and grain prices.

The present Gulf oil spill will cure itself in no time. Nature seems
to solve it's own issues without someone throwing red paint and a fur
coat!

mr dude

== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 7:22 pm
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)


In article <l04f469gjed50q6rue0mpvl6322983qf96@4ax.com>,
Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>I don't see that what you posted directly contradicts Larry. He is
>noting that even if the environmentalists went away (and some are
>changing their minds), the economics of nuclear are making it
>infeasible. His main citation is a Wall Street Journal blog which
>can't be dismissed as a left wing source.

The economics of nuclear are affected by environmentalist opposition.
Environmental, NIMBY and BANANA groups drive up the cost of building plants and
through delays push profit potential far into the future.

--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.


== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 7:30 pm
From: Rich Piehl


On 7/21/2010 8:14 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:50:15 -0500, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2010 2:51 PM, Larry G wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 9:27 am, Rich Piehl
>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2010 6:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 8:56 pm, Rich Piehl
>>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2010 6:29 PM, mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:19 pm, Dave Head<rally...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Battery car happens this fall. Its called the Chevy Volt. You can
>>>>>>>> power yourself over most of your city without gas.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Every 40 miles you must charge the battery.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Where does the energy come from to charge the battery?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Most likely coal!! A battewry charged car is a "dirty" car.
>>>>
>>>>>>> mr dude
>>>>
>>>>>> To say nothing of the load on the nation's electric system that is
>>>>>> already running near capacity in extreme heat and cold.
>>>>
>>>>>> The response - oh there's surplus on the grid at night. Logic - fine as
>>>>>> long as you don't need to charge the car during the day after you driven
>>>>>> 40 miles.
>>>>
>>>>> more electric cars (without changes in power generation) will result
>>>>> in more coal plants...
>>>>
>>>> That's right.
>>>>
>>>> And environmentalists continue to block nuclear (which is used safely in
>>>> France), solar (which also has limits because of the amount of
>>>> electricity generated per square foot of panel and also is blocked in
>>>> some areas by environmentalists) and wind (which also has limitations of
>>>> space and faces opposition from environmentalists and folks like the
>>>> late Ted Kennedy)
>>>
>>> the problem with Nuclear is not environmentalists despite the
>>> rhetoric. It's a myth for two reasons.
>>>
>>> 1. - the first is that many folks do not trust the companies nor the
>>> govt to do Nukes properly... you know ...the old "the govt is
>>> incompetent and private industry is out for profits" narrative.
>>>
>>> 2. - In Virginia, Dominion Power is carefully pursuing the 3rd nuke at
>>> North Anna (which is 10 air miles from where I live) ... and the CEO
>>> made a curious statement not too long ago and it went like this:
>>>
>>> " we are pursuing the right to construct but we have not yet made a
>>> decision to construct because we don't want to give our investors a
>>> heart attack".
>>>
>>> What he was talking about was the sheer amount of money that would
>>> have to be raised to actually build the 3rd Nuke. It would be almost
>>> too much debt for the company to safely borrow and still be considered
>>> adequately capitalized.
>>>
>>> That's the difference between us and France. France underwrites the
>>> capital for the Nukes.
>>>
>>> We don't.
>>>
>>> And you know why? Because if we did - it's considered "socialism"
>>> instead of capitalism.
>>>
>>> It would be considered the US govt favoring what kind of power over
>>> another instead of letting the market decide.
>>>
>>> So the idea that environmentalists have stopped the Nukes is a MYTH..
>>> but one that those who tends towards idealogical views tend to prefer
>>> - over the actual realities.
>>>
>>> and yes.. I anticipated your next question:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/
>>
>> It's not a myth.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html
>>
>> And it is still very true
>> http://www.dailytech.com/Environmentalists+Look+to+Block+Nuclear+Licensing+with+Protests/article15313.htm
>>
>> http://michiganmessenger.com/14545/fermi-3-opposition-takes-legal-action-to-block-new-nuclear-reactor
>>
>> Sorry, Larry
>
> I don't see that what you posted directly contradicts Larry. He is
> noting that even if the environmentalists went away (and some are
> changing their minds), the economics of nuclear are making it
> infeasible. His main citation is a Wall Street Journal blog which
> can't be dismissed as a left wing source.
>
> Clark Morris

I never said it was a left wing source.

He said that it was a myth that the environmentalists are blocking the
development of nuclear power plants. My links show that it is not a
myth; the environmentalists are still obstructing nuclear plant development.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookmaker.com sign up code is WAGER
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/33f60a1f823c3972?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 9:26 pm
From: Greggy


Bookmaker sign up code is WAGER. Enter WAGER as your bonus code for a
sign up bonus.

http://www.bookmaker.com/?cmpid=2559


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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Medarticles Please some one look into this

Buzz It
Dear friends;

Pls get me the full text for the below mentioned 2 articles. Though I
have sincerely searched in GOOGLE, PUBMED, was not able to get the
title / website address / DOI no. of the articles. Have mentioned some
near by website address. Please do try to get the articles, as the
same is of very much importance for my work.....

Awaiting for ur precious reply.......Please upload here also.......

Regards

Sudheer J. (Manju).

1) Pant et al.(2008) Journal of Non-Timber Forets products, Vol.15(1).
pp31-36.
2) Joshi et al.(2001) Indian Journal Of Forestry, Vol.25(4),
pp458-462.

Journal of Non-Timber Forest Products (Half Yearly) Vols.1-10

Price : Rs. 13,300.00 Set

PRODUCT DETAILS
Book Id: 20197
Place of Publication: Dehradun
Year of Publication: 1994 - 2003
Edition:
Langauage: English
http://www.saujanyabooks.com/details.aspx?id=20197&Journal-of-Non-Tim...

JOURNAL OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS

Title No :
Journal Information
Print ISSN 0971-9415

Periodicity Quarterly (4 Issues per year)
Published Since 1994
Publishing Cycle First issue of each Volume published
in :January
Latest Volume Vol 16 in 2009

Availability Print

http://www.connectjournals.com/subscription_info.php?bookmark=CJ-004456

Book Review
Non-Timber Forest Products: Medicinal Herbs, Fungi, Edible Fruit and
Nuts, and Other Natural Products from the Forest Edited by Marla R.
Emery (USDA Forest Service, Burlington, VT) and Rebecca J. McLain
(Institute for Culture and Ecology, Portland, OR). Food Products
Press, Binghamton, NY. 2001. 176 pp. 15 × 21 cm. $39.95 ($29.95
paperback). ISBN 1-56022-088-0 (cloth); 1-56022-089-9 (paper).
• Abstract
• Full Text HTML
• Hi-Res PDF[19 KB]
• PDF w/ Links[20 KB]
J. Nat. Prod., 2002, 65 (11), p 1746
DOI: 10.1021/np020739h
Publication Date (Web): September 5, 2002
Copyright © 2002 American Chemical Society and American Society of
Pharmacognosy
View: Full Text HTML | Hi-Res PDF | PDF w/ Links
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np020739h

INDIAN JOURNAL OF FORESTRY

http://www.connectjournals.com/subscription_info.php?bookmark=CJ-001115

Title No :
Journal Information
Print ISSN 0971-9431

Periodicity Quarterly (4 Issues per year)
Published Since 1978
Publishing Cycle First issue of each Volume published
in :January
Latest Volume Vol 32 in 2009

Availability Print

Published in ENGLISH

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.

http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe

You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

Buzz It
rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Johan Helps Floyd - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b986381527acd02a?hl=en
* You don't see this every day - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/71eb6055cb278b27?hl=en
* Ping: Perry - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/61e95ca5a41cec7e?hl=en
* OK your freeks - back to racing - Best case for Schleck to grab time
tomorrow? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c4b6af4da71ebc3c?hl=en
* Serious but pointed question. - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a289138263bcf44b?hl=en
* Unhappy - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3e25615e6cc1c98d?hl=en
* Contador's chance to become legendary - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/31fbfbf3c7f98fc2?hl=en
* About the most egotistical thing I've ever seen in cycling - LMAO @ "Allen
Effect" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4bd9767a25d7eddc?hl=en
* What's the ruckus? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/7e07a0e3d28fd96c?hl=en
* 2010 TdF route considered harmful. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0cf684ea666d3f25?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Johan Helps Floyd
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/b986381527acd02a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:11 pm
From: Betty


NoDannyNo wrote:
> the one I bought had a used T-patch under the saddle.

What did it smell like ?


== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:20 pm
From: Betty


RicodJour wrote:
> Listen, ya rube - keep the Lafftime filter-glasses on at all times,
> okay? Anything that happens to anyone, anywhere, is LANCE's fault.
> Nobody else matters. Got it?

Presumably they come in Oakley Livestrong colours.


== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:32 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"Fred Flintstein" <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5qadnWkvx5o9gNrRnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/21/2010 10:48 AM, GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>> Bike racing is still an amazing spectacle, with or without the
>>> presence of doping.
>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>
>> I can't believe you said that.
>>
>
> The World Cup is also. As is Wimbledon. And the Super Bowl.
> And the Olympics. And...
>
> Fred Flintstein

Sadly true! But my admittedly-pathetic rationale is that it's become a
fairly-level playing field at the current level of drug testing. Like I
said, pathetic.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:37 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


"B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:v_2dnTQT5KFDitrRnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/21/2010 11:30 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> "Davey Crockett" <rec@azurservers.com> wrote in message
>> news:874oft6kfc.fsf@darkstar1.azurservers.com...
>>> Scott a écrit profondement:
>>>
>>>>
>>> | How, exactly, does admitting to doing something that lots and lots of
>>> | teams and individual pros openly do every year help Floyd?
>>>
>>>
>>> 60 bikes?
>>
>> Are we reading the same thing? Did Johan say anything about 60 bikes?
>> For that matter, Johan said he was aware of bikes being sold off *after*
>> the Discovery team ended. How did he fund a drug program several years
>> prior with proceeds from those bike sales?
>>
>> As usual, there's nothing new here. At some point, there will be. But
>> we're still in the he-said she-said phase of the game.
>
> Mike, the feds are WELL beyond the he said she said point. We just don't
> know where that point is on the continuum to indictment(s)/trial(s).
>
>
>
>
> There's got to be
>> a real trail of evidence somewhere. But right now, Brian and others have
>> blown this thing up so much bigger than it probably is, that people are
>> expecting it will eventually lead to Obama. I'm not saying the story has
>> no legs. What I'm saying is that there's not that much there yet because
>> it might just be that there was never that much there. Whatever went on,
>> went on, and not in such a huge way that it attracted much attention nor
>> diverted much $$$. Novitsky is likely to be hugely disappointed in the
>> end. But of course all he has to do is uncover a testosterone patch (ew,
>> unfortunate metaphor) and Brian and others will say "See, we were right
>> all along!"
>
> The amount(s) of money used to allegedly support a doping plan is not as
> important as what the money, in whatever amount, was used for.

Right, but if Johan is giving a truthful timeline, the money gained from
selling bikes came well after any expenditures for a doping program. But
nobody mentions that. Nobody here even questioned Johan's timeline. Not even
those who are the most-animated about the whole thing. That, to me, is
evidence that people are pretty darned blind to anything that doesn't fit
into their own fantasy, and simply pick & choose "evidence" that fits their
preconceived notion.

>> Bike racing is still an amazing spectacle, with or without the presence
>> of doping. I'd rather it was clean, but then I wish people in general
>> were more honest than they are.
>
> Agreed.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:10 pm
From: William Fred


"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in
news:KradnXw4susw69rRnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink.com:

>
> Right, but if Johan is giving a truthful timeline, the money gained
> from selling bikes came well after any expenditures for a doping
> program. But nobody mentions that. Nobody here even questioned Johan's
> timeline. Not even those who are the most-animated about the whole
> thing. That, to me, is evidence that people are pretty darned blind to
> anything that doesn't fit into their own fantasy, and simply pick &
> choose "evidence" that fits their preconceived notion.
>

Your attempt to inject logic and rationality into this discussion are at
best misguided. Just so you know.

--
Bill Fred


== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:14 pm
From: Choppy Warburton


Mikey - you can't trust a crook and a liar or maybe everyone loves to
see you show up at the poker table.


== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:19 pm
From: NoDannyNo


On Jul 21, 4:11 pm, Betty <n...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> NoDannyNo wrote:
> > the one I bought had a used T-patch under the saddle.
>
> What did it smell like ?

A mixture of Assos chamois cream, FRS Wild Berry "energy drink", and
Peet's Major Dickason's Blend coffee.

Strangest thing was that after inhaling that olfactory sensation I had
the irresistible urge to go out and impregnate someone who looked like
my mother. (The poor mailman...he never knew what hit him).

I wonder whose bike I got?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: You don't see this every day
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/71eb6055cb278b27?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:21 pm
From: Frederick the Great


In article
<663012e0-19b4-4a5b-8434-fc5e95da946d@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com> wrote:

> http://www.bicycling.com/tour-de-france/tour-features/saying-no-sag-wagon

Neat.

"In it, the protagonist is Conan the Barbarian,"
The reporter got it wrong.
That is Cohen the Barbarian.

--
Old Fritz


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:21 pm
From: Betty


RicodJour wrote:
>> The adoration and saintly glow that is
>> projected onto sports stars is normal for a 12 year old, but as in
>> many things in life, you have to leave that behind when you mature.

Fred Flintstein wrote:
> Philly sucks.

It doesn't glow anyway.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping: Perry
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/61e95ca5a41cec7e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:26 pm
From: RicodJour


Dear Perry,
Thank you for being such a clueless noob. I really hate killfiling,
well, anyone, and I'm not going to make an exception for you. But you
make it so easy to filter you out with your droning, gee-Mom!-I-know-
how-to-cut-and-paste! spiel. Thanks.

Now why don't you run off and see if you can make a PB&J sammich all
by yourself!

R

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OK your freeks - back to racing - Best case for Schleck to grab time
tomorrow?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/c4b6af4da71ebc3c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:27 pm
From: Choppy Warburton


I think he could get 2 minutes if everything goes well.

There might be some fans that interfere with AC though.

There must 50 ways to leave your rival

Just slip in a tack - Jack

Crash into a fan - Stan

You don't need to be coy - Roy

Just get Andy free

Hit him with a bus - Gus

You don't need to discuss much

And get Andy free


== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:32 pm
From: Davey Crockett


Choppy Warburton a écrit profondement:

| I think he could get 2 minutes if everything goes well.
>

Seeing Schleck lose mega time tomorrow would be just great

Half an hour would be a bomus

--
Je me Souviens
When Britain's parks weren't full of Gypsies, Hookers,
Gang Bangers, Panhandlers, Junkies and Drug Dealers.


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:13 pm
From: Choppy Warburton


Doubt it - Schleck attacks, Contrador lags behind an angry fan knocks
Contador over an avalanche barrier. The crowd erupts in cheers and
hides the offender before the cops get there.


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 5:31 pm
From: Phil H


On Jul 21, 1:27 pm, Choppy Warburton <choppywarbur...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I think he could get 2 minutes if everything goes well.
>
> There might be some fans that interfere with AC though.
>
> There must 50 ways to leave your rival
>
> Just slip in a tack - Jack
>
> Crash into a fan - Stan
>
> You don't need to be coy - Roy
>
> Just get Andy free
>
> Hit him with a bus - Gus
>
> You don't need to discuss much
>
> And get Andy free

You're right, I think the problem is all inside your head (she said to
me).

Phil H

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Serious but pointed question.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a289138263bcf44b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:29 pm
From: Betty


Plano Dude wrote:
> Speculation is that Schleck's funky non-SRAM German jockey wheel/
> derailleur setup caused chain suck

Blame it on the boche.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 2:00 pm
From: LawBoy01


On Jul 20, 5:42 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Even courts in Texas have unwritten traditions Lawboy and I'll bet you
> abide by them..  

When not abiding by an unwritten rule cannot cause negative
consequences to my client, and the decision is win or lose, I will
violate the unwritten rule and win. Not doing that can be
malpractice. It would have been irresponsible for Contador - abeit
chivalrous - to sit up at that point in the stage. Besides, haven't
you read that Schlepp doesn't give a shit about the matter anymore? I
mean, if he doesn't care, why do you?


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 2:28 pm
From: RicodJour


On Jul 21, 5:00 pm, LawBoy01 <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:42 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Even courts in Texas have unwritten traditions Lawboy and I'll bet you
> > abide by them..  
>
> When not abiding by an unwritten rule cannot cause negative
> consequences to my client, and the decision is win or lose, I will
> violate the unwritten rule and win.

...you will hope to win. Contador is still a sheep fucker.

R


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:07 pm
From: LawBoy01


On Jul 21, 4:28 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 5:00 pm, LawBoy01 <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 5:42 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Even courts in Texas have unwritten traditions Lawboy and I'll bet you
> > > abide by them..  
>
> > When not abiding by an unwritten rule cannot cause negative
> > consequences to my client, and the decision is win or lose, I will
> > violate the unwritten rule and win.
>
> ...you will hope to win.  Contador is still a sheep fucker.
>
> R

And you're the sheep


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 5:14 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"Amit Ghosh" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f9d5d49-ead4-4bfa-bb06-58070a9dfcaa@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 21, 9:31 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's a mechanical either way and tradition and sportsmanship dictate
> you don't take advantage. Even doper Lance Armstrong had this much
> class.


:: in almost every race i've done when we hit the climb someone drops
:: their chain, and no one waits for them.

Dumbass -

You're not doing multi-day stage races. In this instance, the racer wearing
the leader's jersey had the mishap.

If it were a one day race, no one would talk about waiting.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Unhappy
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3e25615e6cc1c98d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 1:31 pm
From: Betty


B. Lafferty wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY3jI&feature=player_embedded

Kyle Legate wrote:
> I'd be unhappy too if Eye of the Tiger was the soundtrack to my life.

Rocky XX is going to feature LANCE versus Rocky.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Contador's chance to become legendary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/31fbfbf3c7f98fc2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 2:05 pm
From: Victor Kan


On Jul 21, 4:03 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, weren't Menchov and Sanchez already up the road?

Not initially. Schleck created a gap, Vino caught onto it, Schleck
threw his chain and a beat later, Contador flew by, with Menchov and
Sanchez following. A little later, the three of them were together
and Contador pulled off to the side a few times to look back, saw
nobody coming each time.

Anyway, this is all water under the bridge. Contador and Schleck
reportedly have buried the hatchet and will put it all out there
tomorrow and in the ITT and we'll see what happens.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: About the most egotistical thing I've ever seen in cycling - LMAO @ "
Allen Effect"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4bd9767a25d7eddc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:09 pm
From: Choppy Warburton


We all know that cycling takes the cake when in comes to egotistical
bullshitters but this has got to be the greatest example I've ever
seen.

In the book Training and Racing with a power meter Hunter Allen twice
refers to the well known phenomenon of the "accordion effect" as the
"ALLEN EFFECT".

Looks like I have a special place on my shelf for this book next to my
28 cent copy of Positively False.

That takes as much gall as Lance referring to all doping regimens as
the "Armstrong Effect"

Maybe this makes sense after all.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the ruckus?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/7e07a0e3d28fd96c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:11 pm
From: Patrick Kehoe


On Jul 21, 5:52 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:08 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:52 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > True. There was about 3 seconds for AC to 'decide' to just glide and
> > > soft peddle, no question... but he saw a wounded warrior and was
> > > running for his life :))
>
> > > AS did seem to be mentally getting to AC, all day, it seemed that
> > > way... impossible to say of course... fear seemed to motivate AC in
> > > his acceleration from AS in the throws of chain-gate...
>
> > You nailed it..  fear overrode his ethics for a few seconds.  That's
> > the lack of character question at hand
>
> I think it was equal parts greed and fear.
>
> R

Yes... good point...

P


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:33 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 21, 9:24 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>  coterock <someon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 10:42 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <48d28d5f-32c9-433c-8a43-2e3b7c538...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 19, 5:20 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > Schleck attacked.
> > > > > Contador counter-attacked.
> > > > > Schleck came unhooked.
>
> > > > > Somebody punches you in the mouth,
> > > > > then says, "Stop. Neutralize this.
> > > > > I cut my knuckle on your broken tooth."
>
> > > > > I never heard such a load of feel-good
> > > > > codswallop since I quit the folk-singing business.
>
> > > > That's not what happened and everyone knows it.  
>
> > > Except I who saw Schleck four bike lengths
> > > in front of Contador working full out.
> > > That is an attack. At the moment the announcers
> > > said Schleck attacked. Later they abandoned that.
>
> > > > AS had a mechanical
> > > > then AC attacked.  
>
> > > Wrong. Contador was counter-attacking
> > > before Schleck threw a chain.
>
> > > Schleck attacked.
> > > Contador counter-attacked.
>
> > > > Then AC 2nd thought it and let Sanchez and Menchov
> > > > do his dirty work.
>
> > > You have the cleanest mind in Christendom.
>
> > No no no.  WRONG !!  I just watched the incident several times.  A.
> > Schleck attacked with Vino, AC, Sanchez etc behind. A. Schleck drops
> > his chain, rather obviously.  Vino counter attacks then AC, then maybe
> > 10' behind, goes after Vino.  I cannot see how AC did not see what
> > happened.
>
> > O.K. you could argue that that is sport, but AC went to youtube to
> > offer his version.  He said "Right when I attacked Andy had a
> > mechanical on the last climb. The race was in full gear and, well,
> > maybe I made a mistake, I'm sorry."
>
> > Effing liar, just watch the video.
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-makes-youtube-apology-to-sch...
>
> AC has no business apologizing.

And that right there is why Contador is not the
patron and never will be at this rate. It isn't his looks.
It's his attitude. He isn't ready. Can you imagine
Bernard Hinault making a youtube apology video?
The idea is laughable. Hinault doesn't even apologize
to podium-transgressing fans as he hurls them
about like tenpins.


Benjo Maso, if he were here, would probably make
me look like a fool by recalling some proto-Youtube
incident where Hinault apologized in 1978 on
Super-8 film and mailed it about by a fan club mail
tree, but that self-doubt is why I am not the patron
of RBR.

Fredmaster Ben
RBR watercarrier

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2010 TdF route considered harmful.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0cf684ea666d3f25?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 21 2010 4:58 pm
From: Frederick the Great


We covered some other bad choices in the TdF route this year,
and I will add another. The biggest mountain top finish is
after a rest day. Days after rest days are notorious for
racers coming out sub-par. This is another bit of randomness
dropped into the TdF by the organizers.

--
Old Fritz


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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC