I was thinking that people should get suspended for news that doesn't conform to Age of Enlightenment news standards too, sometime the news makes me sad...
I know the intention is good here but content evaluation is a dark road. The posting limits work fine IMO. Whatever goes on is short. All this will achieve is prolonged posts on who said what when it would all be over in a few posts with the new rule anyway. --- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > My statement above was *sarcasm*, a reference to > > Barry's assertion that what he said about me was > > "true." .. > > I get that you were playing areound a bit. Regardless, my response was > aimed at (my perception of) the fact that you appear to give Barry and > his words more importance than is there -- as if reacting to a hissing > snake when indeed all that is there is a very limp rope. In the grand > scheme of things, his opinion, nor anyone elses, is not that > important. Not worth reacting to IMO. > > > > I've already suggested putting both of us on > > moderation (as opposed to suspension) for the > > time being. > > Yes, thats a better plan. Particularly the voluntary part. > I suggest that the next time Barry baits you, simply write Rick, ask > that you both be moderated for several days, and indicate you will do > your utmost to stay above the fray. > > > > > Suspension with no warning, however, I don't > > think is appropriate. > > Yes, however, moderation without immediate warning would seem ok > though if that is an established policy. I suggest thae policy be -- > if someone baits someone else via personal attacks, observations on > traits, characteristics, shortcomings, etc, they should imediately go > on several days moderation. > > And in that environment, raise the posting limit to 10 for non offenders. > > If Rick wants to establish > > suspension as a penalty for future such posts, > > though, I'm fine with that. > > > > ----------------- > > > Per Vaj's post, I think separation and sequestering of CO2 from coal > plants is the key. Coal to syngas technologies essentially convert > coal to hydrogent that is then used as a emissionless fuel for power > plants or fuel cells, all other emissions are captured prior to that. > As an added bonus, using captured CO2 for bio farms, particualrly > things like algae (5000 gal of fuel/acre vs 18 for corn) has huge > potential. And the syngas plants can take bio algae as well as coal as > feedstock. Both energy sources feeding plug-in hybrid vehicles, > getting rid of dirty internal conbustion, would cut CO2 emmissions by > over 80%. I did not think such was possible until recently. > > RE nucclear, until the waste (nuclear) storage and proliferation > issues are fully addressed, and i don't see any good solutions on the > horizon, I can't get too serious about nuclear. >
