Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers knows what they are doing. If they can go directly and faster to ULS diesel instead of LS diesel, they have effectively delayed further the common use of diesel in US. They have also bought time to develop the new and necessary diesel technologies at the same phase as the competition. Hardly a move in the interest of the society and the consumers, but interesting for Detroit. Hakan At 07:41 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II standards for light duty trucks and buses. Further evidence that Detroit Auto seems behind some diesel expansion in US. In addition to this and Dingel's apparent support, let us remember that their PNGV efforts I think mostly involved Diesel engines. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] EREN Network News -- 10/02/02
= EREN NETWORK NEWS -- October 2, 2002 A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN). http://www.eren.doe.gov/ = Featuring: *News and Events University of Colorado Takes Early Lead in Solar Decathlon National Tour of Solar Buildings Comes to You on October 5th DOE Grants to Help Meet U.S. Goal of One Million Solar Roofs DOE Awards $676,778 to D.C. for Weatherization GM Unveils Hywire Fuel-Cell Car, Carbon-Fiber-Bodied Cars Nevada Geothermal Leases Sold; New California Plant Proposed Kansas Town Demonstrates Water, Energy Savings with Washers *Site News Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) *Energy Facts and Tips EPA Lauds Companies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals *About this Newsletter -- NEWS AND EVENTS -- University of Colorado Takes Early Lead in Solar Decathlon The University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) has taken an early lead in the Solar Decathlon competition, now underway in Washington, D.C. At press time on Tuesday evening, CU held a 37-point lead over second-placed Auburn University, which in turn was holding a scant 22-point lead over third-seated University of Virginia. The competition remains tight, with six teams within 100 points of first place, and the constantly updated scores can shift the team rankings rapidly. See the Scoring Summary on the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/cfm/index.cfm. The Solar Decathlon is a team competition among universities to design and build the most energy-efficient solar-powered homes. Fourteen teams from throughout the United States and Puerto Rico have brought their solar homes to the National Mall for the competition, which began on September 26th and continues through October 5th. The winning team will be the one that most successfully blends aesthetics and modern conveniences with maximum energy production and efficiency in its solar-powered home. As the name implies, the Solar Decathlon includes 10 events on which each team will be judged. Surprisingly, CU placed in only one of the three events that have been completed, winning the Graphics and Communication contest; Auburn University came in second and Crowder College placed third. At present, CU appears to be holding the lead due to the ongoing energy performance of the team's house. In the other contests, Virginia Polytechnic Institute took first place in Design Presentation and Simulation, followed in turn by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Maryland. The University of Virginia, currently in third place, won the Design and Livability contest, a high-scoring event that was judged by a panel of nationally known architects. The University of Puerto Rico- Mayaguez placed second in the event, and the University of Texas at Austin came in third. See the DOE press releases regarding all of these contests on the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/media.html. Two weeks ago, this newsletter mentioned the daunting task of transporting all the solar houses to the nation's capital. Lest you think we were exaggerating, check out the Contest Diaries now posted on the Web site. Among other things, you'll learn about the logistic challenges of oversized truck loads and how the University of Puerto Rico's house had to dodge a Caribbean storm! Meanwhile, the site continues to be updated daily with new photos, and -- thanks to some fancy instrumentation and wireless Web technology -- the team rankings are updated every fifteen minutes based on energy measurements taken throughout each of the houses. See the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/. Speaking of Caribbean storms, Hurricane Isidore brought some rain to the competition on Friday but otherwise passed by without incident, and Hurricane Lili appears unlikely to affect the competition. High temperatures may pose a greater challenge for the decathletes, as temperatures today are expected to peak in the high 80s -- we'll see which teams can keep their cool! See the Weather Channel forecast at: http://www.weather.com/weather/local/USDC0001. National Tour of Solar Buildings Comes to You on October 5th While the Solar Decathlon represents the best thinking in our nation's universities regarding solar homes, buildings throughout the United States are drawing on solar energy for at least some of their energy needs -- in fact, many get by with only small amounts of energy from other sources. To see the best solar buildings in your area, try one of the local tours offered this Saturday through the National Tour of Solar Buildings, an
[biofuels-biz] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Thanks, this is very good stuff, give me a few days to work on it. I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:47:02 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: If you, or someone else, has some real-world data on your mileage using some well-defined mainstream sort of biodiesel, then I'd like to look at including it, if the data is well-kept. We'd need to have a good idea of the MJ/gallon of that particular type of biodiesel, so as to I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html DOE says 121,000 Btu (per liter? doesn't say) for biodiesel, compared to 135,000 for typical #2 petro diesel (about 10% less for biodiesel). I am unable to find a reference for these figures you cite. I did find this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/lifecycle_ch6.pdf and this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/biodiesel_clean-green.pdf both of which cite what are apparently LHV numbers for the fuels: Biodiesel 117,093 btu per gallon Diesel 131,295 btu per gallon I'm thinking your numbers are HHV numbers, but can't be sure. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
I was not aware of this LS vs. ULS issue and how it might play out. Even if we assume you are correct that an over-quick switch to ULS will delay further common use of diesel in the US (I don't understand this point fully), can we be sure the Alliance really is knowingly delaying things? Maybe they, as well as I and others, sort of are just too anxious to get to the super-clean fuel so they can, in their opinions, get to making the super-clean diesel engines more quickly (what with the fuel not mucking it up if their technological advances are not sufficiently excellent). On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:43:42 +0200, you wrote: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers knows what they are doing. If they can go directly and faster to ULS diesel instead of LS diesel, they have effectively delayed further the common use of diesel in US. They have also bought time to develop the new and necessary diesel technologies at the same phase as the competition. Hardly a move in the interest of the society and the consumers, but interesting for Detroit. Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Keith, I'm almost afraid to ask ... what do ya think about me?? (LOL) I will admit, I certainly lack the travel-the-world experience that you have. My experience mainly stems from my observations ... then striving to think on my own. Hope I've been doing (at least) OK. Curtis :-) I can't say you're this or you're that, Curtis, can't stick any labels on your forehead, and I'm glad of that, that's how it should be. You do seem to follow your observations, I think you do pretty well. Some of the things you've said have been spot on, IMO, like some of your comments about pests and plant growth a while back. That's not at all obvious, even to some of the people involved in organic growing who really should know better. Anyway, don't be too bothered about what I might think of you, or anyone else, it's what you truly think of yourself that matters more than anything, you're the best judge. And please don't be envious of such a rolling stone. Well, it's not quite like that, there's some sense to it and a direction, but it's certainly not for most people, nor should it be. After a while you don't really fit in anywhere, home (where you came from) perhaps least of all. It was just a kind of accident I think, at first. There's no substitute for belonging to your community and being part of your society - even if you were born in Hawaii and have a Japanese name! best Keith --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't assume that. I'm very unlikely to make such assumptions, not myself having any particular nationality, country or home. But you've certainly swallowed the party line. and I've lived for long periods in various Western countries, so I know Western views very well, while not subscribing to them. And you're firmly locked into a particular American viewpoint on international issues. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Dear Mike, I also think it is enough and UN and the law with US as police is not a very good example anyway. I only want to set a few facts straight. Because if US is the police in this region and UN resolutions laws, it has been laws there for 35+ years and the police are not doing anything but encourage, protect and support the biggest lawbreaker. A police that acted like this in its own self interest, would normally be regarded as heavily corrupted and should be rooted out by all means. Iraq was encouraged by the police to pursue Iran, where an uprising took place. Worried about their interests, the police wanted a regime change in Iran, since it was a hostile regime to them. Failing this and with their passage to the world threatened, Iraq asked the police it was Okay to reign in a renegade district (in their mind) and they got what they thought was a positive answer. etc. etc. The Kurds do not want to spread in Iraq, they want their chunk of Iraq and Turkey. If they end up being democratic, if they get it, remains to be seen. Do not fool yourself, if it is any democracy with the Kurds, it is because Iraq chose to allow it. Iraq might not be able to use air force, but they still have free movement on the ground. If Iraq allows the forming of a Kurd state, they will effectively mess things up for US and EU. I can only see one occasion where the world really had a chance to make it better and that was in Versailles after the first world war. They made a true mess out of that, with greed and fear as lanterns. I belong to them that have the opinion that the first world war never ended. Both the second world war and the current Middle East situation have their roots in the peace of first world war. Hakan At 10:02 PM 10/2/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. I agree - I hope that we don't attack Iraq. I hope that the small democratic governments that the Kurds have been forming in northern Iraq (where the UN is in direct supervision, and Saddam's military is not allowed) spread to the rest of Iraq. But, I doubt it will happen. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. That's just the point - the members of the UN are making the institution meaningless. The UN makes an attempt to establish international law. When someone continually violates those laws for 10+ years, and the UN does nothing about it, then the UN gradually becomes ineffective. It would be like having laws in our country, but the police refusing to do anything to people who broke them. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. I agree - I hope it never comes to that. But, the UN refusing to do anything to enforce its attempt at creating international laws is making the UN become meaningless. Mike Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers knows what they are doing. If they can go directly and faster to ULS diesel instead of LS diesel, they have effectively delayed further the common use of diesel in US. They have also bought time to develop the new and necessary diesel technologies at the same phase as the competition. Hardly a move in the interest of the society and the consumers, but interesting for Detroit. Hakan At 07:41 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II standards for light duty trucks and buses. Further evidence that Detroit Auto seems behind some diesel expansion in US. In addition to this and Dingel's apparent support, let us remember that their PNGV efforts I think mostly involved Diesel engines. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
If I was a lawmaker in US, I would try the following, 1. Introduce legislation that encouraged or forced the development of multi fuel engines. This would stop the new ULS technologies to be a weapon to maintain the position of the oil industry. It would encourage fuel flexibility and open up more possibilities for the society and the people. 2. I would put in place tax incentives and subsidies to get the bio fuel industry to move much faster. This way I probably would achieve the environmental advantages of ULS in the same time frame, but with less oil dependence. The above seems to be the route in Europe and if not it should be. I would achieve the following, 1. My party had to stop talking to me, in order to get the important funding. 2. I would not have enough money to be reelected. 3. It would not be a job opening, when I left politics. Hakan At 11:44 AM 10/3/2002 +0200, you wrote: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers knows what they are doing. If they can go directly and faster to ULS diesel instead of LS diesel, they have effectively delayed further the common use of diesel in US. They have also bought time to develop the new and necessary diesel technologies at the same phase as the competition. Hardly a move in the interest of the society and the consumers, but interesting for Detroit. Hakan At 07:41 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II standards for light duty trucks and buses. Further evidence that Detroit Auto seems behind some diesel expansion in US. In addition to this and Dingel's apparent support, let us remember that their PNGV efforts I think mostly involved Diesel engines. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Curtis Sakima wrote: Well, the problem you run into is that ... who defines tyrant?? In most cases, it's the media. Why is it that our media is referred to as the media while other countries' media is often referred to as so-and-so's PROPAGANDA MACHINE?? Because we like to create myths! The problem I have is how to get real information. I know the media lies, I have given them interviews then read what they print. I don't know why they asked, they didn't write the answers, but rephrased their questions and gave them as answers. Letters to the editor are regularly changed to read the exact opposite of what the writer wrote. TV coverage is so short that you get a taste of the surface and that is it. So, how does one get good, information on what is actually going on? I have been in discussions on the net with groups that will not agree on a dictionary as the final arbiter of what words mean, some people want words to mean what they think they should, and the dictionary be d With this kind of twisting of facts, it is difficult not to be duped into believing something that is incorrect. Personally, I try to find the story from both points of view; see if any of the facts match and then try to figure it out. My rule of thumb, if the article doesn't make points for both sides of the issue, it is propaganda. Bright Blessings, Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] EREN Network News -- 10/02/02
= EREN NETWORK NEWS -- October 2, 2002 A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN). http://www.eren.doe.gov/ = Featuring: *News and Events University of Colorado Takes Early Lead in Solar Decathlon National Tour of Solar Buildings Comes to You on October 5th DOE Grants to Help Meet U.S. Goal of One Million Solar Roofs DOE Awards $676,778 to D.C. for Weatherization GM Unveils Hywire Fuel-Cell Car, Carbon-Fiber-Bodied Cars Nevada Geothermal Leases Sold; New California Plant Proposed Kansas Town Demonstrates Water, Energy Savings with Washers *Site News Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) *Energy Facts and Tips EPA Lauds Companies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals *About this Newsletter -- NEWS AND EVENTS -- University of Colorado Takes Early Lead in Solar Decathlon The University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) has taken an early lead in the Solar Decathlon competition, now underway in Washington, D.C. At press time on Tuesday evening, CU held a 37-point lead over second-placed Auburn University, which in turn was holding a scant 22-point lead over third-seated University of Virginia. The competition remains tight, with six teams within 100 points of first place, and the constantly updated scores can shift the team rankings rapidly. See the Scoring Summary on the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/cfm/index.cfm. The Solar Decathlon is a team competition among universities to design and build the most energy-efficient solar-powered homes. Fourteen teams from throughout the United States and Puerto Rico have brought their solar homes to the National Mall for the competition, which began on September 26th and continues through October 5th. The winning team will be the one that most successfully blends aesthetics and modern conveniences with maximum energy production and efficiency in its solar-powered home. As the name implies, the Solar Decathlon includes 10 events on which each team will be judged. Surprisingly, CU placed in only one of the three events that have been completed, winning the Graphics and Communication contest; Auburn University came in second and Crowder College placed third. At present, CU appears to be holding the lead due to the ongoing energy performance of the team's house. In the other contests, Virginia Polytechnic Institute took first place in Design Presentation and Simulation, followed in turn by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Maryland. The University of Virginia, currently in third place, won the Design and Livability contest, a high-scoring event that was judged by a panel of nationally known architects. The University of Puerto Rico- Mayaguez placed second in the event, and the University of Texas at Austin came in third. See the DOE press releases regarding all of these contests on the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/media.html. Two weeks ago, this newsletter mentioned the daunting task of transporting all the solar houses to the nation's capital. Lest you think we were exaggerating, check out the Contest Diaries now posted on the Web site. Among other things, you'll learn about the logistic challenges of oversized truck loads and how the University of Puerto Rico's house had to dodge a Caribbean storm! Meanwhile, the site continues to be updated daily with new photos, and -- thanks to some fancy instrumentation and wireless Web technology -- the team rankings are updated every fifteen minutes based on energy measurements taken throughout each of the houses. See the Solar Decathlon Web site at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/. Speaking of Caribbean storms, Hurricane Isidore brought some rain to the competition on Friday but otherwise passed by without incident, and Hurricane Lili appears unlikely to affect the competition. High temperatures may pose a greater challenge for the decathletes, as temperatures today are expected to peak in the high 80s -- we'll see which teams can keep their cool! See the Weather Channel forecast at: http://www.weather.com/weather/local/USDC0001. National Tour of Solar Buildings Comes to You on October 5th While the Solar Decathlon represents the best thinking in our nation's universities regarding solar homes, buildings throughout the United States are drawing on solar energy for at least some of their energy needs -- in fact, many get by with only small amounts of energy from other sources. To see the best solar buildings in your area, try one of the local tours offered this Saturday through the National Tour of Solar Buildings, an
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Thanks, this is very good stuff, give me a few days to work on it. I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: You've swallowed the party line, and the hook and the sinker too, and, as always, it'll be others who'll choke on it. You have the right to believe that. I try not to believe things, all it means is a lack of information, and that's not the case here, you've provided more than enough to justify that conclusion. How entertaining. Likewise, I tried the rational approach, and it bounced off your own rationalizations. You have the right to believe that. It's interesting how you assumed that I'm a typical American who only knows what he's fed by the media. I didn't assume that. I'm very unlikely to make such assumptions, not myself having any particular nationality, country or home. But you've certainly swallowed the party line. Catch phrases are so fun, aren't they? If we do not want to interfere with other countries, should we then also stop sending all the food to countries where people are starving? What's more important - protecting the sovereignity of a dictatorship, or saving people's lives? The main reason they're starving is that the US and the other OECD countries are interfering with them in the first place, directly and via corporate efforts. Wealth extraction, poverty creation. Those That's an incredible over-simplification. Starting around 1947, US agriculture had become extremely efficient, producing a huge surplus of grains. This was also encouraged by our domestic farm policy (essentially insurance for US farmers), where the government buys up surplus crops from US farmers to prevent market prices from dropping too low. So, then the government has a large amount of excess food. What should we do with it? Initially (from 1948-1952), much of this was sent to Europe to help out while they were rebuilding from WWII (this was the beginning of the US food aid program). In the mid 1950s, Europe no longer needed the food aid as they had recovered significantly, so we once again had a large surplus. It was quickly discovered that selling this on the conventional world market would cause wheat prices to plummet, seriously harming other crop exporters around the world (Argentina, Australia, Canada, various European countries, etc.). So, we found a new market - Africa (and some Asian countries). Many countries in these areas were in the process of becoming politically independent, and they were having trouble meeting domestic food supply needs. Thus, the US starting giving surplus crops, or selling them very cheaply, to these emerging countries under the PL480 agreements between the US and Third World countries (aka Food for Peace). The problem that developed was that they gradually became dependent on food aid, rather than developing their own domestic crop capacity. Further, the frequent sudden famines caused by periods of draught or civil war exacerbated the problem (for example, a large contributor to famine has been the frequent civil warring between Ethiopa and the province of Eritrea as it tried to break away. Ethiopa could be completely self-sufficient, but Ethiopan soldiers and Eritrean rebels attack the food growing regions of each other's territory, driving farmers out, in an attempt to starve each other. But that's the US's fault, right?). Add to that the massive population growth, as the size of the population quickly surpasses what the domestically grown crops can feed (at least using their farming techniques), and it all adds up to a whopper of a problem. So, is it the fault of the US that civil wars keep breaking out all over the place (in some cases, the CIA has instigated or aided in these, but only in a portion of the cases). Is it the fault of the US that the populations have grown beyond what domestic food production can support? Perhaps - had we not started the food aid programs back in the 50s, more people would have starved to death back then, preventing the populations from getting to their current levels. So, is that what we should have done? Is it the fault of the US that in many third world countries, they resist modernization (i.e. modern farming techniques, industrialization, etc.) because it would interfere with their ancient way of life? Even though their ancient way of life is not capable of supporting their large populations? So, what *should* we have done instead? Should we have not started our food aid programs, offering food at cheap prices (and in many cases free)? Should we have intervened militarily every time a civil war started, everywhere? Let's make a table of the options the US has, and what the result from the international community is to those actions: Option..Result 1. Give food...Get criticized 2. Sell food cheaply...Get criticized 3. Teach modern farming, etc...Get criticized for disrupting their ancient way of life 4. Intervene militarily when tyrants are killing
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:47:02 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: If you, or someone else, has some real-world data on your mileage using some well-defined mainstream sort of biodiesel, then I'd like to look at including it, if the data is well-kept. We'd need to have a good idea of the MJ/gallon of that particular type of biodiesel, so as to I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html DOE says 121,000 Btu (per liter? doesn't say) for biodiesel, compared to 135,000 for typical #2 petro diesel (about 10% less for biodiesel). I am unable to find a reference for these figures you cite. I did find this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/lifecycle_ch6.pdf and this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/biodiesel_clean-green.pdf both of which cite what are apparently LHV numbers for the fuels: Biodiesel 117,093 btu per gallon Diesel 131,295 btu per gallon I'm thinking your numbers are HHV numbers, but can't be sure. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Well, the problem you run into is that ... who defines tyrant?? In most cases, it's the media. Why is it that our media is referred to as the media ... while other countries' media is often referred to as so-and-so's PROPAGANDA MACHINE?? Curtis Propaganda at work - that IS propaganda. You might find this below interesting, Curtis. A bit long, and no doubt people will say it's off-topic, but I don't think it's off-topic. I have a lot of respect for John Stauber. --- Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read my statement completely, you'll notice that it's aimed at tyrants who wantonly kill people within their own country, a la Hitler. Since Michael keeps making this specious comparison with Hitler and Nazi Germany, let me make a less-specious comparison: The people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. --Nazi leader Hermann Goering Best Keith http://home.earthlink.net/~dbjensen1/stauber.html War On Truth The Secret Battle for the American Mind An Interview with John Stauber Published in The Sun March 1999 Australian academic Alex Carey once wrote that the twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. In societies like ours, corporate propaganda is delivered through advertising and public relations. Most people recognize that advertising is propaganda. We understand that whoever paid for and designed an ad wants us to think or feel a certain way, vote for a certain candidate, or purchase a certain product. Public relations, on the other hand, is much more insidious. Because it's disguised as information, we often don't realize we are being influenced by public relations. But this multi-billion-dollar transnational industry's propaganda campaigns affect our private and public lives every day. PR firms that most people have never heard of - such as Burson-Marsteller, Hill Knowlton, and Ketchum - are working on behalf of myriad powerful interests, from dictatorships to the cosmetic industry, manipulating public opinion, policy making, and the flow of information. As editor of the quarterly investigative journal PR Watch, John Stauber exposes how public relations works and helps people to understand it. He hasn't always been a watchdog journalist, though. He worked for more than twenty years as an activist and organizer for various causes: the environment, peace, social justice, neighborhood concerns. Eventually, it dawned on him that public opinion on every issue he cared about was being managed by influential, politically connected PR operatives with nearly limitless budgets. Public relations is a perversion of the democratic process, he says. I knew I had to fight it. In addition to starting PR Watch, Stauber founded the Center for Media and Democracy, the first and only organization dedicated to monitoring and exposing PR propaganda. In 1995, Common Courage Press published a book by Stauber and his colleague Sheldon Rampton titled Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry. Their second book, Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here?, came out in 1997 and examined the public-relations coverup of the risk of mad-cow disease in the U.S. I interviewed Stauber over dinner at the home he shares with his wife, Laura, in Madison, Wisconsin. He can be reached at: PR Watch, 3318 Gregory St., Madison, WI 53711, (608) 233-3346, or at www.prwatch.org. Jensen: How is a propaganda war waged? Stauber: The key is invisibility. Once propaganda becomes visible, it's less effective. Public relations is effective in manipulating opinion - and thus public policy - only if people believe that the message covertly delivered by the PR campaign is not propaganda at all but simply common sense or accepted reality. For instance, there is a con--sensus within the scientific community that global warming is real and that the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of the problem. But to the petroleum industry, the automobile industry, the coal industry, and other industries that profit from fossil-fuel consumption, this is merely an inconvenient message that needs to be debunked because it could lead to public policies that reduce their profits. So, with the help of PR firms, these vested interests create and fund industry front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition. The coalition then selects, promotes, and publicizes scientists who proclaim global warming a myth and characterize hard evidence of global climate change as junk science being pushed by self-serving environmental groups out to scare the public for fund-raising purposes. Another industry front
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Keep in mind that the United States is a supposed democracy contained within itself. The world is not a democracy yet. pre-emptive strikes may sound like putting the cart before the horse but you only have to stand in front of a moving train and try to negotiate with it once. No one else observing will make that same mistake. So what is so different about a nuclear bomb versus chemical weapons? Either way thousands of people are dead. Nuclear bomb may be more humane then chemical. Judging by the description of the deaths written by human rights international (or something like that). It does not appear to be a good way to die. Saddam was willing to use quite a bit of those chemical weapons on Iran. These are also considered WMD's. I dont see anybody squashing him or getting rid of him for that.. So what is to make me believe that he wont use a nuclear weapon? Blind hope that he is smarter then he appears? Saddam should be smarter and spread his killings out over several years. like maybe 10,000 a year instead of all at once. That way we wont pay much attention to him? Course he shouldn't have experimented on his own people. Trust me he probably wont do that with a nuclear weapon. Sure it would be nice if everyone on the UN had the same insight, but so far I believe like Saddam, the UN is all bark and no bite. They can be bluffed and bullied down and out of most anything. Besides for the most part I think there is alot of postureing going on in an attempt to get the UN to be what it was intended to be instead of the impotent institution that it has been. So if I am right then those of you afraid of the US going it alone don't have to worry. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I thought that the modern free, democratic societies was based on a sense of justice and law. Maybe Plato had all the rights to disbelief the democracy when Socrates was sentenced to death by the lynch style democracy. I am sorry, he could not know that it was a lynching. The word lynching came much later, after a famous American judge Lynch. I hope that we do not need to change the meaning of the word bushing. This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. Hakan At 04:45 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: 50,000 dead first? - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... Bryan Fullerton wrote: The problem is that some threats are best dealt with before their fruits are realized.. Guilty until proven innocent? Trust me. if you in your little scenario had included that you just came from an alqaida(spell) training camp they probably would have arrested you on less evidence then that. Intelligence missed these guys on sept 11. there is no way they want that to happen again. Okay, but I wonder if they're any more efficient now than they were then. Saddam is sucha lunatic if he had nuke capability he would use it. Of course he would use it onl his own people first. He used chemical weapons on Iran with great success 20,000 dead from it. The US believes that he will be the next great supporter of infiltration into the US of terrorists.. Personally i dont see what the difference is in defending ourselves and or defending the 100 or 200,000 of his people that he wants to slaughter. This is complete nonsense. Saddam Hussein is not a lunatic, he's much too smart to nuke anybody, the US is doing just the right thing if it want to ensure an endless stream of anti-US terrorists, no need for any help from Saddam Hussein, and the US itself has been not been averse to such mass-slaughters in the past, when it saw its interests served. And no I'm not anti-US. I'm just anti-nonsense. And nonsense such as this is quite well known for getting folks killed - other folks, far away. Keith - Original Message - From: Curtis Sakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:16 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I dunno, I've been hearing a lot about this Saddam Hussein/Iraq thing ... and it annoys me that here we are ... threatening to bomb Iraq. And I can't figure out what Iraq's
Re: [biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him.
Mike.. Got an Email? - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him. On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: Google Saddam +popularity. His unpopularity is more political BS. Even the ekurd site admits he is popular. The ekurd site says he's popular with his people, meaning the Sunni muslims. The Kurds and Shiite Muslims do not like him. The Baath party was popular throughout the 70's in most of Iraq. But after Saddam came to power in '79, popularity started to wane - at least among non-Sunnis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war on Iran that Saddam started just after seizing power. That, combined with Saddam using chemical weapons and other military force to kill Kurds and Shiites who began to express disfavor of him, made him strongly disliked by almost all non-Sunnis in Iraq. Yes, his people (Sunni muslims) like him. They constitute the minority of the Iraqi population, however. The Israelis are concerned at his popularity. Michael--you are a true believer. The Israelis are concerned primarily about his popularity with other Arab nations. Because of the general dislike of the US (it's hard not to hate someone when you're constantly being fed propaganda teaching you to hate them), many Arabs like Saddam because he has stood up to the great infidels, and lived to tell about it. http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html You need to read Eric Hoffer's book and set yourself free. You need to visit Iraq and talk to some non-Sunni muslims. Almost all Arab newspapers, particularly in Syria and Egypt (countries whose armies were once members of the anti-Iraqi coalition) have now turned Saddam Hussein into the contemporary hero of the Arab world. Some went so far as to crown him the new Nasser, on his way to coalescing the prevailing manifestations of pan-Arab passion. Well duh. The state run media of most Arab countries constantly preaches anti-US propaganda. As I said above, they have made Hussein out to be a hero because he fought the great infidels, and is still alive. And he's popular among radical Palestinians because he hands out large amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam's popularity has already soared among his people and the U.S. has made his position secure by their public anti-Iraq postures. http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Other86 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
Ok, I've inserted some data that I got from the moderator's post on his own mileage with his 2002 Beetle running both diesel and biodiesel. This has opened a few cans of worms though. http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html I am going to ignore for a moment his petrodiesel figures (he was getting 46 on #2). Mostly I need to decide what BTU figures per gallon to use for biodiesel and for diesel, with a brief and worthwhile rationale, and to use them consistently throughout the project. The project is, after all, based on trying to give the viewer a general idea of how a vehicle stacks up against other vehicles in its energy usage (separated away from other important issues such as derivation of fuel, emissions, etc.) This cannot be done if I don't have a fairly solid figure to use for how much energy is actually being placed on board the vehicle. After all that, I will do a tad more with bringing attention to the other points, such as that the biodiesel is 100% made in North America, and not in Saudi Arabia and the like. Interestingly, since 50% of the grid here in San Diego comes from natural gas fuel, I'd have to asterisk EV claims, because I think Saudi Arabia is a source of some natural gas (no, perhaps I'm thinking of mtbe). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Dear Mike, You are really expanding on this issue. US have done a lot for the world and should have all the credits for it too. US have also earned a lot from the world too and the world should have credit for that. Despite or maybe because that US is a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds, it has some problems with understanding other cultures. US also have a tendency to superimpose solutions, since it is easier than trying to understand. At 10:34 AM 10/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: The main reason they're starving is that the US and the other OECD countries are interfering with them in the first place, directly and via corporate efforts. Wealth extraction, poverty creation. Those That's an incredible over-simplification. Starting around 1947, US agriculture had become extremely efficient, producing a huge surplus of grains. After the war US asked Germany what food assistance the needed most and they answered korn (in German a grain used for dark bread). US went home and sent a lot of corn to the Germans. The result was that the Germans felt very humiliated as losers of the war, because they asked for grain and the Americans was sending them pig food. Corn as human food has never been a tradition in Europe, it was before exclusively used for animals and are still mostly used for that. Do not misunderstand too much, I am sure that Keith have all of this in right perspective. So, is it the fault of the US that civil wars keep breaking out all over the place (in some cases, the CIA has instigated or aided in these, but only in a portion of the cases). I am often half joking, when I ask someone to name a war that the French wasn't involved in and US seems to try its best to pick up where the French left. Hm, there seems to be a trend here. Criticizing the US may be fun - offering some real solutions might be nice too though. This is a very unfair question to be put to Keith of all people, he is one who really does something and if someone have the right to give constructive critics it is him. Your attitude to Zambia's having your unsaleable GMOs shoved down their throats is also very predictable, very much the same American viewpoint. Yes, how American of me - when we GIVE them huge amounts of food (the same food that we eat), and their president refuses to give it to his people as they starve, how American of me to not realize that it's OUR fault. Clearly, us giving food to starving people is malicious. Quick, let's organize a rally - we can make signs saying Stop Feeding Starving people!!. So now you send them genetically modified corn instead. I wonder what the Germans would have reacted if that existed after WWII, not only would they eat pig food, but they would be ginny pigs also. How can Americans eat this, isn't it disgusting? How about giving this a try and actually answer one of my questions for a change - What SHOULD we do when people are starving? Show some respect also, do not treat them as animals because they are in a difficult situation. Clearly you feel that giving them food, or selling it to them cheaply is not the answer. We've established modernized farms in Zambia so they can produce larger amounts of food locally (as well as giving them genetically engineered crops so they can grow more food per acre), and clearly you don't feel that's the right thing to do (and neither does Zambia's president, as he won't distribute the corn, and has seized all modern farms and given them to his friends, who don't know how to grow anything). So, what should we be doing instead? He is a political crook and are using the sentiment of the people for his own purpose. But you ask for this, when you are sending them genetically modified animal food to eat. As for sovereignty and saving lives, you show the same lack of even-handedness as over Tibet and East Timor, and many other places, in many cases backing the dictatorships while they're at it. It applies very well to East Timor - not only did the US not hasten to intervene, but played a most shabby role in turning a blind eye, and discouraging any other attitude, while providing Suharto with all the military aid he could want, and military training. The US trains and equips a lot of genocidal killers, and terrorists. Our terrorists. Just doing business I suppose. Like I've said, we've made plenty of mistakes. East Timor is one of the most notable, and most horrific mistakes the US has made. For some reason, since I don't go for the everything bad is the US's fault view, you seem to think that that means I think everything we've done is good? I've written articles criticizing US policies in several areas. The fact that I don't think the US is just a self-centered entity that wantonly kills and suppresses everyone for its own gain does not mean that I instead think everything we've ever done was right. Self-centered and naive, YES!! Wantonly
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: Well, the problem you run into is that ... who defines tyrant?? In most cases, it's the media. Why is it that our media is referred to as the media ... while other countries' media is often referred to as so-and-so's PROPAGANDA MACHINE?? It's only referred to as propaganda in countries where the media is state controlled, and state run. In most of the western world (and some countries in the rest of the world), the press is free to say what it wants. In the US (or other free countries), I could go on the news and say George Bush is dumber than a pile of dog fesces. In most Arab nations, they can say the same thing - but they can't say it about their own leaders. When the state decides what news can be run, it ceases to be the media. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:47:02 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html DOE says 121,000 Btu (per liter? doesn't say) for biodiesel, compared to 135,000 for typical #2 petro diesel (about 10% less for biodiesel). I am unable to find a reference for these figures you cite. I did find this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/lifecycle_ch6.pdf and this: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/biodiesel_clean-green.pdf both of which cite what are apparently LHV numbers for the fuels: Biodiesel 117,093 btu per gallon Diesel131,295 btu per gallon I'm thinking your numbers are HHV numbers, but can't be sure. Could be. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: --- Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read my statement completely, you'll notice that it's aimed at tyrants who wantonly kill people within their own country, a la Hitler. Since Michael keeps making this specious comparison with Hitler and Nazi Germany, let me make a less-specious comparison: The people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. --Nazi leader Hermann Goering I agree entirely. That has been used all over the world, and to a certain extent I think Bush is using it now (as I've said, I don't think Saddam is the most imminent threat to US. I think he is an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people would be far better off if he were removed from power, and a democracy established with aid through the UN). To modernize that Goering's statement, however, another line should be added - Alternatively, you can tell them that they will go to heaven where they will have 40 virgins waiting for them, if they die as a martyr in a holy war against the great infidel. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
I was not aware of this LS vs. ULS issue and how it might play out. Even if we assume you are correct that an over-quick switch to ULS will delay further common use of diesel in the US (I don't understand this point fully), can we be sure the Alliance really is knowingly delaying things? Maybe they, as well as I and others, sort of are just too anxious to get to the super-clean fuel so they can, in their opinions, get to making the super-clean diesel engines more quickly (what with the fuel not mucking it up if their technological advances are not sufficiently excellent). On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:43:42 +0200, you wrote: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers knows what they are doing. If they can go directly and faster to ULS diesel instead of LS diesel, they have effectively delayed further the common use of diesel in US. They have also bought time to develop the new and necessary diesel technologies at the same phase as the competition. Hardly a move in the interest of the society and the consumers, but interesting for Detroit. Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
This would sound very convincing in front of a lynch mob and also does when the President of US says it. Personally, I only have a strong principle opinion about you hanging Saddam Hussein without a trial, not that he will be hanged. I have much more feelings about the Iraq people that might hang with him. For me it looks like US is bullying and maybe bluffing to get what it wants. How can US be contained within itself, with the enormous dependance of oil imports? 4% of the worlds population, that are using 25% of the world's oil production? I can believe that Americans can try to put the cart before the horse or let the tail wag the dog. But to try to negotiate with a moving train, isn't that too much? We now that carts have a relation with horses and dogs have tails, but trains can't speak. I am worried and it is not much of what you are saying that makes me less worried. Hakan At 08:36 AM 10/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: Keep in mind that the United States is a supposed democracy contained within itself. The world is not a democracy yet. pre-emptive strikes may sound like putting the cart before the horse but you only have to stand in front of a moving train and try to negotiate with it once. No one else observing will make that same mistake. So what is so different about a nuclear bomb versus chemical weapons? Either way thousands of people are dead. Nuclear bomb may be more humane then chemical. Judging by the description of the deaths written by human rights international (or something like that). It does not appear to be a good way to die. Saddam was willing to use quite a bit of those chemical weapons on Iran. These are also considered WMD's. I dont see anybody squashing him or getting rid of him for that.. So what is to make me believe that he wont use a nuclear weapon? Blind hope that he is smarter then he appears? Saddam should be smarter and spread his killings out over several years. like maybe 10,000 a year instead of all at once. That way we wont pay much attention to him? Course he shouldn't have experimented on his own people. Trust me he probably wont do that with a nuclear weapon. Sure it would be nice if everyone on the UN had the same insight, but so far I believe like Saddam, the UN is all bark and no bite. They can be bluffed and bullied down and out of most anything. Besides for the most part I think there is alot of postureing going on in an attempt to get the UN to be what it was intended to be instead of the impotent institution that it has been. So if I am right then those of you afraid of the US going it alone don't have to worry. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I thought that the modern free, democratic societies was based on a sense of justice and law. Maybe Plato had all the rights to disbelief the democracy when Socrates was sentenced to death by the lynch style democracy. I am sorry, he could not know that it was a lynching. The word lynching came much later, after a famous American judge Lynch. I hope that we do not need to change the meaning of the word bushing. This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. Hakan At 04:45 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: 50,000 dead first? - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... Bryan Fullerton wrote: The problem is that some threats are best dealt with before their fruits are realized.. Guilty until proven innocent? Trust me. if you in your little scenario had included that you just came from an alqaida(spell) training camp they probably would have arrested you on less evidence then that. Intelligence missed these guys on sept 11. there is no way they want that to happen again. Okay, but I wonder if they're any more efficient now than they were then. Saddam is sucha lunatic if he had nuke capability he would use it. Of course he would use it onl his own people first. He used chemical weapons on Iran with great success 20,000 dead from it. The US believes that he will be the next great supporter of infiltration into the US of terrorists.. Personally i dont see what the difference is in defending ourselves and or
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Dear Mike, Yes, in US you can always tell the truth without being worried and as citizens of free countries it is something we can be proud of. But if it is not the truth or you cannot prove it, they will sue your pants off in the US. But do not be overly worried in this case. Hakan At 12:27 PM 10/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: Well, the problem you run into is that ... who defines tyrant?? In most cases, it's the media. Why is it that our media is referred to as the media ... while other countries' media is often referred to as so-and-so's PROPAGANDA MACHINE?? It's only referred to as propaganda in countries where the media is state controlled, and state run. In most of the western world (and some countries in the rest of the world), the press is free to say what it wants. In the US (or other free countries), I could go on the news and say George Bush is dumber than a pile of dog fesces. In most Arab nations, they can say the same thing - but they can't say it about their own leaders. When the state decides what news can be run, it ceases to be the media. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Yes, yes, yes, Michael, whatever you say, Michael. Sad that you're left with little but sneers and sarcasm, along with the usual predictable crap. Sad too to be so predictable. PL480 grain, a boon to the world? Gimme a break! You know NOTHING about these matters, except prejudice. Your views of Third World development issues, agricultural development etc is total BS, flying in the face of huge amounts of incontestable evidence to the contrary, to which you'll remain deliberately oblivious. The sheer scope of your apologetics is a bit breathtaking, I'll give you that. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so twisted and ugly. Your barrel's truly empty, and hence all the noise. Sloppy stuff, no rigour, no meaning, no truth. Further frothings will not yield a response. Funny. Amongst your attempts at disparagement you said this in response to my saying Curtis made a lot more sense than you do: Funny how we always beleive that those who agree with us make more sense. ... and I said this: And no, I don't necessarily think people who agree with me make more sense. I wouldn't have got very far if that were my attitude, that's not a good survival strategy for a journalist, especially not for one who's mostly been a freelancer. Which you cut, though it's relevant - my views on these issues are not just opinions gathered from dinner-table chat with friends whose views I share, from books by authors I approve of, they're very largely distilled from investigative work over many years and at all levels, attendance, interviews, research, and always going and seeing for myself out in the mud, and indeed living life at that level myself. No contradictions, no loose ends, everything substantiated. And the publishers always want more. Anyway, just been going through some news incomings, way behind, and found this, I did see the headlines at the time, but only found time to read it this evening - someone who agrees with me, as you put it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2251067.stm BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Wednesday, 11 September, 2002, 11:31 GMT 12:31 UK US threatens world peace, says Mandela One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as a threat to world peace. In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq. Mandela on the US Bush motivated by arms sales and oil Dick Cheney a 'dinosaur' US responsible for Iran's Islamic revolution US action led to Taleban He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries. And Mr Mandela, 84, called some of Mr Bush's senior advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney dinosaurs. He said that the United States' backing for a coup by the Shah of Iran in 1953 had led to that country's Islamic revolution in 1979. On Afghanistan, Mr Mandela said that US support for the mujahideen (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Soviet Union and its refusal to work with the United Nations after the Soviet withdrawal led to the Taleban taking power. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace, he said. No evidence Mr Mandela said that the US was clearly afraid of losing a vote in the United Nations Security Council. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America, he said. He said that no evidence had been presented to support the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, while former UN weapons inspector in Baghdad Scott Ritter has said there is no such evidence. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions that, he said. The former South African leader made it clear that the only member of the Bush team he respects is Colin Powell. He called Mr Cheney a dinosaur and an arch-conservative who does not want Mr Bush to belong to the modern age. Mr Mandela recalled that Mr Cheney had been opposed to his release from prison. Keith On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: You've swallowed the party line, and the hook and the sinker too, and, as always, it'll be others who'll choke on it. You have the right to believe that. I try not to believe things, all it means is a lack of information, and that's not the case here, you've provided more than enough to justify that conclusion. How entertaining. Likewise, I tried the rational approach, and it bounced off your own rationalizations. You have the right to believe that. It's interesting how you assumed that I'm a typical American who only knows what he's fed by the media. I didn't assume that. I'm very unlikely to make such assumptions, not myself having any particular
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
In a message dated 10/03/2002 10:38:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US threatens world peace, says Mandela Gentlemen: Look at the source, a convicted bomber and Marxist himself. Also a close friend of Bill Clintons. Richard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Bryan Fullerton wrote: Mike.. Got an Email? Huh? You mean mine? Yes, my work email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Mike, Do yourself a favor, stop wasting the intelligence that God has given you. You are the victim of the largest propaganda machine the world has ever known. Everything that you read in mainstream media is just what the rich bastards that run this world want you to read, and unwittingly you are helping them maintain the status quo. The majority of the ultra rich work together in unison to keep the rest of us from joining them. It's not enough to be rich, they must feel superior and also be sure that their grip can never be released. Until Rockefeller and his buddies moved in on the Middle East with their lust for oil/power, all that separated the Saudi King from the rest of the citizens there were a few extra goats, a couple of tents, and a harem. These same folks run every government from behind the scenes. It matters not who wins a war, within a very short period of time things revert to the same old ugly mess. It's really quite simple, any of us could do the same if we had billions of dollars to throw away in order to maintain the standard operating procedure. As long we argue about these subjects, we are doing exactly as the greed mongers want us to do. As long as whites hate blacks, men control women and kids, countries dictate to others how to govern their citizens, etc., we are in reality guarding the prison gates for them. I say,Let's take back our birthright, and free every human on the planet. Unless we all have equal rights, none of us are safe. All wars must be abolished, so that all young men have an opportunity to see their descendants grow up and prosper. Anything less should be labeled a criminal act. kris book __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Kris: Some good advice. Anyone who lets themselves be mislead by the media wastes their lives. It takes digging, reading, talking and years of involvement to see the truth though the haze. Richard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: You are really expanding on this issue. US have done a lot for the world and should have all the credits for it too. US have also earned a lot from the world too and the world should have credit for that. Despite or maybe because that US is a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds, it has some problems with understanding other cultures. US also have a tendency to superimpose solutions, since it is easier than trying to understand. I agree with all of that, except that I think the US (and most of Europe) is generally better than most countries of the world at understanding (or accepting) different cultures - except for cultures that directly involve suppression of human rights (i.e. requiring women to cover their entire bodies all the time, and generall treat women as sub-humans). etc.. Particularly if you compare the US and Europe (i.e. which together I'll call the west) to third world countries. In the west, people can dress however they want - including wearing turbans, or whatever their culture involves (except for going naked in public). In some other countries, visiting women are required to cover their entire bodies. That doesn't indicate much tolerance to other cultures. In the west, freedom of religion is directly protected. In many other countries, religion is not a freedom - it is state mandated. Etc., etc. Let me give an example of a cultural thing that people in the US have trouble understanding (this happened in Iran). I can't remember the names of the people involved, but a while ago a 15 year old boy was convicted of having an affair with an older, married woman. The boy's punishment, was that his older *sister* was sentenced to being gang raped. I freely admit that very few Americans understand or have any tolerance for cultural aspects like that. After the war US asked Germany what food assistance the needed most and they answered korn (in German a grain used for dark bread). US went home and sent a lot of corn to the Germans. The result was that the Germans felt very humiliated as losers of the war, because they asked for grain and the Americans was sending them pig food. Corn as human food has never been a tradition in Europe, it was before exclusively used for animals and are still mostly used for that. Differences in culture. We eat lots of corn here. Mmmm corn Hm, there seems to be a trend here. Criticizing the US may be fun - offering some real solutions might be nice too though. This is a very unfair question to be put to Keith of all people, he is one who really does something and if someone have the right to give constructive critics it is him. Perhaps I phrased that poorly - I did not mean to provide solutions on a small scale - my question was - what should the US (or other large countries) do in those cases. If offering food or modernized farming equipment/techniques isn't acceptable, what should a country do when people are starving? When a tyrant comes to power and is killing his own people, or attacking neighboring countries, what should the UN do? Yes, how American of me - when we GIVE them huge amounts of food (the same food that we eat), and their president refuses to give it to his people as they starve, how American of me to not realize that it's OUR fault. Clearly, us giving food to starving people is malicious. Quick, let's organize a rally - we can make signs saying Stop Feeding Starving people!!. So now you send them genetically modified corn instead. I wonder what the Germans would have reacted if that existed after WWII, not only would they eat pig food, but they would be ginny pigs also. How can Americans eat this, isn't it disgusting? Nope. Tastes yummy. Grows much better too. Some of the corn sent to Zambia was genetically engineered to be resistant to worms and such, so they wouldn't need to use pesticides. Genetic engineering does not mean it's radioactive or anything. How about giving this a try and actually answer one of my questions for a change - What SHOULD we do when people are starving? Show some respect also, do not treat them as animals because they are in a difficult situation. How is giving them food treating them as animals? We give them the same stuff we eat. Yes, animals eat it too. Should we give them something that neither we nor animals would eat? The last time I was in Europe (two years ago for work), as I travelled around to various countries, the local cuisine included many types of food that I wouldn't eat myself (i.e. rabbits, manta ray, etc. - only reason I wouldn't eat them is because I'm a vegetarian). But when they wanted to serve it to me, I didn't get insulted by it. If it were a choice of eating that or starving, then I would have eaten it - not turned it down and blamed them for not offering me something different (particularly when what they offered was the same stuff they ate). Clearly you feel that giving
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
RMcphe werote: In a message dated 10/03/2002 10:38:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US threatens world peace, says Mandela Gentlemen: Look at the source, a convicted bomber and Marxist himself. Also a close friend of Bill Clintons. Richard AAARGHHH! A friend of Clinton's!!! Where the hell's the wild garlic? Good grief. Er, was he convicted of being a friend of Clinton's? And why didn't you say he's a convicted terrorist? He's not a convicted bomber, and he's not a Marxist. Apart from these little quibbles, what a wonderful contribution, filled with wisdom and truth, founded on the kind of highly developed world view that speaks of a truly open mind. Pardon me. Or not. Nelson Mandela is THE most respected statesman in the world today. Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: Dear Mike, Yes, in US you can always tell the truth without being worried and as citizens of free countries it is something we can be proud of. But if it is not the truth or you cannot prove it, they will sue your pants off in the US. But do not be overly worried in this case. Exactly. Presenting something as truth when it is known to be false is a crime in the US. As for my George Bush is dumber than a pile of dog fesces statement - that would generally be taken to be a statement of opinion, which one cannot be sued for. If I went on the news and said George Bush kills babies by hitting them repeatedly with cute puppies - that, I could be sued for (provided that it is untrue). Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will interpose my comments. If I was a lawmaker in US, I would try the following, 1. Introduce legislation that encouraged or forced the development of multi fuel engines. This would stop the new ULS technologies to be a weapon to maintain the position of the oil industry. It would encourage fuel flexibility and open up more possibilities for the society and the people. I think I can foresee a problem with multi-fueled engines. They would, by necesity, be a 'compromise'. Not as efficient when running on Diesel as an engine designed specifically for Diesel, and not as efficient on gasoline as one built for gasoline only. Manufacturers are already hard pressed to meet fuel-economy/emmissions standards. 2. I would put in place tax incentives and subsidies to get the bio fuel industry to move much faster. This way I probably would achieve the environmental advantages of ULS in the same time frame, but with less oil dependence. It isn't tax incentives or subsidies that are needed. It is the burdensome regulations that prevent any meaningful development. I don't mean to imply that the regulations should be ignored, but that bureaucrats should be much more timely in the processing of them. 18 months for an air-quality permit is excessive! The permitting process is also in a consecutive order. You can't apply for all the needed Permits concurrently. By the time one gets half way through the permit process, either the initial permits have expired, or the qualifying standards have changed. Investors are very difficult to find/keep in this scenario. Politically connected entities routinely proceed without permits, and get away with it. It's cheaper to pay fines and penalties than it is to wait for the permits. Non-politically connected entities go to jail for it. The above seems to be the route in Europe and if not it should be. I would achieve the following, 1. My party had to stop talking to me, in order to get the important funding. 2. I would not have enough money to be reelected. 3. It would not be a job opening, when I left politics. I believe you have an accurate grasp of the current situation! Hakan Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Kris Book wrote: their grip can never be released. Until Rockefeller and his buddies moved in on the Middle East with their lust for oil/power, all that separated the Saudi King from the rest of the citizens there were a few extra goats, a couple of tents, and a harem. That's weird - I wonder how they built those massive temples and palaces long before we started using oil, when all they had was a few extra goats, a couple of tents, and a harem. ;-) I say,Let's take back our birthright, and free every human on the planet. Unless we all have equal rights, none of us are safe. All wars must be abolished, so that all young men have an opportunity to see their descendants grow up and prosper. Anything less should be labeled a criminal act. I agree - however, you're being naive if you think that wars would end if the US and all of the UN countries stopped being involved anywhere in the world. Like I said a day or two ago - it only takes one side to have a war. From some people's opinions here, you'd think that there had never been any war anywhere in the world until the US came along. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] headlines on land use and global warming, and asian crop genetics
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2002/2002-10-02-01.asp http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2002/2002-10-02-06.asp In addition, I think the NYT has been doing extensive coverage on water issues and there was some mention of North Carolina, too much concrete, not enough water reaching the acquifer, drought, etc., in an article that was sent me by snail mail. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Michael, gets your facts straight, will you, even if you'll never figure out what they might mean. All your hopeless misinterpretations aside, you've just confused Zambia and Zimbabwe in a previous post, now you're giving as a completely distorted version of something that happened in Pakistan, not Iran - and you've got it totally wrong. There's no excuse for this, the information is easily available, and it's quite different to your version and doesn't at all indicate what you want it to indicate. Go and do your homework please, stop spreading nonsense here. Check it out at the BBC site, for one. And I don't think we need all these opinionations on GMOs either, we're way ahead of you, check out the archives - party line again, the science disagrees, and there's a great deal of it. I think all our very many members who do not hale from the US, nor any Western country, and include many Middle Easterners, Arabs, Muslims and other Third Worlders, must be getting pretty tired of the barrel you're thumping by now. I certainly am. It's sterile. Keith On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: You are really expanding on this issue. US have done a lot for the world and should have all the credits for it too. US have also earned a lot from the world too and the world should have credit for that. Despite or maybe because that US is a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds, it has some problems with understanding other cultures. US also have a tendency to superimpose solutions, since it is easier than trying to understand. I agree with all of that, except that I think the US (and most of Europe) is generally better than most countries of the world at understanding (or accepting) different cultures - except for cultures that directly involve suppression of human rights (i.e. requiring women to cover their entire bodies all the time, and generall treat women as sub-humans). etc.. Particularly if you compare the US and Europe (i.e. which together I'll call the west) to third world countries. In the west, people can dress however they want - including wearing turbans, or whatever their culture involves (except for going naked in public). In some other countries, visiting women are required to cover their entire bodies. That doesn't indicate much tolerance to other cultures. In the west, freedom of religion is directly protected. In many other countries, religion is not a freedom - it is state mandated. Etc., etc. Let me give an example of a cultural thing that people in the US have trouble understanding (this happened in Iran). I can't remember the names of the people involved, but a while ago a 15 year old boy was convicted of having an affair with an older, married woman. The boy's punishment, was that his older *sister* was sentenced to being gang raped. I freely admit that very few Americans understand or have any tolerance for cultural aspects like that. snip Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Keith: After working in over 30 countries, I find it does no good to even read what most people rant about what they think is going on in the world. Richard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
I think we cleared many of the controversial things, so I will only take a few points. At 03:21 PM 10/3/2002 -0400, you wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: You are really expanding on this issue. US have done a lot for the world and should have all the credits for it too. US have also earned a lot from the world too and the world should have credit for that. Despite or maybe because that US is a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds, it has some problems with understanding other cultures. US also have a tendency to superimpose solutions, since it is easier than trying to understand. I agree with all of that, except that I think the US (and most of Europe) is generally better than most countries of the world at understanding (or accepting) different cultures - I have been in US around 100 times (almost a third of a year over the Atlantic and two years visiting) and lived there for one year. It was surprising how ignorant most people was of anything outside of US and how isolated from international news I was. On the other side it is many who understand and have international experiences. You can always generalize about population, but not individuals. Europeans are generally more aware of the rest of the world and I would say all of Europe and some of Asia. Let me give an example of a cultural thing that people in the US have trouble understanding (this happened in Iran). I can't remember the names of the people involved, but a while ago a 15 year old boy was convicted of having an affair with an older, married woman. The boy's punishment, was that his older *sister* was sentenced to being gang raped. I freely admit that very few Americans understand or have any tolerance for cultural aspects like that. Still the US is the largest producer/customer of pornography, so I am not as sure about the understanding as you. Differences in culture. We eat lots of corn here. Mmmm corn And you are not pigs because of this. Europeans eat horse meat, which most Americans get very upset about. It is good too, very tender. Hm, there seems to be a trend here. Criticizing the US may be fun - offering some real solutions might be nice too though. This is a very unfair question to be put to Keith of all people, he is one who really does something and if someone have the right to give constructive critics it is him. Perhaps I phrased that poorly - Good, because I got very upset about it. So now you send them genetically modified corn instead. I wonder what the Germans would have reacted if that existed after WWII, not only would they eat pig food, but they would be ginny pigs also. How can Americans eat this, isn't it disgusting? Nope. Tastes yummy. Grows much better too. and excellent as food for pigs and other animals, makes the meat taste very good. Show some respect also, do not treat them as animals because they are in a difficult situation. How is giving them food treating them as animals? We give them the same stuff we eat. Yes, animals eat it too. Should we give them something that neither we nor animals would eat? It is the evaluation that is attached with that you expect them to eat pig food. They cannot belive that you are eating it yourselves, the rich Americans do not eat pig food. The last time I was in Europe (two years ago for work), as I travelled around to various countries, the local cuisine included many types of food that I wouldn't eat myself (i.e. rabbits, manta ray, etc. - only reason I wouldn't eat them is because I'm a vegetarian). But when they wanted to serve it to me, I didn't get insulted by it. If it were a choice of eating that or starving, then I would have eaten it - not turned it down and blamed them for not offering me something different (particularly when what they offered was the same stuff they ate). Most of the people that you give pig food, have not been far from their village during their life time. They cannot read and even if they could, they have nothing to read. They are not looking at TV and does not know what a computer is, hard to belive isn't it. He is a political crook and are using the sentiment of the people for his own purpose. But you ask for this, when you are sending them genetically modified animal food to eat. Why? We eat it all the time. Genetic engineering, along with modernized farming techniques, is why we're able to produce so much food that we have plenty of excess to give (or sell cheaply) to people who are starving. It's not like we're experimenting on them or anything - we've been eating the same stuff for quite some time. I know, they don't. If Mugabe didn't want to use it as propaganda tool he did not have to, because they do not know what genetically is, only that he told them that it is bad. Those who can evaluate your arguments does not need the food. Self-centered and naive, YES!! Wantonly kill and suppress, NO!!! If you want my
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Keith: After working in over 30 countries, I find it does no good to even read what most people rant about what they think is going on in the world. Richard I've probably lived in that many countries, don't know, lost count. Nonetheless, you're the one who's ranting. Your view of Mandela is ridiculous. Even staid old Time Magazine, not exactly a hotbed of, well, of anything really, would think it ridiculous. Check it out: http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mandela.html TIME 100: Leaders Revolutionaries - Nelson Mandela It's not only ridiculous, it's plain wrong, as I said. What happened in the REAL world, Richard, is that Mandela was NOT a convicted bomber as you claim. He was captured and sentenced to five years' hard labour for leaving the country illegally and for inciting a labour strike. While in prison, he was charged with the other nine Rivonia triallists for plotting to overthrow the government - treason, which carried the death penalty. However, it was deemed unwise to hang him, so the charge was changed and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on four trumped up counts of economic sabotage. And he was NOT a Marxist. From his historic speech in the dock (I am Prepared to Die - truly historic, it changed the course of history in South Africa): It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists. Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our political struggle. He was charged with being a Communist, but the charge didn't stick. The prosecution hoped to uncover evidence of Soviet ties with the plotters, and failed utterly - there weren't any. I suppose you've got a huge bugbear about (horror!) socialism so you might not see the difference, nonetheless, Mandela was not and is not a Marxist. Nelson Mandela is the most inspirational leader of the second half of the 20th Century. He is the most loved and admired world leader of his day. His dignity is breathtaking. He strove to use only the nonviolent methods advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle to end apartheid and only turned from this path when be became convinced that violence was inevitable. - Heroes of the 20th Century http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mandela.htm Well, I'm not into heroes, but Mandela certainly is one. And that you think friendship with Clinton outweighs all that speaks for itself, and doesn't say much for you. So, I don't care how many countries you've worked in nor whatever you may say about the real world, but if that's what you believe you might as well have stayed at home with your eyes closed. On the other hand, I was there, and got deeply involved in these issues. Your view is laughable. Actually it's atrocious. Keith RMcphe werote: In a message dated 10/03/2002 10:38:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US threatens world peace, says Mandela Gentlemen: Look at the source, a convicted bomber and Marxist himself. Also a close friend of Bill Clintons. Richard AAARGHHH! A friend of Clinton's!!! Where the hell's the wild garlic? Good grief. Er, was he convicted of being a friend of Clinton's? And why didn't you say he's a convicted terrorist? He's not a convicted bomber, and he's not a Marxist. Apart from these little quibbles, what a wonderful contribution, filled with wisdom and truth, founded on the kind of highly developed world view that speaks of a truly open mind. Pardon me. Or not. Nelson Mandela is THE most respected statesman in the world today. Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
Dear Motie, I meant more to describe what we have against us and how it works, not to go into serious technical details. But since you are bringing it up, it might be a both fruitful and interesting discussion. Maybe your initiative to bring this to a serious discussion can lead to some good suggestions on how it could be designed, changed and influenced. At 07:35 PM 10/3/2002 +, you wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will interpose my comments. If I was a lawmaker in US, I would try the following, 1. Introduce legislation that encouraged or forced the development of multi fuel engines. This would stop the new ULS technologies to be a weapon to maintain the position of the oil industry. It would encourage fuel flexibility and open up more possibilities for the society and the people. I think I can foresee a problem with multi-fueled engines. They would, by necesity, be a 'compromise'. Not as efficient when running on Diesel as an engine designed specifically for Diesel, and not as efficient on gasoline as one built for gasoline only. Manufacturers are already hard pressed to meet fuel-economy/emmissions standards. I foresee also several classes of multi fuel engines. At least two as today, high and low compression engines. If we do that, we can at least see to it that fuel systems etc. can support the fuels in the classes. 2. I would put in place tax incentives and subsidies to get the bio fuel industry to move much faster. This way I probably would achieve the environmental advantages of ULS in the same time frame, but with less oil dependence. It isn't tax incentives or subsidies that are needed. It is the burdensome regulations that prevent any meaningful development. I don't mean to imply that the regulations should be ignored, but that bureaucrats should be much more timely in the processing of them. 18 months for an air-quality permit is excessive! The permitting process is also in a consecutive order. You can't apply for all the needed Permits concurrently. By the time one gets half way through the permit process, either the initial permits have expired, or the qualifying standards have changed. Investors are very difficult to find/keep in this scenario. This must be done better. Roadblocks and corruption. Politically connected entities routinely proceed without permits, and get away with it. It's cheaper to pay fines and penalties than it is to wait for the permits. Non-politically connected entities go to jail for it. Systematic protection by corruption The above seems to be the route in Europe and if not it should be. I would achieve the following, 1. My party had to stop talking to me, in order to get the important funding. 2. I would not have enough money to be reelected. 3. It would not be a job opening, when I left politics. I believe you have an accurate grasp of the current situation! Thank you, but how to get a change? Hakan Motie Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike I assume he is using a Pyrolysis process? I have a very crude Yes, fast pyrolysis, which yields the bio-oil, char (charcoal briquettes, which can be used as fuel), and non-condensable gases that are used to provide heat for further pyrolysis. homemade gasifier for personal experimental use. When first starting it, before it gets up to operating temp, it produces some of the bio- oil. I use it for firestarter for the next time I run the gasifier. Mine is (rough guess) 50% water. I've never made any attempt to distill it or any other further refining. If you want more info on his setup, let me know and I can put you in touch with him. They have a webpage for the group, but not much information on it yet. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
I never did understand that 40 virgins thing. I dont even want one. One woman of experiance is enough for me.. LOL.. I think someone must have an overinflated male ego or something.. mostly something because like I said I have no clue why such a belief would be such a draw for maryterdom. --Bryan I agree entirely. That has been used all over the world, and to a certain extent I think Bush is using it now (as I've said, I don't think Saddam is the most imminent threat to US. I think he is an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people would be far better off if he were removed from power, and a democracy established with aid through the UN). To modernize that Goering's statement, however, another line should be added - Alternatively, you can tell them that they will go to heaven where they will have 40 virgins waiting for them, if they die as a martyr in a holy war against the great infidel. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The BBC has been fooled...
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the war US asked Germany what food assistance the needed most and they answered korn (in German a grain used for dark bread). US went home and sent a lot of corn to the Germans. The result was that the Germans felt very humiliated as losers of the war, because they asked for grain and the Americans was sending them pig food. Corn as human food has never been a tradition in Europe, it was before exclusively used for animals and are still mostly used for that. I didn't have a real understanding of the issue either, until your above explanation. I can see how cultural differences can cause a problem. In this instance, shouldn't actions be judged on intent? Do not misunderstand too much, I am sure that Keith have all of this in right perspective. I think everyone has a few bits and pieces of understanding of the issues. And perhaps some mis-understandings also. Your attitude to Zambia's having your unsaleable GMOs shoved down their throats is also very predictable, very much the same American viewpoint. Yes, how American of me - when we GIVE them huge amounts of food (the same food that we eat), and their president refuses to give it to his people as they starve, how American of me to not realize that it's OUR fault. Clearly, us giving food to starving people is malicious. Quick, let's organize a rally - we can make signs saying Stop Feeding Starving people!!. So now you send them genetically modified corn instead. I wonder what the Germans would have reacted if that existed after WWII, not only would they eat pig food, but they would be ginny pigs also. How can Americans eat this, isn't it disgusting? Without your insight about 'pig food', I thought the US had done the right thing. From our (US) perspective, it is like a thirsty alcoholic angrily refusing to drink a bottle of wine offered to him, because he prefers Champagne. How about giving this a try and actually answer one of my questions for a change - What SHOULD we do when people are starving? Show some respect also, do not treat them as animals because they are in a difficult situation. I'm not yet convinced that the INTENT was to treat them as animals by sending them Pig Food. He is a political crook and are using the sentiment of the people for his own purpose. But you ask for this, when you are sending them genetically modified animal food to eat. Again, I don't think it was a deliberate INTENT. They needed food and we sent them some of what we ourselves eat. The lack of gratitude was/is an unexpected response to an INTENDED humane and compassionate act. Hakan Thank you for helping me to see how others have MIS-perceived our intents. US perceptions of cultural differences may have contributed to the tension, but perhaps misunderstandings based on cultural differences are not all one-sided? If the recipients of the food are insulted over receiving 'Pig Food', can you also see how the US is insulted when starving people refuse to eat the same food we eat? If a dinner guest at my home were to refuse to eat the same food served to the rest of my family, I would have to assume he wasn't very hungry after all. If I heard later that he was angry about the fare offered, I seriously doubt if I would offer another dinner invitation to him. I would also be less than tolerant of any future hunger complaints from him. This may be perceived as arrogance on my part, but life is made up of choices. I would not support any further corn shipments to them. They will have to eat corn or starve. If I were to throw a rope to a drowning man, and he refused to grab it because it wasn't made from new Hemp, I wouldn't bother to look for another rope for him. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
I agree, but if you already had 40 women you would be a martyr anyway and death might be a relief. But do not let us discuss women, because then this discussion will never end. I am very happy with the one I have and it is for sure no space or time for more of them. Hakan At 03:29 PM 10/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: I never did understand that 40 virgins thing. I dont even want one. One woman of experiance is enough for me.. LOL.. I think someone must have an overinflated male ego or something.. mostly something because like I said I have no clue why such a belief would be such a draw for maryterdom. --Bryan I agree entirely. That has been used all over the world, and to a certain extent I think Bush is using it now (as I've said, I don't think Saddam is the most imminent threat to US. I think he is an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people would be far better off if he were removed from power, and a democracy established with aid through the UN). To modernize that Goering's statement, however, another line should be added - Alternatively, you can tell them that they will go to heaven where they will have 40 virgins waiting for them, if they die as a martyr in a holy war against the great infidel. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
The train symbolized the fact that Saddam negotiation is irrelevant. Because he will lie and connive and will not be detered(by words at least) from whatever it is that he wants. And the US is stupid if they think he has not spent the last 5 years hideing his WMD programs. I would be willing to bet that he has an extensive underground system set up for hideing the stockpiles needed for his evil plans. And after him comes his son who is even worse. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... This would sound very convincing in front of a lynch mob and also does when the President of US says it. Personally, I only have a strong principle opinion about you hanging Saddam Hussein without a trial, not that he will be hanged. I have much more feelings about the Iraq people that might hang with him. For me it looks like US is bullying and maybe bluffing to get what it wants. How can US be contained within itself, with the enormous dependance of oil imports? 4% of the worlds population, that are using 25% of the world's oil production? I can believe that Americans can try to put the cart before the horse or let the tail wag the dog. But to try to negotiate with a moving train, isn't that too much? We now that carts have a relation with horses and dogs have tails, but trains can't speak. Sadam wont speak.. Least honestly. I am worried and it is not much of what you are saying that makes me less worried. Hakan At 08:36 AM 10/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: Keep in mind that the United States is a supposed democracy contained within itself. The world is not a democracy yet. pre-emptive strikes may sound like putting the cart before the horse but you only have to stand in front of a moving train and try to negotiate with it once. No one else observing will make that same mistake. So what is so different about a nuclear bomb versus chemical weapons? Either way thousands of people are dead. Nuclear bomb may be more humane then chemical. Judging by the description of the deaths written by human rights international (or something like that). It does not appear to be a good way to die. Saddam was willing to use quite a bit of those chemical weapons on Iran. These are also considered WMD's. I dont see anybody squashing him or getting rid of him for that.. So what is to make me believe that he wont use a nuclear weapon? Blind hope that he is smarter then he appears? Saddam should be smarter and spread his killings out over several years. like maybe 10,000 a year instead of all at once. That way we wont pay much attention to him? Course he shouldn't have experimented on his own people. Trust me he probably wont do that with a nuclear weapon. Sure it would be nice if everyone on the UN had the same insight, but so far I believe like Saddam, the UN is all bark and no bite. They can be bluffed and bullied down and out of most anything. Besides for the most part I think there is alot of postureing going on in an attempt to get the UN to be what it was intended to be instead of the impotent institution that it has been. So if I am right then those of you afraid of the US going it alone don't have to worry. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I thought that the modern free, democratic societies was based on a sense of justice and law. Maybe Plato had all the rights to disbelief the democracy when Socrates was sentenced to death by the lynch style democracy. I am sorry, he could not know that it was a lynching. The word lynching came much later, after a famous American judge Lynch. I hope that we do not need to change the meaning of the word bushing. This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. Hakan At 04:45 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: 50,000 dead first? - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... Bryan Fullerton wrote: The problem is that some threats are best dealt with before their fruits are realized.. Guilty until proven innocent? Trust me. if you
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Hmm little paranoia going on here? - Original Message - From: Kris Book [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular? Mike, Do yourself a favor, stop wasting the intelligence that God has given you. You are the victim of the largest propaganda machine the world has ever known. Everything that you read in mainstream media is just what the rich bastards that run this world want you to read, and unwittingly you are helping them maintain the status quo. The majority of the ultra rich work together in unison to keep the rest of us from joining them. It's not enough to be rich, they must feel superior and also be sure that their grip can never be released. Until Rockefeller and his buddies moved in on the Middle East with their lust for oil/power, all that separated the Saudi King from the rest of the citizens there were a few extra goats, a couple of tents, and a harem. These same folks run every government from behind the scenes. It matters not who wins a war, within a very short period of time things revert to the same old ugly mess. It's really quite simple, any of us could do the same if we had billions of dollars to throw away in order to maintain the standard operating procedure. As long we argue about these subjects, we are doing exactly Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Amen! LOL you must not be a terrorist then.. LOL - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular? I agree, but if you already had 40 women you would be a martyr anyway and death might be a relief. But do not let us discuss women, because then this discussion will never end. I am very happy with the one I have and it is for sure no space or time for more of them. Hakan At 03:29 PM 10/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: I never did understand that 40 virgins thing. I dont even want one. One woman of experiance is enough for me.. LOL.. I think someone must have an overinflated male ego or something.. mostly something because like I said I have no clue why such a belief would be such a draw for maryterdom. --Bryan I agree entirely. That has been used all over the world, and to a certain extent I think Bush is using it now (as I've said, I don't think Saddam is the most imminent threat to US. I think he is an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people would be far better off if he were removed from power, and a democracy established with aid through the UN). To modernize that Goering's statement, however, another line should be added - Alternatively, you can tell them that they will go to heaven where they will have 40 virgins waiting for them, if they die as a martyr in a holy war against the great infidel. Mike Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The BBC has been fooled...
Motie, At 10:43 PM 10/3/2002 +, you wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for helping me to see how others have MIS-perceived our intents. US perceptions of cultural differences may have contributed to the tension, but perhaps misunderstandings based on cultural differences are not all one-sided? For sure not and if you deal with experienced educated people it does not normally happen, in some parts of the world some of them would even understand the custom of handshaking with the right hand. He would probably still think that foreigners are a dirty bunch, but he would shake your hand and try to not think what it have been used for. If the recipients of the food are insulted over receiving 'Pig Food', can you also see how the US is insulted when starving people refuse to eat the same food we eat? No wonder that we have so much wars. If a dinner guest at my home were to refuse to eat the same food served to the rest of my family, I would have to assume he wasn't very hungry after all. If I heard later that he was angry about the fare offered, I seriously doubt if I would offer another dinner invitation to him. I would also be less than tolerant of any future hunger complaints from him. If you offer a nice ham to a true Muslim or a Jew, they are for sure not going to accept it. This may be perceived as arrogance on my part, but life is made up of choices. I would not support any further corn shipments to them. They will have to eat corn or starve. They do eat and feel humiliated, not much choice. If I were to throw a rope to a drowning man, and he refused to grab it because it wasn't made from new Hemp, I wouldn't bother to look for another rope for him. Well, let us only help educated people, who at least have read about the funny habits of the Americans. It would be cheaper also, because it is not so many of them. Motie Hakan Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] The yummy corn fails animal tests
The corn offered was Starlink which is not approved for human consumption in US. There is a glut of it since they can't sell much of it and if humans in Africa eat it, oh well. Not against our laws. So for Americans to pretend this was an altruistic act it shows what sons of Belial they really are. Just like the sons of Belial that created it. Animals that eat it demonstrate impaired immune function. http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:EaWGcsULhu0C:ens.lycos.com/ens/aug2001/ 2001L-08-08-03.html+starlink+cornhl=enie=UTF-8 StarLink corn, a variety genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide, is not approved for human consumption because it may be a human food allergen. Last year, the nonprofit Genetically Engineered Food Alert showed that StarLink had contaminated the human food supply, forcing the recall of more than 300 food products and costing farmers, food processors and the grain industry millions of dollars in lost profit. If there was any justice the Frankenfood creators would be ordered to pay the losses. After all it is their creation and it is loose. Kirk -Original Message- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:45 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The BBC has been fooled... Motie, At 10:43 PM 10/3/2002 +, you wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for helping me to see how others have MIS-perceived our intents. US perceptions of cultural differences may have contributed to the tension, but perhaps misunderstandings based on cultural differences are not all one-sided? For sure not and if you deal with experienced educated people it does not normally happen, in some parts of the world some of them would even understand the custom of handshaking with the right hand. He would probably still think that foreigners are a dirty bunch, but he would shake your hand and try to not think what it have been used for. If the recipients of the food are insulted over receiving 'Pig Food', can you also see how the US is insulted when starving people refuse to eat the same food we eat? No wonder that we have so much wars. If a dinner guest at my home were to refuse to eat the same food served to the rest of my family, I would have to assume he wasn't very hungry after all. If I heard later that he was angry about the fare offered, I seriously doubt if I would offer another dinner invitation to him. I would also be less than tolerant of any future hunger complaints from him. If you offer a nice ham to a true Muslim or a Jew, they are for sure not going to accept it. This may be perceived as arrogance on my part, but life is made up of choices. I would not support any further corn shipments to them. They will have to eat corn or starve. They do eat and feel humiliated, not much choice. If I were to throw a rope to a drowning man, and he refused to grab it because it wasn't made from new Hemp, I wouldn't bother to look for another rope for him. Well, let us only help educated people, who at least have read about the funny habits of the Americans. It would be cheaper also, because it is not so many of them. Motie Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] US Approves Dumping StarLink Corn Overseas
US Approves Dumping StarLink Corn Overseas US Government Says It's OK to Dump StarLink Corn on Our Overseas Customers USA: US Corn Exporters Relieved At Starlink Export Okay. 27 Oct 2000 Author: Reuters By Randy Fabi We were handicapped because we could only go to domestic feed lots, Cunningham told Reuters in a telephone interview. But with the government clarification, ADM and other grain exporters can now market to the international feed market. We can start doing business again, Cunningham said. However, other industry experts said many more questions remain - including whether foreign buyers will maintain import volumes of U.S. corn. We are not out of the woods yet, said Eric Erickson, vice president for the U.S. Grains Council. U.S. government officials were scrambling to ease rising concerns from Japan and the European Union, who fear the StarLink corn could find its way into their food supply. Japan's Agriculture Ministry said on Friday it had asked visiting U.S. officials not to export corn containing StarLink. Japanese supermarkets and stores have already pulled products containing it from shelves. Japan is the world's largest corn importer and buys about 16 million tonnes per year, including four million tonnes for food and the rest for feed. ADM executives said its corn shipments would be travelling to South America, Europe, Mexico and Latin America, but not to Japan. I think we are going to have to wait a little bit on Japan, Cunningham said. That is a front burner issue over there and I don't think they are going to reverse their feel overnight. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Thanks Keith!! Was: Saddam unpopular?
Thanks Keith!! I'm glad. At least someone knows what I've been talking about!! (lol) Curtis --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --snip--- Believing that democracy needed wise and hidden manipulators, Bernays was proud to be a propagandist and wrote in his book Propaganda: If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it. He called this the engineering of consent and proposed that those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who pull the wires which control the public mind. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Thanks Kris!! Was: Saddam unpopular?
Thanks Kris!! I'm glad. At least someone knows what I've been talking about!! (lol) Curtis --- Kris Book [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These same folks run every government from behind the scenes. It matters not who wins a war, within a very short period of time things revert to the same old ugly mess. As long we argue about these subjects, we are doing exactly as the greed mongers want us to do. As long as whites hate blacks, men control women and kids, countries dictate to others how to govern their citizens, etc., we are in reality guarding the prison gates for them. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
