Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto...
Thanks for the re-cap Keith, Sounds like it was quite an event. Perhaps a little too predictable, but important, and even historic, none the less. Thanks again, to both you and Midori, because by your attendance, you did represent those members of this list who would have chosen to go, IMHO. AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:12 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto... ... in which prefecture we live and operate Journey to Forever, and which has lent its name to the Kyoto Protocol, which finally after seven years became official yesterday, 16 February 2005. From the AP coverage at CNN: The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified, accepted, approved or assented by 141 nations including the European Union (EU), officially went into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT). Environmental officials, gathered in the convention hall where the accord was adopted, hailed the protocol as a historic first step in the battle against global warming and urged the world to further strengthen safeguards against greenhouse gases. Today is a day of celebration and also a day to renew our resolve ... to combat global warming, said Hiroshi Ohki, former Japanese environment minister and president of the conference that negotiated the protocol. [more] http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/kyoto.ap/ Kyoto accord takes effect Feb 16, 2005 Also: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=reutersEdgestor yID=2005-02-16T160311Z_01_JON550128_RTRUKOC_0_ENVIRONMENT-KYOTO.xml Reuters.co.uk Kyoto treaty comes into force Wed Feb 16, 2005 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=FOCUSoid=68639 ABS-CBNNEWS.COM Thursday, February 17, 2005 Kyoto Protocol comes into force after 7 yrs http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=37432 Climate warnings, pressure on US as Kyoto takes effect PARIS, Feb 16 (AFP) And so on. I've been watching all this for 13 years now, well longer, but in 1992 I did a major publishing job at the final, ministerial-level UN climate-change conference that preceded the Rio Earth Summit. We produced an online (via GreenNet) conference newspaper for a world coalition of NGOs at the conference, held for two weeks in Nairobi prior to the Rio Earth Summit. The NGOs had observer status, and we put the paper online (courtesy of Apple) every evening, sending it worldwide for local re-distribution by NGOs in each country. By the following morning we'd received their feedback for inclusion in the next edition, which was in hardcopy on all the official delegates' tables when they arrived for the day. Very effective. Advanced for those days - the online version had graphics and layout etc, not just text. Lots of firsts in that operation. This conference was supposed to produce a firm and binding commitment by national governments to take action against global warming, and this commitment was intended to be the centrepiece of the forthcoming Rio Summit. Of course it produced no such thing, just lots of fine words, nothing binding, no commitment. Rather like Rio, in fact. So I didn't go to the Earth Summit. Refused to go, rather. I've regarded all such official events since then with some scepticism. Anyway, Midori and I went to the Kyoto Convention Hall last night, to the celebrations, as it was called. The city is about an hour and a half from here so we missed the first speeches, by Ohki and Joke Walker-Hunter, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but we caught Kenya's Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai's speech and the rest. All very upbeat, good reason to celebrate, a decisive victory for multilateralism and so on, with cautions expressed that it was just a first step, much more would be needed. A common theme was that the developed nations with their resources and technology would take the lead in combating the problem, with due assistance to resource-challenged 3rd World nations that would bear the brunt of the damage. I started getting impatient with this: take the lead? How about taking the responsibility? No, no - all very bland and polite, all false sacred cows duly to be honoured, no applecarts to be upset. We listened with growing astonishment as each of the distinguished panellists talked around the one main glaring fact of the matter without ever naming it - the absence of the United States. Several of them mentioned it - the world's biggest polluter, accounting for 25% of emissions - but not by name! Two major absentees, they said, the other one being China, also not named, and no mention of or reference to India and Australia. I began to see the outline of a lot of horse-trading behind these mostly-bland presentations, and started to wonder whether they'd open the discussions to the floor, or have an open
Re: [Biofuel] US diesel options - was Re: New member introduction
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_UScars.html Diesels in the US But it's a couple of years old now. Anyone game to help me update it? Full copy below Richard's message. New Vehicles (also see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001byfueltypef.htm) VW (45 state legal. Not available in CARB states.) Jetta, Golf, New Beetle 100 hp 1.9L TDI PD (unit injector) Passat (B5.5 platform) 134 hp 2.0L TDI PD (unit injector) Touareg 310 hp V10 TDI PD (unit injector) DCX MB E320 CDI (45 state legal. Not available in CARB states.) 201 hp 3.2L I6 CDI (common rail) Jeep Liberty CRD 160 hp 2.8L CRD (common rail engine from VM Motori in Italy) Dodge/Freightliner Sprinter Van 154 hp 2.7L CDI Pickups/Large SUVs Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 Pickup Ford F-250 and F-350 Ford Excursion - 6.0L V8 Powerstroke diesel Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD and 3500 - V8 Duramax Diesel Hummer H1 Used VW A4 Platform cars 1999-2003 50 state legal not PD Mk 4 Jetta Golf, New Beetle - 90 hp 1.9L TDI (Variable Vane turbo) A3 Platform cars 1994-1999 Mk 3 Jetta and Gold 90 hp 1.9L TDI (wastegate turbo) B4 Platform: 1996 1997 only in North America Passat ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] ethanol stove and barbeque
Ethanol vapor? Am I the only one looking for a hole in the ground around here? I'm taking the pup's down the hole with me John, just in case! Hi Anti Fossil, I think you are over reacting. The plenum on a propane BBQ is a flat plenum with the holes in the bottom. I think, and this is only THEORY!! that once the valve is cracked open and the alcohol is lit with a BBQ lighter the alcohol inside the premium will vaporize in the absence of air and will be no different that the propane it replaces with the exception that one will have to wait for the BBQ to warm up before a good burn will occur. Once the alcohol reaches that stage the valve can be turned to whatever setting is needed and you will be cooking with a much cleaner and healthier fuel. If I get it to work in my BBQ then I will go to my oxygen acetylene torches and change the propane I am using instead of Acetylene with the alcohol plus something else to increase the BTUs to make it better for welding and cutting. You ask what are my plans? Well I will have to start at the beginning. My first interest is to build a river to power that river I designed a 15 kw wind turbine. A true turbine consisting of two to four propellers unlike the single propeller wind generators which are labeled turbines. This turbine has no need for battery storage as it generates grid quality electricity, generates electricity in 5 kw stages and uses power generation as a brake instead of an actual brake. If more than 15 kw is required to stall the turbine a breaking system then kicks in.. I picked up an excellent used water heater for nothing. I have a wood baseboard water heating system in the house backed up by a separate oil fired hot water furnace. Don't use either one use an air tight up stairs. I planned to place electric elements in the wood furnace and use the turbine to heat the house, hot water and sell the remaining power to NS Power. Thought Private power magazine I learned of Bio Diesel. and put the turbine on the back burner because I can probably do the same thing with WVO easier. I started experimenting with formulas and now have WVO formulas that will function at -20C and have been burning WVO in my Golf this winter without heating the fuel filter or tank. I have been using a fifty : fifty mix of WVO and Diesel with Howe Diesel treat. Don't need the fifty : fifty mix a 1:0.3:.0.005 will remain fluid and clear at -20 c. Haven 't been brave enough to try that one in the Golf yet. I will wait until I get all the heating in place first. In 100 ml of WV0 10 ml of methyl hydrate will emulsify using 30 ml of diesel or furnace oil and remain fluid but milky at -20C. I bought a 12 v to 110v, 300 watt inverter that can plug into my cigarette lighter and a 150 watt magnetic oil pan heater that I can put on my fuel filter but have never had to install it. I plan to add a piece of sheet metal to my fuel tank so I can stick a magnet tank heated externally to the tank. I would like to be able to start up and shut down on b100 but haven't added the extra tank or three way fuel switch yet. Thought I would touch base with this list and pick the brains on the list to see if I am headed in the right direction and run a few ideas past the list members for critic. Don't want to reinvent the wheel and do not want to ruin an engine. I picked up a source of WVO but also had to take their potato peelings and apple peelings as well, and holly smoke they put out a pile of potato peel and apple peel in a day and to me it seemed like a virtual gold mine of ethanol and butanol and I sent away to excise Canada for a permit to set up a still consisting of the used electric hot water heater. I picked up an old agitator ringer washer for a mixing tub a tremendous stainless steel three partition separating tank approximately 16 ft long that could not be designed better if it was designed by an engineer for the purpose of making a flow through biodiesel process tank. All kinds of storage barrels and stainless and neoprene storage tanks. I have a skidder, a stroke delimber , a firewood processor and a backhoe all running on diesel that I would like to change over to WVO and Bio diesel. Beside diesel equipment I have two stroke gas equipment consisting of a post hole drill, four chain saws and a 40 hp Johnson outboard motor. For Gas a 302 ford F150 4x4. For the two strokes I plan to burn a mixture of ethanol-butal and replace the two stroke oil in the mixture with waste vegetable oil. For the 302 it will be ethanol butanol and less waste vegetable oil. I haven't started working on these formulas yet. I bought all the panty hose that Frenchies had and a cream separator to run the waste vegetable oil through to separate the saturated and unsaturated and also hope to replace the wash process with the centrifuge. Haven't done it yet Since it is not uncommon to go to -30 C in the dead of winter here I have been working on anti gel formulas this winter. I am still using waste vegetable oil and
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution : G'day Ken; : Nice of you to denigrate CHRISTians like that . We are not X anything : thank you very much. Either learn some respect or please keep your crap to : yourself. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to denigrate either. : Someone had a whack at sacred cows a while back, you should have learned : from that. : Luc * Ah Luc? Respectfully, don't be so quick to feel disrespected by a centuries old practice and the modern day adaptation of that practice. X, XP and P super-imposed over X is understood to represent the word and the man Christ. The P super-imposed over the X is a symbol found in many church buildings. See http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/Christian_Symbolism.html [ http://tinyurl.com/4lxr9 ] and http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/xp.gif [ http://tinyurl.com/6saa7 ] Doug, N0LKK [EMAIL PROTECTED] E Pluribus Unum Motto of the USA since 1776 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution : : Allens article is filled with so many half truths that it would take : a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to : the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject : that easily refute Allens assertions. The words that where attributed to the founding brothers in the article are accurate as are the words of the same founding brothers that, morally ambiguous moral majority use to make their case. The problem is that the body of the recorded words of the founding brothers is like, the Bible and would seem the Koran as well. By picking and choosing one can find support/ justification for most everything. Many of the first Christians coming to the Americas came fleeing religious oppression only to become the oppressors themselves here in the Americas. IMO opinion they are still at it. To call the USA Christian is to insult God become man and his teachings, still IMO. Doug ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Of course it wasn't then a written document but an oral tradition and a model of a working democracy from which the founding fathers drew more than heavily Rather than facts and substance, the prejudice (which is all it amounts to) against oral traditions and oral history, dating from the colonial era, has been shown to be without much basis. No doubt there are exceptions but generally, oral peoples with no written language were and are most rigorous in maintaining the veracity and accuracy of what enters their traditions. African historians have shown that on many occasions the oral histories have been more accurate than the written ones were, such as for instance Lord Lugard's much-hailed establishment of indirect rule in Nigeria a hundred years ago, admired at the time and long afterwards, even now, as a shining example of colonial liberalism. In fact it was intended to destabilise, divide and conquer and was established at the barrel of a Gatling gun with widespead loss of life - but Lord Lugard's wife was foreign editor of The Times, don't you know, and a different story thus entered the history books, as intended. The African oral histories told the truth of it, since proven and corroborated, and were consistent, furthermore, more so than written historians tend be. It's not a safe assumption that print and literacy are necessarily superior. If it's just an automatic assumption and not based on the facts of the case, it's quite likely to be not only wrong but arrogant. Best wishes Keith Jess From: Walt Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:41:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution At 10:57 AM 2/15/2005, you wrote: Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto...
YAY!!! Thanks for the blow by blow, so exciting, Keith. Ah, it was tempting... But we held out tongues. :-) Dazzling pleasure to see this. We absorb and assemble... Cheers, -Jesse ... and Mike Thanks for the re-cap Keith, Sounds like it was quite an event. Perhaps a little too predictable, but important, and even historic, none the less. Yes, important. They were right, it is a valuable first step, there was good reason to celebrate. Thanks again, to both you and Midori, because by your attendance, you did represent those members of this list who would have chosen to go, IMHO. I think we felt that, though we didn't contribute, but did feel I should report back to the list at least. Thanks! Regards Keith AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:12:45 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto... ... in which prefecture we live and operate Journey to Forever, and which has lent its name to the Kyoto Protocol, which finally after seven years became official yesterday, 16 February 2005. From the AP coverage at CNN: The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified, accepted, approved or assented by 141 nations including the European Union (EU), officially went into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT). [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
- Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Noahide or Noachide law is actually Jewish although : some Christians apparently want to practice Judaism. : : I'm afraid it will only get worse at least for a time. : : Kirk * Well there is no profit in following Christ's instructions. But then after following the link provided I'm confused way my Congress and President would, declare as the law of the land, law they routinely and habitually break or ignore. I agree it will only get worse and I hope you are correct in least for a time. Doug ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] US diesel options - was Re: New member introduction
Thanks to others for their contributions too. I'll update that page ASAP. Thanks again, regards Keith Keith Addison wrote: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_UScars.html Diesels in the US But it's a couple of years old now. Anyone game to help me update it? Full copy below Richard's message. New Vehicles (also see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001byfueltypef.htm) VW (45 state legal. Not available in CARB states.) Jetta, Golf, New Beetle 100 hp 1.9L TDI PD (unit injector) Passat (B5.5 platform) 134 hp 2.0L TDI PD (unit injector) Touareg 310 hp V10 TDI PD (unit injector) DCX MB E320 CDI (45 state legal. Not available in CARB states.) 201 hp 3.2L I6 CDI (common rail) Jeep Liberty CRD 160 hp 2.8L CRD (common rail engine from VM Motori in Italy) Dodge/Freightliner Sprinter Van 154 hp 2.7L CDI Pickups/Large SUVs Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 Pickup Ford F-250 and F-350 Ford Excursion - 6.0L V8 Powerstroke diesel Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD and 3500 - V8 Duramax Diesel Hummer H1 Used VW A4 Platform cars 1999-2003 50 state legal not PD Mk 4 Jetta Golf, New Beetle - 90 hp 1.9L TDI (Variable Vane turbo) A3 Platform cars 1994-1999 Mk 3 Jetta and Gold 90 hp 1.9L TDI (wastegate turbo) B4 Platform: 1996 1997 only in North America Passat ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda/sucralose toxic
We tend to make a lot of fuss over acrolein fumes from burning glyc, apparently with good reason, but the IARC says the same about acrolein, also Group 3: Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. Overall evaluation Acrolein is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3). http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol63/acrolein.html I think I'll avoid acrolein just the same, thankyou. As for CSPI and Mercola, I don't think either of them grinds axes, whereas the authorities we're supposed to entrust our health to most certainly do, and not on our behalf, contrary to their claims. Neither CSPI nor Mercola can be painted with such a broad brush. That they might not stay within the confines of the conventional wisdom is all to the good - essential, in fact. Where they might be grinding axes I prefer the side they might err on - mine, rather than say Monsanto's. Saccarin? Naah. Sugar, also naah. The Saccharine Disease: Conditions caused by the Taking of Refined Carbohydrates, such as Sugar and White Flour by T. L. Cleave, 1974 http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave Don't need it. If you really need a safe sweetener, vegetable glycerine or stevia is the way to go. We do also use small amounts of good-quality honey, molasses, maple syrup on occasion, but it's easy to dump a sweet tooth. Best wishes Keith Ken Riznyk wrote: Dear Eagle, I was not advocating the use of the little pink packets that contain saccahrin which indeed is a carcinogenic. Splenda comes in yellow packets. As far a reading about food products on the internet I'll trust the Center for Science in the Public Interest, before I'll listen to someone making a fortune selling books containing nutritional scare stories. First, CSPI is little better than Mercola. I wouldn't trust either of them. Second, saccharin in NOT a carcinogen in humans. We've been over this before. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/25027/ It causes cancer in male rats by a mechanism that *does* *not* *exist* in humans. Briefly, at high doses, saccharin alters the chemistry of rat urine, resulting in the formation of a precipitate. This precipitate damages the cells lining the bladder of the rat (urinary bladder urothelial cytotoxicity). Consequently, a tumor forms when the cells lining the bladder regenerate (regenerative hyperplasia.) Simply put, the chemistry that causes this to occur is unique to the rat and does not occur in humans, mice or primates. Moreover, even in rats, formation of this precipitate requires high doses of saccharin, somewhere around the order of 3% of dietary intake. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, Saccharin and its salts was downgraded from Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 3, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, despite sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to animals, because it is carcinogenic by a non-DNA-reactive mechanism that is not relevant to humans because of critical interspecies differences in urine composition. In summary, the scientific community, as well as the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the IARC believe saccharin does not present a health risk in humans. The FDA was just a little behind the curve... jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Jesse, I hadn't even heard of it. I'm so glad you brought it up. I'm hoping that it was recorded by someone at some time. As you know, there were and are some efforts to record native traditions and languages before they are all lost. These efforts are not nearly as timely or vigorous as I would like. If you discover that it has been published by someone, please forward the information to me. That constitution is something that I'd like to share on my website. As I can't find it in my searches, it clearly needs to be made available online by someone. If I ever find it, I'll put it online. Demian == [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution mark manchester mgripeh at pathcom.com Tue Feb 15 18:57:54 GMT 2005 Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? There weren't many other democracies at hand in the mid 1700's, and apparently this quite venerable Native document was very useful. It gives a context to the Godless document. Jesse Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Walt, I am confused, are you suggesting that documents could not be written before 1200 to 1500 and are you suggesting that manual production of documents (books) were not done? In fact, what are you trying to tell us? I can not figure out what you mean. Are you sure that Six Nations had no way to document things, or that it had not been documented by someone else at the time. Democracy by itself is an old Greek definition and since then there are many variations that had been tried. It is very hard to find any variation that not been tried and documented, even before the Americas was discovered. The founding fathers did not create anything new and had a very large and documented knowledge base to draw from. What is it that is new in the US constitution or unique in the US version of democracy? It might be that the US corporations have extended rights, compared to the people and in reality the US in a Corpracy not a Democracy. LOL I have no idea, but if it was something called democracy in US before its discovery, it is a quite remarkable discovery. Hakan At 12:42 AM 2/17/2005, you wrote: Of course it wasn't then a written document but an oral tradition and a model of a working democracy from which the founding fathers drew more than heavily Jess From: Walt Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:41:04 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution At 10:57 AM 2/15/2005, you wrote: Has anyone else ever seen a copy of the Six Nations Constitution? It's hard to imagine that any such document could exist. The agreement was formulated sometime between 1200 and 1500, long before the Six Nations had a way to write such an agreement down. Any document prepared in modern times would be analogous to a modern copy of the works of Homer; i.e. the product of a long oral tradition separating the author from the present age. Walt ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] The Six Nations Constitution
I learned that this constitution was commonly called The Great Law. Searching that term with Iroquois produced many results. I found this at the University of Oklahoma Law Center. It is too long to post, but this is the link: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html Demian Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] The Six Nations Constitution
Very interesting and very peaceful laws, no wonder that they were an easy prey for the white invaders that must have been seen as Barbarians without any respect for civilized laws of the Nations. The future generations have now followed the history and extended the barbarism to the rest of the world. They continue to commit crimes against humanity and the excuses still are that they do not understand the civilization that they attack and therefore it has to be changed so they can understand it. This process is called liberation by the aggressor. The Barbarians are obsessed by the richness of the land and have no sensitivity for rights, history and pride. One very solid proof of this, is that they would protect office building of the unit for oil production, but allow the place for the invaluable historian treasures of the cradle of civilization to be looted. Hakan At 09:59 AM 2/17/2005, you wrote: I learned that this constitution was commonly called The Great Law. Searching that term with Iroquois produced many results. I found this at the University of Oklahoma Law Center. It is too long to post, but this is the link: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html Demian [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Todd, (Sorry this is so late. I have been out of town and unwell.) Tuesday, 15 February, 2005, 10:56:35, you wrote: If you will notice you will see that I took no exception with the essay aside from this: The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. We give up enough control of our own lives as it is without allowing the few to mainpulate the many through our respective languages whether the few happen to be political, economic, religious or any other kind of authorities. What you are describing below is organized religion not religion itself. A deist is still a religious person whether they are part of an organized group or sit alone in a cave in a mountain. The concern of the founding fathers was with ones personal liberty and freedom and that folks not be required by the state to believe or disbelieve one way or the other by anyone particularly the state. They didn't want a state church established. Their intent was very clear and and obvious and was clearly stated. We have allowed partisan interests with what I would consider extreme and unreasonable views to manipulate us into this situation to further their own agendas and to assert their will in order to control the rest of us. If we are going to allow others who are unreasonable to define and control us then we are going to have to accept that a blowjob isn't sex, an outright lie is a failure of intel, that allowing private banks to collect interest called the nationl debt on money that neither exists nor has anything of worth to back it is in the best interests of people (fractional banking), and that there is such a thing as a good war. Religion comes from the inside out and although worship may be corporate and beliefs shared, religion is personal and subjective. Anything else may have name and form but it lacks substance. Creed and sectarianism not religion. They don't teach religion in the seminaries and theological schools they teach their own partisan apprehension of religion. That doesn't make it genuine or valid. But anyway, to say that the founding fathers were not religious men is just patently absurd. Some were some weren't. What they definitely were is not willing to have what the believed or didn't believe shoved down their throats and they weren't willing to shove it down others throats either. Seems to me they were relatively reasonable men unlike today. We don't seem to have evolved enough to be reasonable folks. I would imagine that suits Big Brother just fine because then he can step in and make the rules and define our words and lives for us because we are too stupid to learn to get along with one another and resolve our differences reasonably and peacefully. Leben und leben lassen. Jeder spinnt anders. Happy Happy, Gustl AE Gustl, AE I don't think you'd find it as false a claim as you might think if you apply AE the generally accepted, contemporary, rough translation of religion and AE religious to the matter. Even if you strictly applied the definitions AE found in Websters, you would quickly see that they don't stick very well to AE those who don't adhere to the extremes of worship and systemized ritual. AE Their beliefs were by-and-large all encompassing, incorporating AE fundamental tenants found in almost all religions, not specifically the AE tenants and doctrines of any one religion. AE When you combine their almost unanimous acknowledgements of diety with their AE discord for organized religion, its constructs and decripitudes, you would AE probably come up with a more precise akin to 'The founding fathers were AE deists, not men of religion,' which the author does go to great lengths to AE verify. AE All in all his statement is to a very large degree correct. And, as you may AE have noticed, it certainly gets the dander up for some, eh? AE :-) AE Quite the nicely written and well thought out piece of work - far more AE accurate than the habitual abuse of historic fact for the purpose of AE idealogical gain being rendered by the self-appointed elitists of the day. AE Todd Swearingen AE - Original Message - AE From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AE To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AE Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 10:17 AM AE Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:38:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) wrote: Our Godless Constitution by BROOKE ALLEN [from the February 21, 2005 issue] The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. What our founding fathers were were religious men who knew the importance of
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hi Gustl, There is a little known fact about the founding fathers that might shed some additional light as to whether or not they were religious. Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, you must be monotheistic. http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm Mike P.S. Maybe we're related. My Grandmother's last name is Rombach-Steiner. She's an Emmentaler. ...any relatives in Switzerland? :-) Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo Todd, (Sorry this is so late. I have been out of town and unwell.) Tuesday, 15 February, 2005, 10:56:35, you wrote: If you will notice you will see that I took no exception with the essay aside from this: The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. We give up enough control of our own lives as it is without allowing the few to mainpulate the many through our respective languages whether the few happen to be political, economic, religious or any other kind of authorities. What you are describing below is organized religion not religion itself. A deist is still a religious person whether they are part of an organized group or sit alone in a cave in a mountain. The concern of the founding fathers was with ones personal liberty and freedom and that folks not be required by the state to believe or disbelieve one way or the other by anyone particularly the state. They didn't want a state church established. Their intent was very clear and and obvious and was clearly stated. We have allowed partisan interests with what I would consider extreme and unreasonable views to manipulate us into this situation to further their own agendas and to assert their will in order to control the rest of us. If we are going to allow others who are unreasonable to define and control us then we are going to have to accept that a blowjob isn't sex, an outright lie is a failure of intel, that allowing private banks to collect interest called the nationl debt on money that neither exists nor has anything of worth to back it is in the best interests of people (fractional banking), and that there is such a thing as a good war. Religion comes from the inside out and although worship may be corporate and beliefs shared, religion is personal and subjective. Anything else may have name and form but it lacks substance. Creed and sectarianism not religion. They don't teach religion in the seminaries and theological schools they teach their own partisan apprehension of religion. That doesn't make it genuine or valid. But anyway, to say that the founding fathers were not religious men is just patently absurd. Some were some weren't. What they definitely were is not willing to have what the believed or didn't believe shoved down their throats and they weren't willing to shove it down others throats either. Seems to me they were relatively reasonable men unlike today. We don't seem to have evolved enough to be reasonable folks. I would imagine that suits Big Brother just fine because then he can step in and make the rules and define our words and lives for us because we are too stupid to learn to get along with one another and resolve our differences reasonably and peacefully. Leben und leben lassen. Jeder spinnt anders. Happy Happy, Gustl AE Gustl, AE I don't think you'd find it as false a claim as you might think if you apply AE the generally accepted, contemporary, rough translation of religion and AE religious to the matter. Even if you strictly applied the definitions AE found in Websters, you would quickly see that they don't stick very well to AE those who don't adhere to the extremes of worship and systemized ritual. AE Their beliefs were by-and-large all encompassing, incorporating AE fundamental tenants found in almost all religions, not specifically the AE tenants and doctrines of any one religion. AE When you combine their almost unanimous acknowledgements of diety with their AE discord for organized religion, its constructs and decripitudes, you would AE probably come up with a more precise akin to 'The founding fathers were AE deists, not men of religion,' which the author does go to great lengths to AE verify. AE All in all his statement is to a very large degree correct. And, as you may AE have noticed, it certainly gets the dander up for some, eh? AE :-) AE Quite the nicely written and well thought out piece of work - far more AE accurate than the habitual abuse of historic fact for the purpose of AE idealogical gain being rendered by the self-appointed elitists of the day. AE Todd Swearingen AE - Original
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto...
Hi Kieth, Thanks! You are a valuable asset to the cause. I tried to be specific, but I can't. Causes you have supported in words or deed include most of what crosses the mind of any conscientious human being and are numerous. I'm surprised how many people have yet to learn about your efforts and what JTF has to offer the World. Whenever one uses the World to describe the scale of an event or one's efforts, it sounds exaggerated. So, let me say that I picked my words carefully. Let me also say what a pleasure it is to watch you stem the flow of ignorance and arrogance. You've really proven yourself effective when it comes to a verbal confrontation. I just hope I don't end up on the wrong end of one.:-) Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Jesse YAY!!! Thanks for the blow by blow, so exciting, Keith. Ah, it was tempting... But we held out tongues. :-) Dazzling pleasure to see this. We absorb and assemble... Cheers, -Jesse ... and Mike Thanks for the re-cap Keith, Sounds like it was quite an event. Perhaps a little too predictable, but important, and even historic, none the less. Yes, important. They were right, it is a valuable first step, there was good reason to celebrate. Thanks again, to both you and Midori, because by your attendance, you did represent those members of this list who would have chosen to go, IMHO. I think we felt that, though we didn't contribute, but did feel I should report back to the list at least. Thanks! Regards Keith AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA From: Keith Addison Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:12:45 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto... ... in which prefecture we live and operate Journey to Forever, and which has lent its name to the Kyoto Protocol, which finally after seven years became official yesterday, 16 February 2005. From the AP coverage at CNN: The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified, accepted, approved or assented by 141 nations including the European Union (EU), officially went into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT). [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Mike, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 08:16:47, you wrote: MR Hi Gustl, MR There is a little known fact about the founding fathers that might MR shed some additional light as to whether or not they were MR religious. MR Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to MR be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in MR God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, MR you must be monotheistic. Yes, I am aware of that. However, a discussion of Freemasonry is not a subject I am willing to broach on the list. Just as in the anti-zionist/anti-semetic debate there would be a lot of dissention, harsh language and hard feelings over this. I purposely kept my mouth shut on this. I just don't understand how folks allow themselves to get so worked up over some subjects, particularly about things which they have little first hand experience and which they cannot change, not to mention that lumping all people of one belief or another into one pot just doesn't work. Individuals are individuals and although they may be part of some group of whatever sort they need to be given a chance to show themselves as themselves and be judged on that rather than whatever organization, ethnic group, religion or whatever they happen to be a member of. I will check out your reference here. Never too old to learn. :o) MR http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm MR Mike MR P.S. Maybe we're related. My Grandmother's last name is MR Rombach-Steiner. She's an Emmentaler. ...any relatives in MR Switzerland? :-) Well, the Steiners are from Austria/Bavaria, the Zehenders from Bavaria/Baden-Wrtemburg but the Farners are nearly all from Canton Zrich in Switzerland. That doesn't mean that there are no Steiners there. Just none I am aware of but I also have never done any geneaology research in the family. I just listen to those who have. At any rate, whether by creation or by evolution we are, somewhere down the line, related. Nice to make your acquaintance cousin. ;o) Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda/sucralose toxic
Three quick points and then I have to get back to work. First, although acrolein and saccharin may both Group 3 compounds according to IARC, you yourself pointed out that the *reasons* for which they recieved that label are very very different. Logically, saying we don't have enough evidence in animal models or humans to know if this causes cancer, as occurs with acrolein, is worlds apart from saying we have plenty of evidence this causes a specific type of bladder cancer in a specific type of rat, but this mechanism cannot occur in humans, as occurs with saccharin. They may both be in Group 3 but the reasons why are is as different as night and day. Second, as far as public health goes, the massive rise in high fructose corn syrup use concerns me far more than the use of high intensity sweeteners like saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame quite frankly. Nothing inherently wrong with HFCS itself, but obesity related diseases resulting from excessive caloric intake are a much bigger threat to public health than high-intensity sweeteners. If someone is gonna drink 2 cans of coke a day either way without increasing their physical activity, I'd far rather see them drink diet than consume an extra 8400 calories a month. Third, while I think of it, the Feb 14th issue of The Scientist has a really nice article on public policy, dose-response dogma, and the institutionalized choice of linear or threshold models over hormetic models. It's worth reading if you can track down a copy. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello John We tend to make a lot of fuss over acrolein fumes from burning glyc, apparently with good reason, but the IARC says the same about acrolein, also Group 3: Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. Overall evaluation Acrolein is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3). http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol63/acrolein.html I think I'll avoid acrolein just the same, thankyou. As for CSPI and Mercola, I don't think either of them grinds axes, whereas the authorities we're supposed to entrust our health to most certainly do, and not on our behalf, contrary to their claims. Neither CSPI nor Mercola can be painted with such a broad brush. That they might not stay within the confines of the conventional wisdom is all to the good - essential, in fact. Where they might be grinding axes I prefer the side they might err on - mine, rather than say Monsanto's. Saccarin? Naah. Sugar, also naah. The Saccharine Disease: Conditions caused by the Taking of Refined Carbohydrates, such as Sugar and White Flour by T. L. Cleave, 1974 http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave Don't need it. If you really need a safe sweetener, vegetable glycerine or stevia is the way to go. We do also use small amounts of good-quality honey, molasses, maple syrup on occasion, but it's easy to dump a sweet tooth. Best wishes Keith Ken Riznyk wrote: Dear Eagle, I was not advocating the use of the little pink packets that contain saccahrin which indeed is a carcinogenic. Splenda comes in yellow packets. As far a reading about food products on the internet I'll trust the Center for Science in the Public Interest, before I'll listen to someone making a fortune selling books containing nutritional scare stories. First, CSPI is little better than Mercola. I wouldn't trust either of them. Second, saccharin in NOT a carcinogen in humans. We've been over this before. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/25027/ It causes cancer in male rats by a mechanism that *does* *not* *exist* in humans. Briefly, at high doses, saccharin alters the chemistry of rat urine, resulting in the formation of a precipitate. This precipitate damages the cells lining the bladder of the rat (urinary bladder urothelial cytotoxicity). Consequently, a tumor forms when the cells lining the bladder regenerate (regenerative hyperplasia.) Simply put, the chemistry that causes this to occur is unique to the rat and does not occur in humans, mice or primates. Moreover, even in rats, formation of this precipitate requires high doses of saccharin, somewhere around the order of 3% of dietary intake. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, Saccharin and its salts was downgraded from Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, to Group 3, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans, despite sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to animals, because it is carcinogenic by a non-DNA-reactive mechanism that is not relevant to humans because of critical interspecies differences in urine composition. In summary, the scientific community, as well as the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the American Medical Association, the American Diabetes
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hi Gustl, ... Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, you must be monotheistic. http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm Mike Lets look at what the first article (Allen's article) stated: First, it implied that the founders were NOT religious (hook). Then, it pointed out that the bulk of them believed in god but didn't necessarily endorse christ to the extent that say, Pat Roberston does. Then, it detailed information regarding founders such as Franklyn and Paine. I think the author was trying, in earnest, to separate the concept of christianity from the documents used to define the creation of a sovereign nation. To presume god and jesus are the same is a christian belief. I think its difficult for many christians to comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the same. So it stands to reason that Bush claims to be a christian (albiet a hypocritical one) and as such he is giving his opinion that the cretion of the USA was based on christianity because he believes any mention of god is also a mention of jesus christ. And its my belief, like many, that Bush is trying to push his set of beliefs into the government in order to fit the agenda of his followers (not the least of which think they too can talk to god). Well, I can talk to god and I'm giving him an ear full of what I think of this nonsense. I'll report back as soon as I get a reply. regards, dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] The Six Nations Constitution
Thankyou so much Demian for your trouble finding this wonderful document! Jesse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (knoton) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:59:10 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] The Six Nations Constitution I learned that this constitution was commonly called The Great Law. Searching that term with Iroquois produced many results. I found this at the University of Oklahoma Law Center. It is too long to post, but this is the link: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html Demian [1]kcom.gif References 1. http://www.knoton.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Transesterification versus solvent/filtering methods
is based on adding solvents and filtering settling the oils into a product suitable for road fuel. The process seems to produce little waste and uses no dangerous chemicals. What are your views on this method as oppose to transesterification? This method does at first glance have its appeals but I am wondering about possible disadvantages. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. Bending the truth or bending definitions in order to prevail in an argument don't impress me much.Intellectually dishonest. Idiots all around on either side of the question if you ask me, which you admittedly didn't. What the author was trying to do was sway an audience and right out of the box he came out with a statement which was demontratively false. It did not seem good enough to him evidently to demonstrate that the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state and the individual right to choose what one wanted to believe or disbelieve, but he appears to have some need to twist facts to prove or give credence to his theme. He didn't do his homework and he was running on assumptions which can be falsified. A valid argument perhaps but certainly not sound. Mike is absolutely correct about the Freemason connection of the signers and also correct that one must declare oneself a religious person with faith in God to become a Freimauer. So brother, that case is closed. Allen is either intellectually sloppy or dishonest in any case and why should one waste ones time reading such a shoddily researched piece? If he knew about the connection to the Freemasons then he was dishonest and building his case around a false premise and if he didn't know then he was either lazy or sloppy and in a hurry to prove them wrong and us right. We wouldn't take this from a chemist or mathmatician so why on God's green earth should we take it from an obviously partisan essayist? Please note that while I do consider myself a religious person I also am a firm believer in ones personal liberty to choose or reject any belief system without prejudice or penalty. Even Allens. From my perspective this whole thing is not about whether or not the founding fathers were religious or not or whether they wanted separation of church and state. For me this isn't about God or Christianity or religion at all. This is about truth and accuracy and accountability...discipline, reason, restraint, honesty. If we can't even get from A to C with integrity how are we going to make it to Z? It seems to me we have to be honest with ourselves if we are going to be honest with others and that if we are going to sell a good product we have to work at it properly or it will end up shoddy. Mr. Allen is selling a shoddy project whether by design or accident. Happy Happy, Gustl Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 11:26:52, you wrote: Hi Gustl, D ... Thirteen signers of the constitution were Freemasons. In order to be a member of the fraternity, you need to declare your faith in God. You do not have to subscribe to a particular religion. But, you must be monotheistic. http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm Mike D Lets look at what the first article (Allen's article) stated: D First, it implied that the founders were NOT religious (hook). D Then, it pointed out that the bulk of them believed in god but D didn't necessarily endorse christ to the extent that say, Pat D Roberston does. Then, it detailed information regarding founders D such as Franklyn and Paine. D I think the author was trying, in earnest, to separate the concept D of christianity from the documents used to define the creation of a D sovereign nation. To presume god and jesus are the same is a D christian belief. I think its difficult for many christians to D comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its D difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the D same. D So it stands to reason that Bush claims to be a christian (albiet a D hypocritical one) and as such he is giving his opinion that the D cretion of the USA was based on christianity because he believes D any mention of god is also a mention of jesus christ. D And its my belief, like many, that Bush is trying to push his set D of beliefs into the government in order to fit the agenda of his D followers (not the least of which think they too can talk to god). D Well, I can talk to god and I'm giving him an ear full of what I D think of this nonsense. I'll report back as soon as I get a reply. D regards, D dave -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda/sucralose toxic
To each his own poison, eh? :-) Keith. Three quick points and then I have to get back to work. First, although acrolein and saccharin may both Group 3 compounds according to IARC, you yourself pointed out that the *reasons* for which they recieved that label are very very different. Logically, saying we don't have enough evidence in animal models or humans to know if this causes cancer, as occurs with acrolein, is worlds apart from saying we have plenty of evidence this causes a specific type of bladder cancer in a specific type of rat, but this mechanism cannot occur in humans, as occurs with saccharin. They may both be in Group 3 but the reasons why are is as different as night and day. Yes, I realise they're there for different reasons, and I'm far from sure either of them should be there. I don't place any more trust in so-called health authorities than you do in the CSPI and Mercola - they screw up far more often than those two do, and often for far more reprehensible reasons. No need to argue about that, it's a matter of a large amount of public record. Second, as far as public health goes, the massive rise in high fructose corn syrup use concerns me far more than the use of high intensity sweeteners like saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame quite frankly. Nothing inherently wrong with HFCS itself, No? but obesity related diseases resulting from excessive caloric intake are a much bigger threat to public health than high-intensity sweeteners. I don't think you checked the ref I gave you to Cleave's book. Surgeon Captain T.L. Cleave was Director of Medical Research at the Royal Naval Medical School and an excellent scientist. He would not agree with you that there's nothing wrong with HFCS. Not to mention this: It was rigged in various ways of course, but the rise of high fructose corn syrup knocked the US sugar price down by about 80% in a very short time - not long after large numbers of 3rd World sugar farmers had been persuaded by the World Bank to mechanise and capitalise on the strength of a strong US market, and given loans to do it. That caused mass starvation in some areas, and the results have been long-lived. I've seen it: Growth area?? The only growth area around here is in little coffins. Child-sized ones. Regarding Cleave's work, this is another point, I wanted to respond on it recently when Ken questioned the scientific method: I always wonder myself whether the scientific method as we've come to know it hasn't narrowed itself a bit too far. Scientists were saying that 75 years ago, and proving it, and it's 75 years more true today. To that we must add the fact that science today is too often bought and paid for, in a very wide variety of ways, with the predictable results - also too well-documented to merit arguing about. Beyond that there's the capacity of the science establishment simply to ignore scientific contributions it finds inconvenient, no matter how watertight the scientific work in question may be. Howard, Price, McCarrison, excellent scientists, and many others (including Cleave), expected that their work would upset a few applecarts so they were most rigorous about it - Price especially provided a massive overkill of evidence that made his case inarguable. What none of them appears to have realised was that there was no need to argue it - it was just ignored, sidelined into obscurity. Worse than that can happen. In the 70s and 80s it was as much as scientist's career was worth to try to focus on organic agriculture, for instance. Ask David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, or Arnad Pusztai, among others whether much has changed. See, for instance: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20050117/004906.html [Biofuel] Enemy of the state Science has become not very scientific, not even honest. If someone is gonna drink 2 cans of coke a day either way without increasing their physical activity, I'd far rather see them drink diet than consume an extra 8400 calories a month. I suppose, if you're into damage limitation rather than damage prevention. Sounds to me a bit like a choice between cigarettes and cigars (worse, yes, I know, but perhaps a similarly poor range of choices). Third, while I think of it, the Feb 14th issue of The Scientist has a really nice article on public policy, dose-response dogma, and the institutionalized choice of linear or threshold models over hormetic models. It's worth reading if you can track down a copy. Thanks John... but there's this huge pile of stuff here, it's a real problem for me. :-( But I'll try. Regards Keith jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello John We tend to make a lot of fuss over acrolein fumes from burning glyc, apparently with good reason, but the IARC says the same about acrolein, also Group 3: Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of acrolein. There is inadequate evidence in experimental
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto...
Something to treasure. Hi Kieth, Thanks! You are a valuable asset to the cause. I tried to be specific, but I can't. Causes you have supported in words or deed include most of what crosses the mind of any conscientious human being and are numerous. I'm surprised how many people have yet to learn about your efforts and what JTF has to offer the World. Whenever one uses the World to describe the scale of an event or one's efforts, it sounds exaggerated. So, let me say that I picked my words carefully. Let me also say what a pleasure it is to watch you stem the flow of ignorance and arrogance. You've really proven yourself effective when it comes to a verbal confrontation. I just hope I don't end up on the wrong end of one.:-) I'm sure we could argue without a confrontation. A difference of opinion is no problem at all, but that's not what causes such confrontations, as I'm sure you're aware. I can't see it happening Mike, you're quite safe. :-) Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Jesse YAY!!! Thanks for the blow by blow, so exciting, Keith. Ah, it was tempting... But we held out tongues. :-) Ouch! We didn't stick our tongues out at anyone. That should have been But we held ouR tongues. Sorry! Regards Keith Dazzling pleasure to see this. We absorb and assemble... Cheers, -Jesse ... and Mike Thanks for the re-cap Keith, Sounds like it was quite an event. Perhaps a little too predictable, but important, and even historic, none the less. Yes, important. They were right, it is a valuable first step, there was good reason to celebrate. Thanks again, to both you and Midori, because by your attendance, you did represent those members of this list who would have chosen to go, IMHO. I think we felt that, though we didn't contribute, but did feel I should report back to the list at least. Thanks! Regards Keith AntiFossil Mike Krafka USA From: Keith Addison Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:12:45 +0900 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto... ... in which prefecture we live and operate Journey to Forever, and which has lent its name to the Kyoto Protocol, which finally after seven years became official yesterday, 16 February 2005. From the AP coverage at CNN: The agreement, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified, accepted, approved or assented by 141 nations including the European Union (EU), officially went into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT). [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: BioD test batch
Why do you say it's quick? What do you know about the background to this to jumpt to that conclusion? Nothing to say? Just who's being quick to assume something, eh? Assume indeed. Hmph. Keith Keith, You are awfully quick to assume something is bad based on its name. Not quick, certainly not awfully so - slow and exceedingly patient, in this case, despite immense provocation, but it came to an end eventually, as it had to. Why do you say it's quick? What do you know about the background to this to jumpt to that conclusion? What do you know about the Dr Pepper method to be condemning so quickly? Again, why so quickly? Trying to make a point? Sounds like a now-familiar refrain from you, Mr Foxtrot. Are you able to follow a link yet? Can your emailer show you quotes yet (previous messages) after five months of figuring it out or do I have to reformat it all for you? Uh, sorry, not going to do that, if you can't read it check it out at the list archives: http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/ The Biofuel Archives Anyway, the link, all about the promoter of so-called methods named Dr Pepper - careful now, there are links within links, if you really want to know you'll have to drill down deeper than your usual single level: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/42146/1 Just to make it easier for you here's the main second-level url: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biodiesel/message/4254 I guess it's all lost on you though, since you can't seem to see why there just might be something amiss about buying stuff (whether paying or believing) from cheats and liars. I suggest you stop grinding your axe, Andy. I strongly suggest it. Keith Andy On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:04:35 +0900, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you (snip) I will cross reference your methoxide mix with my numbers as I have undertaken the same experiments comparing different processes (batch, two stage, acid base). However, from my experiences, my biod is cloudy after 1 hour of stiring but will settle out rather well over night (12+ hours). Furthermore, after seperation I let it settle another day (I get some more glyc on the bottom of the glass flask). By this time its quite clear. My two batches have been settling to several days with no appreciable change in clarity. Some more details. The Methanol I used is technical grade and is labeled at 99.5%. The KOH is lab grade is supposed to be 99% or better. The KOH has been open to the air only a very little bit and seems to be still flaky and dry with no clumps. I going to try washing it with the dr pepper method to see what happens. In the biodiesel world, anything called Dr Pepper is not a method and is to be avoided. Best wishes Keith Would you mind sharing your test batch process with me/us? Are you using NaOH or KOH? New oil? What numbers? Many thanks, Dana ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Transesterification versus solvent/filtering methods
Been having a look over www.bio-power.co.uk. The process they are using is based on adding solvents and filtering settling the oils into a product suitable for road fuel. The process seems to produce little waste and uses no dangerous chemicals. What are your views on this method as oppose to transesterification? This method does at first glance have its appeals but I am wondering about possible disadvantages. Hm, yes. John Nicholson's operation. This is what it says about it at our website: ... A variation on this theme is adding a solvent to the veg oil to lower the viscosity -- usually 3% white spirit (a.k.a. mineral turpentine, Stoddard solvent, turpentine substitute). This raised a lot of interest after it was publicized on a British TV program -- just add a spoonful. It also raised a lot of scepticism: 'experimental' at best was the view of experienced SVO'ers, and steer well clear unless you have a 5-cyl IDI Mercedes (in which case you don't even need the white spirit). We agree. Work on blends of SVO with other solvents, such as butanol and ethanol, is still experimental. By all means go ahead and experiment, but there are no guarantees. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#1mixing The experienced SVO'ers were Biofuel list members, and some of them were much ruder than that about it. I haven't followed it closely (not very interested), but we do get a lot of input and feedbck and I think if there'd been some revolutionary development I'd probably have heard of it. However, have a look at Darren's site, which will have a more thorough and up-to-date treatment of it: Vegetable Oil as a Fuel by Darren Hill -- book-length online report, mainly UK-based: The Diesel Engine, Theory of Vegetable Oil Use as a Fuel, Engine suitability, Heating the Oil, Biodiesel, Micro Emulsions and Blends, Vegetable Oil Engine Design, Vegetable Oil Furnaces and Heaters, Oil Types and Filtering, Taxation, Implications of Vegetable Oil Fuel Use, Sources. Darren welcomes contributions from users. http://www.vegburner.co.uk/report.html Best wishes Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. Sorry to butt into your discussion, Gustl, but the author was a woman. Brooke Allen has an axe to grind, and you're right about her errors. However, she does make some excellent points. The contemporary tendency to view America's founding fathers as evangelical, dispensationalist believing, born again Bible thumpers is the perspective she tried to counter. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Mike Gustl I politely take exception to a couple of comments: I think its difficult for many Christians to comprehend that others don't hold this belief; just as its difficult for many to comprehend that god and Ala are also not the same. My first response to this was that you are referring to many Christians as ignorant without any way to justify the argument. I think that this is a bit presumptuous -- especially since many of the Christians I knew from church as a boy (Mom was into taking us to church sometimes) questioned the role of Jesus in the bible and had no faith whatsoever in the trinity. Mike first: Its hard to prove such statements. But its not an ignorant point of view... its based on perspective. I can say, with 100% accuracy that all of the christians I know personally believe that god and jesus are 3 entities (sorry, just had to do it ;). Check my email address if you think my exposure is limited. Further, it's a christian tenant that jesus and god are/were the same. My statement is to be taken at face value. I take the definition of christian to be one who believes in christ. The 2 links below sums it up well in talking about god and jesus. So, based on these sources, a christian is one who believes in christ. One is technically not a christian if they don't believe in jesus. Thats not ment to be offensive, just a definition. http://christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID1000|CHID74|CIID1537642,00.html Christianity came to regard Jesus as in some sense God's presence in human form. This was unacceptable to most Jews. (http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/major.html) Typically my proof is in a simple question, What if jesus isn't lord. If they answer something like, But he is lord, the bible says so then I know that this person does not have the ability to even consider that a reference to god isn't also a reference to jesus. Try it out on people you don't know and see if you get a better than 50% hit rate (provided they claim to be christian). If not I'll amend my claim to some christians (though, Pat Robertson and his followers are definitly on the list). Gustl, After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew 5:38-48) -dave ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto...
- Original Message - Keith Addison I've been watching all this for 13 years now, well longer, but in 1992 I did a major publishing job at the final, ministerial-level UN climate-change conference that preceded the Rio Earth Summit. We produced an online (via GreenNet) conference newspaper for a world coalition of NGOs at the conference, held for two weeks in Nairobi prior to the Rio Earth Summit. The NGOs had observer status, and we put the paper online (courtesy of Apple) every evening, sending it worldwide for local re-distribution by NGOs in each country. By the following morning we'd received their feedback for inclusion in the next edition, which was in hardcopy on all the official delegates' tables when they arrived for the day. Very effective. Advanced for those days My mother sat on the local LA21 steering committee for the region (Cherwell Valley, uk) which was eventually disbanded in favour of two NGO level representatives and a quarterly environmental forum. I think it has been a mistake to opt for this.I am an inventer and have worked in a number of fields but in 'alternative' energy saving technology since the early 90s I have a couple of good strong inventions being an energy regulating equipment which clips any overvoltage (in excess of the EU standard 230v rms) and uses it to heat water and charge batteries and an Hysteresis Compensating device that provides masses of hot water by compensating for the hysteresis losses in thermostatically controlled equipment.Meanwhile, the local authority have just been granted a cool million pounds sterling to implement a recycling scheme in the region. Well, I'm not on any NGO committee but I'm recycling electricity here but cannot get haypenny. Either of my inventions would really help you good people in China incidentally. I'm currently looking to gain the Chinese patent rights. JD2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[2]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Robert, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 15:46:06, you wrote: rlr Gustl Steiner-Zehender wrote: Hallo Dave, No, Allen specifically states that the founders were not religious men. I quoted that in my first mail to Todd and that was my only beef with the article. It is patently false. Where he is right he is right and where he is wrong he is wrong and he was wrong in that statement. rlr Sorry to butt into your discussion, Gustl, but the author was a rlr woman. Brooke Allen has an axe to grind, and you're right about her rlr errors. No, not at all. Mistakes need to be corrected and I appreciate you pointing out mine. rlr However, she does make some excellent points. The rlr contemporary tendency to view America's founding fathers as rlr evangelical, dispensationalist believing, born again Bible thumpers rlr is the perspective she tried to counter. Yes, she does make some excellent point which is why I confined my initial comment to her false assertion. And it should be countered, but with accuracy. No good in grinding on an axe where it doesn't need to be ground. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Hallo Dave, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 17:20:19, you wrote: ...snip... D Gustl, D After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they D wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her D writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I D missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your D not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very D religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands D in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country D is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new D testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't D run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you D look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew D 5:38-48) D -dave We are not in disagreement here which is why I only pointed out the inaccurate bit and didn't criticize the rest. Her essay didn't need that bit and detracted from it. Better to build bridges than to grind axes. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
