Re: RE: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

[WCOTE]

OK, is this all just wry humor or sarcasm? Otherwise, I do detect 
arrogance, condescension, religious and political pride (a negative).

This written language is so poor in expressing true intent, especially 
if the writer is masking or hiding true feeling behind clever language.

Let us try to communicate more truthfully and accurately.

Diesel Bill








Lol, n1 Mike



J











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Redler
Sent: 01 August 2005 13:30
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New
Blue States/Country











In poor taste?





Maybe. I liked it anyway just because it's different from what I'm used
to hearing.











Mean spirited?





Doubtful. Listen to Rush if you want to hear mean spirited and poor
taste.











God must love you better. and In God we Trust











This must beconfusing to some atheists. Pagans just think your
missing an s. As for agnostics, well, you might have to clarify
exactly which God they need to trust because they're really not sure.











Finally, what's a red neck? That is to say, is it people with a red
neck? I have a sun burn on my neck from working outside so, I must be one. But,
I don't feel like it has caused a major shift in my ideology and I haven't
experienced any discrimination even though people have pointed it out on
several occasions. More importantly, what makesGod love
red necks less?











:-)











Mike






Doug Younker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





Ya know I still have to
run across evidence that the Redneck faithful any
less cafeteria Christians, Jews and Muslims than the faithful residing in
the blue states are.
Doug, N0LKK

- Original Message - 
From: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country


 In poor taste. Maybe even mean spirited. God must Love you better than
 us RED NECKS. Oh, that's right, you don't believe In GOD We
Trust.







 I second that emotion...Proud to be a liberal from a BLUE
STATEDB with BD















___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country

[WCOTE]

In poor taste. Maybe even mean spirited. God must Love you better than 
us RED NECKS. Oh, that's right, you don't believe In GOD We Trust.



I second that emotion...Proud to be a liberal 
from a BLUE STATEDB with BD

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  malcolm maclure 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:30 AM
  Subject: [Biofuel] The New Blue 
  States/Country
  
  
  
  
  I couldn’t resist posting 
  this.
  
  Malcolm
  
  
  
   
  NEW CALIFORNIA BLUE STATES NATION!Dear 
  Red States We're 
  ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're 
  leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking theother 
  Blue States with us. In 
  case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,Minnesota, 
  Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this 
  split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of 
  the new country of New California.To 
  sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get 
  stem 
  cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken 
  Lay. We 
  get the Statue of Liberty. You get 
  OpryLand.We 
  get Intel and Microsoft. You get 
  WorldCom.We 
  get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We 
  get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.You 
  get Alabama. We 
  get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states 
  pay their fair share.Since 
  our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, 
  we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.Please 
  be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti- war, and we're 
  going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people 
  to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparentlywilling 
  to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't 
  show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We 
  do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not 
  willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.With 
  the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent ofthe 
  country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 
  92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality 
  wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent ofall 
  cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur 
  coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven 
  Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With 
  the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent 
  of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92percent 
  of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent 
  of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 
  percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University,Clemson 
  and the University of Georgia. We 
  get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. 
  Additionally, 
  38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually 
  swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're 
  discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution 
  is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 
  percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals 
than 
  we lefties.By 
  the way, we're taking the good pot, too. 
  You 
  can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico. 
  Sincerely,Author 
  Unknown in New California.
  
  

  ___Biofuel mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the 
  combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] adding carbon vs. carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

[WCOTE]

For the most part, the earth is a closed system. Fossil fuels are a 
product of plants. When we burn them we return the CO2 to the 
environment from which the came. Releasing the so called green house 
gases that would return us to the green house effect that was 
responsible for the prolific plant life that created the fossil fuels 
in the beginning.

- Original Message -
From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, July 16, 2005 0:04 am
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] adding carbon vs. carbon dioxide to the 
atmosphere

 Rafal,
 
 Everything exerts its share. The question is what contribution do 
 you 
 wish to unite with your soul.
 
 Everything else and anything else is meaningless.
 
 TAS
 
 
 Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
 
 On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:06:05AM -0400, Appal Energy wrote:
   
 
 One thing that's not entirely clear to me is
 argument of biofuel not increasing amount of
 carbon in environment whereas fossil fuels do so.
   
 
 Nothing tricky about the issue at all Rafal.
 
 Carbon dioxide of plant origin returns to the plants with each 
 growing 
 cycle. This is called carbon neutral.
 
 Carbon dioxide of fossil fuel origin is not recycled annually, 
 as it 
 takes millions of years for coal, natural gas and petroleum to 
 regenerate. Therefore it's considered to be carbon  positive .
 
 
 
 That's why I mentioned about assumption of fossil carbon included 
 or not
 in circulating carbon share.
 
   
 
 There are arguments that plant-based fuels aren't entirely 
 carbon 
 neutral due to the fossil fuels that go into their production at 
 different steps in the process. However, they remain 
 considerably more 
 carbon negative than fossil fuels.
 
 
 
 True, agreed.
 
   
 
 Your trickiness as you call it is really more of a blind 
 rather than 
 anything perplexing, revolving around gross carbon dioxide 
 outputs. Yes, 
 essentially the same amount of carbon dioxide is produced 
 annually, no 
 matter if the sources are plant-based or of fossil origin. 
 However, 
 global CO2 levels essentially plateau after one year's use of 
 plant-based fuels, while they continue to rise under a regimen 
 of fossil 
 fuel use.
 
 
 
 I meant trickiness rather as the kind of question raised in some
 talks and debates I've heard. It was the argument as to why plant-
 basedfuels are not so good for warming environment because of 
 emission they
 introduce anyway. It was a bit like playing with facts to avoid 
those
 less comfortable for the speaker.
 
 Thank you!
 
 
   
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.o
rg
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Titrating with KOH

[WCOTE]

Isn't the titration solution a 1% solution and not (one tenth of one 
percent)?

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, July 8, 2005 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Titrating with KOH

 Hello Bill:
 
 Firstly, I apologize to the actual author, I simply cut and paste 
 into a  
 file of important notes:
 
 KOH is not as strong as NaOH -- use 1.4 times as much KOH (actually
 1.4025 times). Titration is the same, just use a 0.1% KOH solution
 instead of NaOH solution, and use 1 gm of KOH for every milliliter of
 0.1% solution used in the titration. But instead of the basic 3.5
 grams of NaOH lye per liter of oil, use 3.5 x 1.4 = 4.9 grams of KOH.
 So, if your titration was 5 ml, use 5 + 4.9 = 9.9 gm KOH per liter of
 oil.
 
 ...One more complication -- check the purity of your KOH, it's
 generally not as pure as NaOH. Anhydrous grade KOH flake is usually
 about 92%, sometimes less -- check the label. We use half-pearls
 assayed at 85%. Adjust the basic quantity accordingly: the basic 4.9
 grams would be 5.8 (5.775) grams for 85% KOH, or 5.3 (5.33) grams for
 92% KOH.
 
 
 Ray
 
 On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:11:56 -0400, Bill Clark 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 wrote:
 
  Hello Keith and all,
 
  I have a question regarding titration with KOH. When making your 
 
  titration
  solution (1 g KOH/ L distilled water) is itn necesary to adjust 
 for the  
  percent
  of your KOH, i.e. 90.5%? I am making the adjustment for the 
 basic 3.5  
  grans NaOH
  to 5.4 grams KOH. However, I made no adjustments when making the 
 
  titration
  solution.
 
  Any help is appreciated.
 
  Bill Clark
 
  ___
 
  Biofuel  mailing  list
 
  Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 
  
 
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.o
rg
   
 
  Biofuel  at  Journey  to  Forever:
 
  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
   
 
  Search  the  combined  Biofuel  and  Biofuels-biz  list  
 archives   
  (50,000
  messages):
 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
   
 
 
 
 -- 
 Ray or Shiraz Ings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 1-613-253-1311
 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: 
 http://www.opera.com/m2/
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.o
rg
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang

[WCOTE]

Michael, 

I like most of your points. If one signs or oaths a contract with the 
MILITARY you are theirs to command. You are there to serve the people 
but through the bureaucracy and hierarchy of the military.

One statement of yours bothered me though, ...had I been called, 
military service would have contravened my Christian faith and I would 
have declined to serve as a combat soldier. There is no contradiction 
between being a Christian and  serving as a soldier. We The People 
are responsible for enforcing our moral will to mold moral policy into 
OUR GOVERNMENT. As a soldier one is expected to follow the hierarchy of 
command and there is little recourse. But the soldier isnt supposed to 
second guess the orders, only follow them. If WE THE PEOPLE have done 
our job, duty as a soldier, would not require any independent analysis. 
I just hope the contravened my Christian faith is not an excuse to be 
selective about ones duty. A soldier should not fight only when it is 
politically correct. Being politically correct is the job of the 
people, not the soldier.

Diesel Bill
Robert,

This IMHO, this is another simplification.

Aside from refusing to obey an illegal order, can you think of any exceptions?What's illegal?

Mike
robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Redler wrote: Robert,  "...he or she becomes the property of the military and the commanders will do with every soldier whatever they deem necessary. " Point taken. But I think it's a bit oversimplified.Is it really? Can an army function without discipline? When the lieutenant says: "We have orders to secure that hilltop and neutralize enemy resistance," does an enlisted soldier have the right to disagree?My wife has a young cousin who joined the Marines a few years ago. Much to his dismay, and his family's distress, the Marine Corps sent him to Fallujah. He tells us that he didn't want to go there. He speaks of the situation being horrible and of his life being in constant danger. But he couldn't say: "No thanks. I'd rather serve in Guam."  Do you mean to say that !
 you (as
 property of the US armed services) would  do "WHATEVER" your superior deemed necessary? That's quite a broad  statement.Aside from refusing to obey an illegal order, can you think of any exceptions?robert luis rabello"The Edge of Justice"Adventure for Your Mindhttp://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782Ranger Supercharger Project Pagehttp://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol Lang

[WCOTE]

Keith,

I don't mean to sound trite, but what is the price or cost of freedom 
(democracy)? 31, 33 or 51% of the worlds military budget isn't 
pertinent.

Diesel Bill

- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 3, 2005 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] New York : DA Drops The Charges Against Carol 
Lang

 Hello Larry
 
 Keith,
   I knew, from previous veiwing on this list, that I would definetly
 be in the minority.
 
 We are all in the minority, we are all in the majority too.
 
 However, discussion and sharing opinions is the
 best part of living in any democracy.
 
 Yes... it's the essence of what we're all doing here. But you 
 could 
 have left out the last three words. Here on the Internet, it 
 doesn't 
 much matter where you live or under what sort of regime.
 
 How else would we ever get new
 ideas, solutions.
 
 How else indeed.
 
   I guess it is just the Red State in me,
 
 I'm sorry Larry, I don't know what that means.
 
 but I am proud of the US
 and its existing positions within the world community.
 
 But the world community rejects these positions by a truly 
 massive, 
 unprecedented, majority (as do very many Americans). Yet you talk 
 of 
 democracy. It is contradictory. Not much sharing to be done if 
 you're 
 the only one in step, and insist on it, at everyone else's expense.
 
 I have
 experienced life in other countries and found some to be very
 enjoyable, others however were very repressive.
 
 Not to doubt or to disparage, but it depends how you did it. Were 
 you 
 there on your terms or theirs? There are people who say that, 
 having 
 lived in the local Hilton, corporate executives who say that but 
 they've lived a life entirely buffered from the local conditions 
 and 
 experienced essentially nothing. And others who just muck in at 
 street level with everyone else, live in an ordinary 
 neighbourhood, 
 get an ordinary job on local conditions. They've all experienced 
 life 
 in other countries - or have they?
 
 There are so many Americans now who find the US very repressive. 
 They 
 liken it to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, yet I don't think they love 
 their country any less than you do. Some of them write to me, 
 they're 
 anguished about it. There are quite a few of them here. Discussing 
 and sharing opinions means accepting this diversity, IMHO, even 
 relishing it.
 
   I do enjoy the discussion an look forward to more and others.
 
 Good, and most welcome. All views are welcome, the more diverse 
 the 
 better. I guess the only view that isn't welcome is a refusal to 
 accept those of others when they differ. That is truly sterile, 
 I'm 
 sure you'll agree.
 
 Best wishes
 
 Keith
 
 
 Larry
 
 On 6/3/05, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Well, well...
  
   I'm aware this will probably chuck the cat in with the pigeons but
   I'm undeterred. It's not directed at anyone in particular.
  
   This discussion could only happen in America, while the rest 
 of us
   (that is, most of us) look on bemused. An American list member who
   demands respect for his views on the basis of his military service
   will not get that respect from the majority of list members, 
 and he
   ought to be aware of that. From some he might get the very 
 opposite  of respect. For me, it's simply not significant. It 
 doesn't even mean
   he necessarily knows better, on the contrary, it could as 
 easily mean
   he's incapable of seeing it straight.
  
   Where else in the world is military service placed on such a 
 pedestal  of pride? Where else is the military held in such high 
 esteem? I
   don't wish to be insulting, but the only possibilities that 
 come to
   mind are perhaps China, or North Korea, and maybe South Korea 
 to an
   extent, because of North Korea - but at least they have a real 
 enemy  (and the last thing they want is to fight it out). Food 
 for thought,
   no?
  
   One then has to ask, where else in the world does the military get
   such a grotesquely huge slice of the budget? (China? North Korea?)
   Especially of such a huge budget. And why? The Cold War ended 15
   years ago. Grotesque?
  
   ... U.S. military spending, in billions of dollars per day: 1.08
   
   Ratio of U.S. military spending to the combined military 
 budgets of
   Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria: 26 to 1
   
   Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 
 1985: 31
   
   Percentage of U.S. share of total global military spending in 
 2000: 36
  
   Yes, grotesque. Is this something to be admired?
  
   Look at these figures:
  
   Debt relief for the 20 worst affected countries would cost 
 between US
   $5.5 billion to $7.7 billion, less than the cost of ONE stealth
   bomber.
  
   Basic education for all would cost $6 billion a year;
   - $8 billion is spent annually for cosmetics in the United 
 States alone.
  
   Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 billion
   plus some