> Message: 23 > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:01:57 +0900 > From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Fw: IS BUSH NUTS? by William Thomas > > "Tim Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I though this news group was for biofuel not politics. I get enough of that > >crap on TV. We all have one thing in common. The desire to be self > >sufficient no matter who is in charge. Let's keep our political views to > >the political news groups and by GOD let's make our own fuel. : ) > > You wouldn't be saying, now would you, that biofuels and energy are > non-political subjects?
Only if you want to call them that. Or how about food? Or Clothing? > >... let's make our own fuel. > > A very political thing to do. No. It is not. It is about as political as knitting a sweater. > We get a message like this about once a month, there are 30 or 40 of > them in the archives. We've discussed the whole matter quite a few > times. > > People complain "Let's cut all this off-topic political crap and talk > about making biodiesel." (In other words, let's stop talking about > stuff I don't agree with and talk about what I want to talk about.) I would say the same back to you. > Others say biofuels is not a subject that makes any sense without its > political context. No you just are a good party member.... > Others again say it's an entirely political > subject. <SNIP> > In fact biofuels is very political, directly so - a lot of people > here do a lot of advocacy, campaigning, lobbying for biofuels, and to > counter the anti-diesel lobby, with more than a little success, I'd > say. Also on behalf of small-scale producers, who face many obstacles. Yes obstacles are there. But war or no war is not pertinent to the changing of these rule or on making it legal for small suppliers to sell for On-Road use in the US. > But you're talking about the posts about the war on Iraq. I posted a > news piece yesterday which said this: > > >Is the attack on Iraq an imperialist economic grab, an exchange of > >blood for oil, as the far left claims? Is it a show of overwhelming > >force, intended to cow our "enemies" in an increasingly fluid and > >unstable world? Evidence for these claims, convincing now, grows > >more compelling every day. > > Would you say an "exchange of blood for oil", when we're promoting > alternative fuels, is off-topic? And if you did say so, do you think > everyone else would agree with you? What you should be talking about is making change to the rules that we live with for our 'protection'. Getting an open source approval for similar product sales by the "little guy". Talking to your legislators to get tax incentives for production, ensuring a financial incentive for the use, even....... ideas on making bio-fuels???? No that's too radical!!!! The fact that JB Sr. did leave a vicious, dictator in power is unfortunate. The free world does run on energy. And the less that is paid for the fuels we use the more we have to spend on other items. Oh, one quick question....no two.... Do you think we should have gone in to protect the Serbs? Or how about going into Africa a few years ago, was that right? > I'd challenge anyone to decide what's on-topic and what's not - make > a list, see if it makes sense. And if it does (doubtful), try to > apply it. Then, try to keep it up to date. Don't forget there are > 1,300 people here, from more than a hundred countries, to whom > biofuels means many different things, you must cater to all of them > and their views of the subject. Then try to force everybody else to > stick to your ever-changing rules. You're not going to do it, right? > Neither am I. No but why not talk about taking some trips on bio-diesel. Is that ok? So from there how about discussing skiing - since that I where I drove last, to Mt. Snow in Vermont? > Most people here favour open discussions, they say biofuels is a > subject with a broad context, and that it certainly is; a few want it > restricted (though they don't have any positive suggestions as to > just how it could be done fairly and constructively). Restricting it > would deprive the majority, not restricting it deprives nobody. And > that's all there is to it. > > Anyway, nobody's forcing you to read anything. Messages have subject > lines, if you're not interested, ignore them or delete them. > Keith Addison > List moderator Yes but as the signal to noise ratio becomes higher the quality of a list is lowered. Blake Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
