The Ancient One

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:a4d8007431c8f5016340d8338b40feaa@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:41:18 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
> >did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
> >hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How
long
> >would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
> >considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
> >long? How could he have been sure?
>
> That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
> that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
> have been performed.

And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
receiving the free care you boast of.

>
> >I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me,
that
> >is important.
>
> Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
> mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.

Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
is not enough money in the budget.

>
> >I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
>
> Then why are you running it down?

Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
it.

>
> >I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
> >stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including
Canadians.
>
> It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
> effectively no care at all.

Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.

> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business

To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't even
try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was killed,
Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ. The
WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century. They
reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain the
basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in addition to
their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual fund
scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader of
Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of the
Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.

> cannot be considered an
> objective source.

So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with actually
following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the earlier
topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy (BACT)
for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.

To quote the article,

"Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
"ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
"identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
more traditional, inspections."

In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
representative notes the extent to which "the
Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
professionally' invested in these cases." The official
notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
for anything you might not want a congressman or a
magistrate to see."

Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,

An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
very intimidating."




>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:

> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.

Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed. But earlier
you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is wrong
too.

>
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html

The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is what
you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like saying the
first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been around
for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before DCX
was dreamt of.

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business

To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't even
try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was killed,
Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ. The
WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century. They
reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain the
basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in addition to
their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual fund
scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader of
Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of the
Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.

> cannot be considered an
> objective source.

So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with actually
following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the earlier
topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy (BACT)
for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.

To quote the article,

"Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
"ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
"identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
more traditional, inspections."

In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
representative notes the extent to which "the
Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
professionally' invested in these cases." The official
notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
for anything you might not want a congressman or a
magistrate to see."

Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,

An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
very intimidating."




>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:

> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.

Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed. But earlier
you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is wrong
too.

>
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html

The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is what
you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like saying the
first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been around
for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before DCX
was dreamt of.

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
> >> defer
> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> operated
> >> in.
> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> expensive
> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> polluting
> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> extensively
> >> >> on this, and
> >> >>
> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >
> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
> >> actual
> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >>
> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have
> any
> >> credibility.
> >
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business

To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't even
try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was killed,
Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ. The
WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century. They
reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain the
basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in addition to
their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual fund
scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader of
Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of the
Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.

> cannot be considered an
> objective source.

So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with actually
following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the earlier
topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy (BACT)
for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.

To quote the article,

"Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
"ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
"identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
more traditional, inspections."

In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
representative notes the extent to which "the
Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
professionally' invested in these cases." The official
notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
for anything you might not want a congressman or a
magistrate to see."

Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,

An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
very intimidating."




>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
> >> Daimler
> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> Exchange,
> >> as if
> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> didn't
> >> even
> >> >exist!
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >
> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
> New
> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> claim
> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> NYSE
> >than ADPs.
>
> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:

> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
>
> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.

Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed. But earlier
you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is wrong
too.

>
>
> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html

The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is what
you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like saying the
first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been around
for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before DCX
was dreamt of.

Daniel J. Stern

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> married?

Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
reasons.

DS

Daniel J. Stern

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> married?

Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
reasons.

DS

Daniel J. Stern

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> married?

Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
reasons.

DS

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Greg wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>
> >>
> >> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency, such
> >> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>
> >
> >
> >EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

Wrong. Modifications are ok, as long as they are not "substantial
modifications." To do otherwise would be to hand a perverse incentive to industry
to not do minor modifications and keep the status quo least efficient and most
polluting operations.

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Greg wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>
> >>
> >> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency, such
> >> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>
> >
> >
> >EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

Wrong. Modifications are ok, as long as they are not "substantial
modifications." To do otherwise would be to hand a perverse incentive to industry
to not do minor modifications and keep the status quo least efficient and most
polluting operations.

Greg

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Greg wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>
> >>
> >> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> efficiency, such
> >> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>
> >
> >
> >EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

Wrong. Modifications are ok, as long as they are not "substantial
modifications." To do otherwise would be to hand a perverse incentive to industry
to not do minor modifications and keep the status quo least efficient and most
polluting operations.