Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>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.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>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,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> 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.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>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.
>
Only as ADRs.
>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.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>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,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> 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.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>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.
>
Only as ADRs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>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.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>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,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> 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.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>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.
>
Only as ADRs.
>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.
Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
>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,
Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
business cheerleader.
>
> 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.
Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
earlier were ADRs.
>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.
>
Only as ADRs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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_.
>>
>> I see.
>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>
>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
isn't
>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
favors
>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
modifications"
>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>
No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
fundamentalist knows that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD001DC.2E49A486@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD001DC.2E49A486@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FD001DC.2E49A486@pobox.nospam>,
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
>not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
>marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
>
>
There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
when cousins marry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >
> > Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> > King agree with the analogy.
> >
>
> I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
> Would he?
David, David, David - you should know by now that eqaulity and respect for black
people is only for *liberal* black people. You must remember that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with
"x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041704250.14179-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >
> > Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
> > King agree with the analogy.
> >
>
> I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
> Would he?
David, David, David - you should know by now that eqaulity and respect for black
people is only for *liberal* black people. You must remember that.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with
"x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
