Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/28/07 16:42, Daniel B. wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. > > Nope. That sounds like clear weather to me. Sshhh!!! Disagreeing with delusional know-it-alls only provokes them.

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 17:39 -0400, Daniel B. wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: > ...> > > The Celsius Thermometer wil drop significantly slower the the Fahrenheit > > one. > > Only if it has more insulation. Otherwise, the temperature drops at the > same speed. Of course, yes, the _numbers_ change a

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Paul Johnson wrote: Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. Nope. That sounds like clear weather to me. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Greg Folkert wrote: ...> The Celsius Thermometer wil drop significantly slower the the Fahrenheit one. Only if it has more insulation. Otherwise, the temperature drops at the same speed. Of course, yes, the _numbers_ change at different rates. :-) Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Steve Lamb wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. > > Just as white is the absence of color? Exactly! (Or black in the case of emitted (as opposed to pigment) color) -- P

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:14:16 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:53:50 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >>> Paul Johnson wrote: Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. >>> Just as white is th

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:53:50 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> Paul Johnson wrote: >>> Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. >> Just as white is the absence of color? > .."white is the absence of color?" Yup. People say that

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:53:50 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. > > Just as white is the absence of color? .."white is the absence of color?" ..how come milk faces _change_ in color from they a

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 19 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >Heh, Texans (and for that matter, most of the desert southwest and >> >California) crack me up in thinking that they get weather more than >> >30 days out of any given year..

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 03/20/07 14:18, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:56:43PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 03/20/07 13:20, Kent West wrote: > >>> Greg Folkert wrote: > Yah got me. I can't think of more old ones. You u

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/20/07 14:18, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:56:43PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/20/07 13:20, Kent West wrote: >>> Greg Folkert wrote: Yah got me. I can't think of more old ones. You used the last one I

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

on Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:18:21PM -0700 Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > just think of the confusion when google turns up lists.debian.org for > burma-shave searches... Yow. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:56:43PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 03/20/07 13:20, Kent West wrote: > > Greg Folkert wrote: > >> Yah got me. I can't think of more old ones. You used the last one I > >> could remember. > >> > > > > When memory fails > > To recall an ad > > It's time to shave > >

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/20/07 13:12, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 12:07 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> Greg Folkert wrote in Article >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to >>> gmane.linux.

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/20/07 13:20, Kent West wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: >> Yah got me. I can't think of more old ones. You used the last one I >> could remember. >> > > When memory fails > To recall an ad > It's time to shave > Like dear old Dad. > > Burma-Shav

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Greg Folkert wrote: Yah got me. I can't think of more old ones. You used the last one I could remember. When memory fails To recall an ad It's time to shave Like dear old Dad. Burma-Shave -- Kent West http://kentwest.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 12:07 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Greg Folkert wrote in Article > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to > > gmane.linux.debian.user: > > > > > Okay then, what is more bracing: > > > > > > -40 degrees

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 22:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/19/07 21:57, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 21:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 03/19/07 18:56, Greg Folkert wrote: > >> [snip] > >>> Okay then, what is more bracing

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote in Article > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to > gmane.linux.debian.user: > > > Okay then, what is more bracing: > > > > -40 degrees Celsius > > -40 degrees Fahrenheit > > > > Come on... I am waiting!

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:41:17AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > Not only that, but you can readily fix being cold with relatively available > equipment that's existed in some form or another for the last few thousand > years. Let's see Texas beat that with their wussy, electric-dependent air > c

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Paul Johnson wrote: > Cloudless sky with negligable wind is an absence of weather. Just as white is the absence of color? -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... ---+

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Greg Folkert wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > Okay then, what is more bracing: > > -40 degrees Celsius > -40 degrees Fahrenheit > > Come on... I am waiting! It's just as cold either way. It's one thing everybody agrees on: -40 is enough

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >Heh, Texans (and for that matter, most of the desert southwest and >> >California) crack me up in thinking that they ge

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Douglas Allan Tutty wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:52:09PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: >> > Paul Johnson wrote: > > >>> True. So very true. The many long month

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/07 21:57, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 21:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/19/07 18:56, Greg Folkert wrote: >> [snip] >>> Okay then, what is more bracing: >>> >>> -40 degrees Celsius >>> -40 degrees Fahrenhe

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 21:12 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 03/19/07 18:56, Greg Folkert wrote: > [snip] > > > > Okay then, what is more bracing: > > > > -40 degrees Celsius > > -40 degrees Fahrenheit > > > > Come on... I am waiting! > > Aqua Velva!!! I am more of a "Brut 33" ki

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/07 18:56, Greg Folkert wrote: [snip] > > Okay then, what is more bracing: > > -40 degrees Celsius > -40 degrees Fahrenheit > > Come on... I am waiting! Aqua Velva!!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/07 17:52, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: >> Paul Johnson wrote: >>> Heh, Texans (and for that matter, most of the desert southwest and >>> California) crack me up in thinking that they ge

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:37:33PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:29 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:56:39PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:27 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > > > Okay then, what is more bra

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:29 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:56:39PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:27 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > > > > Now _minus_ 83, now that's bracing! The high arctic is a desert too. > > > > > > Beards: th

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:56:39PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:27 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > > Now _minus_ 83, now that's bracing! The high arctic is a desert too. > > > > Beards: them that can, grow 'em; them that can't... live in Texas? :) > > > > BLT:

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:27 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:52:09PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: > > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > >> True. So very true. The many long months of uninterrupted > > > pr

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:52:09PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: > > Paul Johnson wrote: > >> True. So very true. The many long months of uninterrupted > > precipitation-less heat is the one thing I dislike about living in the > >

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:32AM -0500, Kent West wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > >Heh, Texans (and for that matter, most of the desert southwest and > >California) crack me up in thinking that they get weather more than 30 days > >out of any given year... > > Hmm. When I lived in Texas I am pr

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Paul Johnson wrote: Heh, Texans (and for that matter, most of the desert southwest and California) crack me up in thinking that they get weather more than 30 days out of any given year... True. So very true. The many long months of uninterrupted precipitation-less heat is the one thing I di

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Kent West wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > Paul Johnson wrote: >> You've never seen cheapo crayons (like Prang crayons) left out on a >> hot (ie over 70 degrees Fahrenheit) day >> > Ha-haa!! You North-Westerners slay me > > Hot. 70 degrees. Ha ha h

OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:37:21 -0500, Roberto wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > So, let's review. If you look back as recently as Vietnam, you can > see that we find the answer to your question. LBJ started (yes, he > actually used the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" as justification to start >

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 21:06:15 -0500, Roberto wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:08:02AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:27:28 -0500 > > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Except that the security measures (for baggage) a

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: > It's delusional to think that Windows won't have a post-Vista > version. You do know that Microsoft has cut the Windows team to a skeleton crew and has announced that they have no plans for a successive version,

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 16:25, Mark Kent wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:21:23AM -0500, Kent West wrote: >> Mark Kent wrote: >>> Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is >>> that which can breed. Those which die off can *no lon

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:21:23AM -0500, Kent West wrote: > Mark Kent wrote: > >Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is > >that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the > >improvement is in the *next generation* which have fewer of the >

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:46:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/15/07 06:40, Mark Kent wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 03/14/07 22:0

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Paul Johnson wrote: You've never seen cheapo crayons (like Prang crayons) left out on a hot (ie over 70 degrees Fahrenheit) day Ha-haa!! You North-Westerners slay me Hot. 70 degrees. Ha ha ha ha ha. ;-) -- Kent West http://kentwest.blogspot.com -- To

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 10:08, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/15/07 09:05, Kent West wrote: >> >>> An extinction event is not a creative event. That's all I've been >>> saying. >>> >> >> I don't know anyone on this threadlet who disagrees wi

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Celejar wrote: What you're saying is perfectly clear to me; Darwinian evolution requires as a *precondition* that there be some mechanism by which new genotypes / phenotypes can develop. Darwinism then explains how the ratios of old vs. new will trend over time. Yes! Thank you. -- Kent We

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/15/07 09:05, Kent West wrote: An extinction event is not a creative event. That's all I've been saying. I don't know anyone on this threadlet who disagrees with you. As I've said before, though: previously unneeded recessive genes might "suddenly" be bred into

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:49:11 -0500 Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Genetic change may happen, but it's not caused (or guaranteed, or even > prompted to go in a positive or a negative direction) by extinction > events. The extinction of one sub-group does not automatically add > i

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 09:21, Kent West wrote: > Mark Kent wrote: >> Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is >> that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the >> improvement is in the *next generation* wh

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 09:05, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves. >> > > Well, if by "improve" you mean "purify", "make more homogenous", "weed > out the weaker, less-fit individuals",

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Mark Kent wrote: Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the improvement is in the *next generation* which have fewer of the defective or no longer useful gene/genetic characteristics. Bingo!! Th

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves. Well, if by "improve" you mean "purify", "make more homogenous", "weed out the weaker, less-fit individuals", yes. But that's not the definition of "improve" I was using. I was using the meaning "to

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Paul Johnson wrote: More seriously, though, it does demonstrate that mass die-offs or survival aren't necessarily the products of genetics, which is what the point to the analogy was. _Thank you!_ That's very close to what I was trying to say, only in just the reverse: genetic-change is not

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 06:40, Mark Kent wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote: > >>> Good analogy, because I'm not talking about whether

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: >> This does not change my point that "there's a disconnect in the thinking >> that the extinction of the less-fit automatically means the survivors >> have seen some sort of improvement". >> >> It's like a populat

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote: > > Good analogy, because I'm not talking about whether change can happen or > > not; I'm merely saying that an extinction event in one sub-group

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/14/07 18:53, Kent West wrote: >> >>> Ron Johnson wrote: >>> On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: > Not to rain on Darwin's parade, but, um, the death of t

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/14/07 18:53, Kent West wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: Not to rain on Darwin's parade, but, um, the death of the unfit does not mean that the survivors have automagically improved. They're still the same ol' critters they

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 18:53, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: >> >>> Not to rain on Darwin's parade, but, um, the death of the unfit does not >>> mean that the survivors have automagically improved. They're still the

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: Not to rain on Darwin's parade, but, um, the death of the unfit does not mean that the survivors have automagically improved. They're still the same ol' critters they were before the unfit died off. (It might can be argued that the impro

Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: > Atis wrote: >>> >> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> [snip] >>> > ..the problem is not rpms, but mill wing speed and color in overcast >>> > weather, as in white camo against white fog or clouds. >>> >>> Th

OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Atis wrote: >> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip] > ..the problem is not rpms, but mill wing speed and color in overcast > weather, as in white camo against white fog or clouds. Think of this as "enforced Darwinism"! Right, after several generations we will have high-speed, high-m

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 01:52, Atis wrote: >> >> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > [snip] >> > ..the problem is not rpms, but mill wing speed and color in overcast >> > weather, as in white camo against white fog or clouds. >> >> Think of this as "enforced

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

>> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip] > ..the problem is not rpms, but mill wing speed and color in overcast > weather, as in white camo against white fog or clouds. Think of this as "enforced Darwinism"! Right, after several generations we will have high-speed, high-maneuverabilit

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/07 20:57, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:42:20 -0600, Ron wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip] >>> mills, is how they kill birds, especially in overcast weather. >>> Mode

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:42:20 -0600, Ron wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:05:52 -0600, Ron wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> > >> On 02/27/07 09:52, [EMA

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8 Mar, Al Eridani wrote: On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Are you so stupid to think that the Honolulu bus sytem has a low number of trips per capita or that it is not viable? No wonder you are in the Air Force.

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 8 Mar, Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > Are you so stupid to think that the Honolulu bus sytem has a low > number of trips per capita or that it is not viable? > > No wonder you are in the Air Force. > Please don't insult the Air For

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did you even *read* what was at those links? I'll excerpt a few things for you. ... So, now your challenge is to explain how any of those is actually better than NYC or Chicago. (hint: they're not) I don't need to. The people invol

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: > Better to lobby government to tell me what I can't do. That's a rather glib way of writing off society. That's exactly what government is designed to do: Uphold the standards of the society that created it. We like having productive and scenic land land; compact, accessabl

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/08/07 18:23, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Not really. I prefer that people not be told what they can and can't do > with their property. I understand that zoning is necessary. However, > if you are so concerned about people building up the rura

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:08:17AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Public transportation is not the entire answer, but it does serve > a purpose. Many people in this area use public transit some days, and > drive some days, depending on their schedule. > You are right that I was not

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:06:41PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > Public transit was known in only a few cities, mostly the bigger and > > more densely populated. > > Like most people live in today, which is why I keep making that comparison. > Right, but those are

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 7 Mar, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> > You seem to have this misconception that before cars, everyone used > public transit. In reality, people rode horses or carriages and > walked. Public transit was known in only a few citi

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/07/07 12:05, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Al Eridani wrote: >> >>> On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > [snip] >> >> The whole system runs 97% on-time (that is, ±3 minutes of the printed >> schedu

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >> > The number one requirement for any public transportation system is that >> > it be ubiquitous and accessible. >> >> Indeed. One thing that is an unfortunate stumbling block is the number >> of relatively sparse neighborhoods that cropped up after the elimination >>

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/07/07 12:18, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 05:33:06PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> I like li

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/07 12:05, Paul Johnson wrote: > Al Eridani wrote: > >> On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [snip] > > The whole system runs 97% on-time (that is, ±3 minutes of the printed > schedule), all transit vehicles are tracked

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'm not quite sure where to find the numbers, but I seem to recall Portland, > Ore has a larger and more travelled transit system than Chicago and has > since a public corporation (TriMet) bought out all the failing private > rapid

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/07 12:18, Paul Johnson wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 05:33:06PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: >>> On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [snip] > I like living in a region where it's nigh imp

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> if you compare motor vehicle traffic in those cities, you see that even >> the two *best* public transport cities in the US can't even make public >> transport work for a *majority* of their residents. > > First, c

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 05:33:06PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: >> On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >if you compare motor vehicle traffic in those cities, you see that even >> >the two *best* public transport cities in the US can't even make p

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:21:04AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:39:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:51:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:39:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:51:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >> My bad. That should be 390,000,000 trips. The populatio

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/06/07 21:33, Al Eridani wrote: [snip] > > The US mentality of the car being king is too entrenched to make it > disappear overnight. The car is king because the car gives freedom to go where you want to go *when* you want to go. > > -BE

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:21:32PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Just because the document lists them as the largest, does not mean that > >they are also not the best. > > So you cite a document that labels something the *largest* in supp

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just because the document lists them as the largest, does not mean that they are also not the best. So you cite a document that labels something the *largest* in support of your assertion that it is the *best* and you expect the rest of

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:34:48PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: > > You wrote *best* and posted a link to a 3-page document that has two > tables headed with the title > > Largest Transit Agencies > Just because the document lists them as the largest, does not mean that they are also not the best.

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 3/6/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 05:33:06PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >if you compare motor vehicle traffic in those cities, you see that even > >the two *best* public transport cities in

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 05:33:06PM -1000, Al Eridani wrote: > On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >if you compare motor vehicle traffic in those cities, you see that even > >the two *best* public transport cities in the US can't even make public > >transport work for a *ma

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 3/2/07, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: if you compare motor vehicle traffic in those cities, you see that even the two *best* public transport cities in the US can't even make public transport work for a *majority* of their residents. First, can't you read? New York and Chica

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:39:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:51:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> I also question your statement that everything after Chicago is > >> no good. For example Boston has abou

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 6 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:51:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I also question your statement that everything after Chicago is >> no good. For example Boston has about 390,000 passenger trips per >> year. The combined population of Boston, Cam

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:51:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I also question your statement that everything after Chicago is > no good. For example Boston has about 390,000 passenger trips per year. > The combined population of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville (the three > larges

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On 2 Mar, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:47:15PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> >> just to put it out there, another way to look at that stat: >> >> assuming 2 trips per work day for commuting, that is 1,327,822,650 >> work round trips per year or 5,311,291 man/ye

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:08:02AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:27:28 -0500 > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:36:08 -0500 > > > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PRO

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 05:09:23PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:47:15PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > just to put it out there, another way to look at that stat: > > > > assuming 2 trips per work day for commuting, that is 1,327,822,650 > > work roun

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:27:28 -0500 "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:36:08 -0500 > > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hence, with a discincentive for the big airlines

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:36:08 -0500 > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hence, with a discincentive for the big airlines to improve we are > > dealing with declining levels of service (remember when they actually >

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:36:08 -0500 "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hence, with a discincentive for the big airlines to improve we are > dealing with declining levels of service (remember when they actually > used to serve meals on 4+ hour long flights) and increasing In Europe me

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:48:08AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:00:02AM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:39:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > By the way, isn't air travel an example of fairly efficient (and > > > gover

  1   2   3   >