"Tim Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I though this news group was for biofuel not politics. I get enough of that >crap on TV. We all have one thing in common. The desire to be self >sufficient no matter who is in charge. Let's keep our political views to >the political news groups and by GOD let's make our own fuel. : )
You wouldn't be saying, now would you, that biofuels and energy are non-political subjects? >... let's make our own fuel. A very political thing to do. We get a message like this about once a month, there are 30 or 40 of them in the archives. We've discussed the whole matter quite a few times. People complain "Let's cut all this off-topic political crap and talk about making biodiesel." (In other words, let's stop talking about stuff I don't agree with and talk about what I want to talk about.) Others say biofuels is not a subject that makes any sense without its political context. Others again say it's an entirely political subject. You'd like to sit in the middle of all that and make rules? In fact, they almost always sort it out for themselves, which is as it should be. Sometimes people do stray right off-topic, by any definition, but they seldom go too far, and quite often it brings up relevant issues that might not otherwise have arisen. At any rate, they're mature people who know how to behave, they don't need a nanny telling them what to do. In fact biofuels is very political, directly so - a lot of people here do a lot of advocacy, campaigning, lobbying for biofuels, and to counter the anti-diesel lobby, with more than a little success, I'd say. Also on behalf of small-scale producers, who face many obstacles. But you're talking about the posts about the war on Iraq. I posted a news piece yesterday which said this: >Is the attack on Iraq an imperialist economic grab, an exchange of >blood for oil, as the far left claims? Is it a show of overwhelming >force, intended to cow our "enemies" in an increasingly fluid and >unstable world? Evidence for these claims, convincing now, grows >more compelling every day. Would you say an "exchange of blood for oil", when we're promoting alternative fuels, is off-topic? And if you did say so, do you think everyone else would agree with you? I'd challenge anyone to decide what's on-topic and what's not - make a list, see if it makes sense. And if it does (doubtful), try to apply it. Then, try to keep it up to date. Don't forget there are 1,300 people here, from more than a hundred countries, to whom biofuels means many different things, you must cater to all of them and their views of the subject. Then try to force everybody else to stick to your ever-changing rules. You're not going to do it, right? Neither am I. Most people here favour open discussions, they say biofuels is a subject with a broad context, and that it certainly is; a few want it restricted (though they don't have any positive suggestions as to just how it could be done fairly and constructively). Restricting it would deprive the majority, not restricting it deprives nobody. And that's all there is to it. Anyway, nobody's forcing you to read anything. Messages have subject lines, if you're not interested, ignore them or delete them. Keith Addison List moderator > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Doug Foskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:42 PM > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fw: IS BUSH NUTS? by William Thomas > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:26, you wrote: > > > I'm sick, I'm cranky, and that article was riddled with inaccuracies and > > > half truths. I guess I'm tired of the America bashing that's going on. I > > > voted for the guy, and would again. The alternative was much > > worse. Nobody > > > is lily white, but the "American System" is more right than > > wrong, and I'm > > > proud of it. > > > > > > see below for my half cocked one liners and superfluous comments. > > > > > > Steve Spence > > > > You can argue all you like, but I can tell you, as an outside > > observer, that > > what Bush is doing seems misguided. I am no supporter of Saddam, > > but I think > > the proposed war is too fraught with the potential of unifying > > Moslem against > > Christian (and I consider myself neither...) > > Can't we prosecute the acts against America, (& > > Australia/England etc in > > Bali) as criminal acts, & prosecute the perpetrators, not try to > > find tenuous > > links with countries where they may or may not exist, but we intend > > retaliating anyway? Why must innocent civilians die? (& so learn to hate > > Western society more?) Saddam at present is contained in his > > borders, so is > > no threat to Superpower of the US. > > I personally think the world should boycott American owned businesses, > > send US broke (Just like USSR) then the world may come back to > > reality. US > > 'diplomacy' seems lately to be aimed at merely supporting US supremecy. > > So, as you can see I am no supporter of Saddam Hussein, or GW > > Bush, or our > > own illustrious (misguided) PM, John Howard. > > regards Doug Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
