>At 03:40 AM 3/30/2004 +0900, you wrote: > >Well again Tad... > > > >Seems I was right about Mr Murdoch, sad. You're obviously > >well-intentioned, but I'm afraid many of those very same good > >intentions have been paving other people's roads to hell for quite a > >long time. > >It doesn't matter. Talking about all this stuff accomplishes nothing. It >doesn't help you nor me in any way. While others are out protesting >and changing things others are on the net typing rebuttals for hours. >I would rather spend that time working on technologies to help the planet >such as my hydrogen experiments and bio-diesel. > >You guys go ahead and ramble. I will sit back and watch with a smile. >Then when I move down to south America this next year, you can call >me a "bloody Argentinean" or whatever you like. In the meantime I would >like to talk about bio-diesel if anyone is interested. > >Tad
You can pretend once again to be amused rather than thwarted Mr Johnson, but I don't think the truth of it is lost on anybody, except perhaps yourself. Well, that's your business. The little barbs aren't lost either, such as that we here just ramble and spend hours on the net accomplishing nothing while you lead the way towards a better world. LOL! Believe it if you like - clearly you do believe what you like, and not what you don't like, much more important than what's real and what really does matter, eh? But your need for the barbs belie your smiles. I'm afraid you've left your credibility in tatters, as I said you would if you took this course of denial. Credibility's worth more than a little loss of face, being prepared to come off it is face-building, not face-losing. But you've made your choices. I hope you now realise that the rigour here that Darryl referred to is something you'll have to take into account if you want to take part in any further discussion here in the future. >me a "bloody Argentinean" or whatever you like. In the meantime I would >like to talk about bio-diesel if anyone is interested. Did anyone call you a "bloody American"? No. Why do you need to add "if anyone is interested", who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself maybe, and I'd say you're not finding it too easy just now. Never mind, I'm sure you'll manage. Anyway, go right ahead, talk about anything you want. BUT, if you don't like "political" posts, even when it's you who started them, just keep right away from them. DON'T try to restrict the discussion here just because you might object to the content. Nobody's forcing you to read anything. You missed this - thought you would: >By the way, there have been quite a few previous discussions of how >long methoxide stays usable once mixed, you can find it in the >archives (see link below each message). The gist of it is that it'll >certainly keep a week or two. Keith Addison List owner >Well again Tad... > >Seems I was right about Mr Murdoch, sad. You're obviously >well-intentioned, but I'm afraid many of those very same good >intentions have been paving other people's roads to hell for quite a >long time. All the myths of Middle America, eh? I'll have to respond >to some of them, and to your hopelessly skewed view of this list, >what it is and why. Then I'll no doubt be accused of "hating >America" or some such BS. Well, so what. > >> >Well Tad, I've no wish to be antagonistic, but then you've been >> >antagonistic, haven't you? >> >>I was posting a humorous view of your posting. > >That's what you're saying now - you didn't expect to be called on >it, so you're trying to back off a bit. Put up or shut up, >basically, which anybody here should be able to do, but you've >sidestepped it, or tried to. Loud protests, but no substantive >response other than it was just a joke. Along with the usual >snipping style in such cases, as if we're all ostriches. But okay, >go ahead. > >>I was quite surprised that a >>list of >>this subject (biodiesel) > >This is NOT a *biodiesel* list, though it's an excellent place for >all things biodiesel. It's a *biofuels* list, which is and has to be >a much broader subject than just bd techie-talk. It comes with an >essential context, and with the list having such a broad membership >it's not possible to say what exactly is on-topic and what's not - >it's often been tried, and never produced anything that made any >sense other than to the very small and unrepresentative section of >the membership that tried it. > >Darryl just said this: > >>Over the time I have spent on this e-mail list, I have concluded there is no >>"scheme". It's a very open and educational forum, open to debate >>on a wide range >>of topics. I embrace the rigour of debate I have found here, the >>focus on finding >>facts, delving into stories and getting a much better understanding >>of the whole >>story around many situations. > >In fact there are a couple of list rules about it, see below. > >>would contain anything political, nor why there >>would be >>any reason for it to contain political propaganda. > >"Political"? All that means is stuff you don't agree with. >"Propaganda" also means that. You don't agree with that? Check it >out for yourself. Prior to your posts it was about corporations and >corporate ethics, which is not "politics", though it has political >undertones. It's an old thread, revived now when another member >posted some anti-environment "Wise Use" disinformation that had >little to do with the subject line, but still no actual "politics". >My response exposed the disinformation aspect of it and asked some >questions about other posts from that member, which had more to do >with corporate ethics, if any, but still no politics. Another member >brushed close to it when he said "they (business and government) are >people, who attempt to balance a bottom line profit for their >stockholders". LOL! But still no politics - not until YOU brought it >up, with your talk of the "extreme left", Rush Limbaugh and Tom >Daschle. Politics. And again now, with this post. And since that's >the case, you don't get to skip away unscathed from your own inept >attempt at political propaganda with a cop-out like this following, >not if you want to retain any credibility: > >>I will not respond to any more political posts simply because I now clearly >>see it aggravates you, even though I find them humorous. It is not my intent >>to anger anyone here, even though at the time it looked as though you were >>directly asking for opinions on your political post. > >Political yourself. You guys just can't take it, eh? The one gets >all hostile and says I have a pent-up hostility problem, and you say >it aggravates me. Nope, just straight talk. Maybe you're just not >used to dealing with different points of view or having to justify >your own, but you'll have to get used to it here. > >>And no, I don't think >>The "Guardian" >>gives both sides of the story, only one, factual or not. > >And that's how far you get to back off. > >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4412987,00.html >>The fake persuaders >>Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet > >Which side of the story did Monbiot/The Guardian not give but should >have, in your view? No wriggling this time please, straight answers >only. See reinstated text below for context. > >>The fact that Daschle said anything about the war or support of >>Bush only shows >>one side since he has also fervently opposed the "Bush campaign" on most of >>it's views or agenda's. > >Nonetheless he said it: > >>"Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush >>administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he >>has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass >>destruction." > >It wasn't intended to be representative, nor presented as such. As I >said I chucked a dart. Really - I put Daschle into Google and that's >the first thing I saw apart from his campaign site. Nonetheless, it >does rather put the gent in perspective for those here who don't >know him well, or at all. Sure does get you going, though, wow. Now >you want to go on and on about 9/11 and so on, but you'll say it's >me who's being "political". LOL! > >>The general consensus is that as Americans, most of us >>believe that sitting back and doing nothing in terms of retaliation after >>having our >>international trade centers destroyed and 4000 people killed would be >>ridiculous. > >That's not the general consensus among Americans, only among a >rapidly diminishing minority of them, as more and more join the rest >of the world in what they've been saying all along, that your >administration's entire "response" to 9/11 would and has left >Americans and everyone else less safe and has increased not >decreased the risk of terrorist attack. Sensible and realistic >approaches were outlined by many knowledgeable people that >definitely would have helped to decrease the risk and eventually to >defuse it, but they were all contemptuouly swept aside, often with >abuse. > >It's interesting/sad to note that the stark fact that so very many >more than 4,000 people have been killed as a result, vanishingly few >of whom had anything to do with either terrorism or 9/11, doesn't >appear to enter your mind. > >>I'm sure you would feel the same if the center of London was bombed and >>thousands >>of people killed simply because of some religious fanatical organizations >>twisted >>views. > >There are quite a lot of people in London, including senior >officials, who're saying that's only a matter of time, and many of >them attribute the heightened risk exactly to the US >administration's "response" to (use of) 9/11, along with their own >government's highly unpopular connivance. > >>Do we simply sit back and watch this happen every few years and not do >>anything about it? Is it somehow our fault that we were attacked on >>9-11? Is it >>ok for terrorists to attack and kill not only Americans but also many other >>nationalities simply for their own twisted religious views by the thousands? >>I'm not sure what the answers are to these questions, but I'm not >>sure sitting >>back and doing nothing is responsible either. I don't agree nor disagree >>with the >>war in Iraq. Humans have been ignorantly killing each other for our entire >>history > >Hey, so that's okay then, let's all go out and kill a whole bunch >more, especially if we can do it for a profit. > >Actually, to a very much greater extent, what humans mostly do and >have long done is cooperate with each other. > >As to its happening every few years, the previous such occasion was >in Oklahoma, no? The response to that was rather different, but >perhaps not less ineffective. I think this is not very unusual: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1174639,00.html >They seemed normal but plotted to kill thousands >"... their capture has revealed a gaping hole in America's war on >terror: the home front." > >:-) Iit's not The Dreaded Guardian, it's The Observer, but I guess >you'd prefer a US link: > >http://cbs11tv.com/investigations/local_story_330180036.html >CBS 11: CBS 11 Investigates Poison Gas Plot > >Professionals in the US are concerned and puzzled by how little >attention is paid to "the home front". Why's that, do you think? No >oil in Texas? > >>and I'm not the one who will stop the madness. Nor will whining about it stop >>it either. > >Who's whining? Seriously, who's whining? Look around - nobody's >whining about it Tad. Why are you hearing whining when there isn't >any? It's only you who's even mentioned the subject. > >>I don't intend on voting for Bush, nor Kerry. They are >>neither of my choices and I don't agree with either one of them. >> >>If you remember factual data about world war II is that we were >>totally neutral >>until YOU and France became under attack and asked for our assistance, > >Me? I asked for your assistance? But I was only born three weeks >after you dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. > >>of which we gave without asking for anything in return. We are >>allies and have >>been since after our declaration of independence from you. > >Sorry, it wasn't me who colonised you. I'm not English, I don't live >in London, I live in a rural area in Japan. And we've heard these >too-loud protests here before. It's causing some grins, I know. Oh >well, my turn I suppose. > >>We are allies as >>well with most of the rest of the world. When there is a disaster in any >>country, >>including countries who "hate" us, we still send our red cross and disaster >>relief immediately. We send our best trained doctors all over the >>world to help >>children and others in need and never ask for anything in return, not even >>a "thank you". We have more humanitarian organizations than most any other >>country in the world. We also share massive amounts of technology for growing >>food, resources and technologies that help clean the air with many other >>countries. > >Um... The US has a much smaller aid budget than any other OECD >country as a proportion of GNP, and US aid is much more closely >"tied" to domestic US interests than any other OECD country's except >perhaps Britain and arguably Japan. A US government website boasts >that "the principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance >programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the US >Agency for International Development's contracts and grants go >directly to American firms." > >The US is the world's biggest-ever importer of food and agricultural >commodities, well ahead of the other OECD countries. The US imports >54% more in farm commodities than it exports (FAO Trade Yearbook >1995, table 6), much of it from countries where the majority lack a >healthy diet. > >The US has been working concertedly to oppose, nullify, undermine >and sidetrack a wide range of international agreements, especially >humanitarian agreements, in many cases with highly destructive >results. I'm not going to spell them out for you, the information is >ready to hand and you have an obligation to inform yourself properly >about what is done in (and to) other people's countries with your >tax money rather than bask in these cosy but substance-free myths. > >The major US export to 3rd World countries is armaments, including >to very poor countries. > >>Do we make mistakes and have corporate officers who do stupid things or act >>out of greed? Of course, what country does not? Do we have people who lie >>to cover up their mistakes and or indiscretions? Certainly, just like every >>other >>country in the world. Is it right? Absolutely not, and if you see our court >>sessions >>pressing charges against most of these people then you would >>realize our whole >>country is not infiltrated with these types of people, but rather just like >>everyone >>else, we have them. > >Avail yourself of some reliable information which will allow you to >make a comparison of enforcement, sentencing and punishment for >corporate crime vs so-called "street crime" or blue-collar crime in >the US, along with an estimation of the level of injury caused on >either side. Don't forget to check the historic trends. > >>If it were my world everyone would stop building homes with wood and find >>an alternative >>like concrete or some other material. The forests would not be harvested. > >Whyever not? Unless they're truly "pristine" forests, which few are >these days, they need to be managed, which very much includes >harvesting, or they go into decline, the biodiversity they support >also goes into decline, and so do the communities they support. > >Of course that does not mean the clear-cutting of industrialised >monocrop plantations (which is what the "Wise Use" people you might >be defending behind all this would convert all remaining old-growth >forest to). > >>If it were my world >>we would simply tell everyone else to keep peace with us and we would keep >>peace with them. > >Um, they've tried that. It didn't work. I suggest you read William >Blum, and Noam Chomski, for starters. Try to disabuse yourself of >the notion that a view that differs from your own is spin and >propaganda. At least they're Americans, LOL! > >>If it were my world > >Why do you say that? The corollary is: "but unfortunately it's not >my world, so too bad, there's nothing I can do about it." You've >already said that. But it IS your world, and you and your society >consume a highly inequitable proportion of its available resources, >at the expense of others, who are not, as often claimed, "less >fortunate" so much as less protected by a powerful government and >powerful commercial forces. Left to themselves they'd be just fine, >but as it is they're anything but just fine, and getting worse off >all the time. You live your life at the expense of others. Did you >ask them first? Are you even aware of them? I see little evidence of >it. Short of which all these statements of preference and what you'd >do if only, if only whatever, but don't do, ring rather hollow. > >Now would you say the following is political or not, and do you >think it is relevant to biofuels issues or not? > >The US, with less than 5% of the world's population, accounts for >25% of world energy use (and 36% of all greenhouse gas emissions). >Even the OECD says US gas is much too cheap, encouraging high >consumption. > >On a per capita basis, the US uses 5.4 times its fair share of the >world's energy, the EU 2.6 times its share, Germany 2.6 times its >share, France 2.8 times its share, Japan 2.7 times its share, >Australia 3.8 times its share. > >India uses one-fifth of its fair share, Sudan less than one-fifth >its share, Nepal less than one-fifth its share. > >The average American uses twice as much energy as the average >European or Japanese and 155 times as much as the average Nepalese. > >In terms of production, Americans produce more per head than >Europeans and about the same as Japanese, but they use twice as much >energy as the Japanese to do it. > >Based on figures from: >US Energy Information Administration >http://www.eia.doe.gov/ >CIA World Factbook 2000 >http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ > >Not much use shrugging your shoulders and saying it's not your world. > >>we would not be burning any form of liquid fuel, >>especially fossil fuels. >>If it were my world we would not have nuclear arsenals. If it were my world >>we would >>work together as one planet helping each other clean up the mess we are >>making and >>help each other grow more food > >Why would we need more food? It's exactly this benighted idea that >we need more food that's been causing more famines for at least the >last 30 years. It's the kind of madness Einstein described when he >defined insanity as the belief that doing the same thing over and >over and over again will yield different results. There's more than >enough food for everyone, there's more food PER CAPITA now than >there's ever been before. And there's also more hunger and more >poverty than there's ever been before. Funny, that. Why do you think >that might be? > >>and help more people....together. If it were >>my world >>everyone would realize that wether they like it or not, we are all brothers >>and sisters, >>period, and we need to treat each other as such. If it were my world there >>would be >>no divorce, no orphans, no rape, murder, genocide. There would be no need >>to grasp >>for the "old mighty dollar". We would all be working on these things and >>working as >>a team to colonize other planets and not make the same mistakes we have >>made with >>this one. > >Well, you can if you like, I'll stay here. > >>I will not respond to any more political posts simply because I now clearly >>see it aggravates you, even though I find them humorous. It is not my intent >>to anger anyone here, even though at the time it looked as though you were >>directly asking for opinions on your political post. > >It's you who's turned it political, all by yourself, so I'm afraid >that won't wash. > >>Thus, I am going to leave with a smile of gratitude towards you >>knowing that I >>cannot comprehend why political discussions need to take place here and will >>simply look forward to questions and answers about this solution to some of >>these problems, the one we call "Biodiesel". > >I'm not going to give you that option, as you may have realised by >now. If you don't comprehend it it's only because you don't wish to. >Here are some previous opinions on this issue (from Americans): > >> > What on earth does this have to do with biofuels? >> >>A lot more than one might think off the cuff, especially when it comes to >>who makes the decisions that let you run biofuel on a roadway or not. > >Another: > > >The problems are compounded by many years of fundamentally flawed >energy policy, and that's the reason why this discussion BELONGS on >a biofuels list. > >And: > > >Political discussion is VITAL to the future of biofuels. > >And: > > >For a copy of our anti-war/biodiesel alternatives factsheet, please see: > >http://www.veggieavenger.com/news/news.shtml > >I mentioned a couple of rules. There aren't many here, but these are >two of them, and they are enforced. This is from a previous message: > > >Another aspect is the attitude the list steadily developed to >what's on-topic and what's not. Biofuels is a subject with a >context, and we decided we had to include the context - if all you >want is to learn how to make biodiesel, for instance, this is a very >good place to be, but it's also a lot more than that. The biofuels >context varies from place to place, and as individual members' >circumstances vary, and it becomes very difficult or impossible to >say quite what is on-topic and what's not. What has "nothing to do >with biofuels" is very much a matter of opinion. Also it's been >found many times that what might appear at first to be digressions >end up yielding on-topic information that would not otherwise have >arisen. These are mature people (mostly!), they don't need a nanny >to tell them how to behave, when they do stray they're aware of it >and seldom go too far. It became list policy to keep the discussion >open, and this has the strong backing of the majority of the >membership - these are among the very few rules we have here: > > > >NO TOPIC-COPS. > >NO CALLS FOR RESTRICTED DISCUSSION. > > > >It's my job to enforce those rules, and I do so. > > > >So, feel free, please, discuss whatever you like. :-) > >Be warned. Nobody's forcing you to read anything, messages have subject lines. > >By the way, there have been quite a few previous discussions of how >long methoxide stays usable once mixed, you can find it in the >archives (see link below each message). The gist of it is that it'll >certainly keep a week or two. > >Best wishes > >Keith Addison >Journey to Forever >Biofuel list owner > > >> Tad > > >>> >If I wanted SPIN I would read the National Enquirer. >>> >>>"The Guardian" might as well be the National Inquirer, and >>>everyone over there >>>seems to bask in the conspiracy theories and the extreme left, >>>taking both as >>>the ultimate truth. Actually all the articles I've read on the "The >>>Guardian" make >>>"The National Enquirer" look very sane and professional. I would be >>>intrigued if >>>the world would run as that newspaper would like it run, might be an >>>interesting >>>experiment. In the meantime I will stay right here in the middle of the >>>spectrum. >>>Not Rush Limbaugh and not Tom Daschle = ) >>> >>>Tad >> >>Well Tad, I've no wish to be antagonistic, but then you've been >>antagonistic, haven't you? >> >>Your positioning of yourself is rather precise, though maybe a lot >>of people here aren't too familiar with Sen. Daschle, who I presume >>would be to your left? I'll close my eyes and chuck a dart: >> >>"Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush >>administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he >>has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass >>destruction." >> >>I don't think the world is too enthusiastic about the idea of its >>being run as Messrs Limbaugh and Daschle et al would like it run, >>they do rather keep saying so, in their angry and outraged millions. >> >>You were here for a while a couple of years ago, and you've just >>rejoined, so maybe you haven't realised it, though I do have to >>keep telling Americans this (again yesterday), but this is not an >>American list, it has a very international membership from more >>than a hundred countries and just about every culture, Americans >>are just a minority here. Biofuels is after all a world issue. What >>everyone now knows all too well is that the views of many Americans >>are quite bizarrely out of synch with those of the rest of the >>world. It's rather clear why, but no need to dwell on that too much >>- more interesting and useful is that the views of many other >>Americans are not at all out of synch with those of the rest of the >>world. To them and to the rest, your message will look the same as >>it does to me: a declaration of prejudice without any substance. >>Many would be less kind. >> >>So, let's have a look. >> >>>"The Guardian" might as well be the National Inquirer, and >>>everyone over there >>>seems to bask in the conspiracy theories and the extreme left, >>>taking both as >>>the ultimate truth. Actually all the articles I've read on the "The >>>Guardian" make >>>"The National Enquirer" look very sane and professional. >> >>The Guardian is a major newspaper with an excellent and >>well-deserved worldwide reputation, along with its sister paper The >>Observer, and The Independent, among national British newpapers. >>I've worked for all three of them. Right-wing Britishers criticise >>the Guardian, of course, but they wouldn't dream of levelling your >>criticisms at it, that would make them objects of derision, even, >>or probably especially, in Britain's equivalent of the National >>Enquirer, which is The Sun. I worked for the Sun too, briefly, as a >>freelancer, and walked out after a couple of days following a >>spectacular row when I refused to bend a story the way papers like >>that like to do. I never had such rows at the other three papers - >>rows, yes, but those ethical issues never even arose, they don't >>exist there. >> >>Now The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch. And so, I would say, are >>your prejudices, though of course you won't agree. >> >>You refer to the Guardian because I posted a link to an article >>there, by George Monbiot, who has an excellent and well-deserved >>worldwide reputation of his own. Here's the link again: >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4412987,00.html >>The fake persuaders >>Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet >> >>Now if there's more to your view than just blind prejudice, perhaps >>you'll tell us just how this article, as you say, basks in >>extreme-left conspiracy theories that make the National Enquirer >>look very sane and professional. In fact it's completely accurate, >>not a conpiracy theory at all, the investigations reported were >>fully vindicated when, for one thing, Monsanto's Bivings was >>finally forced to drop their lies and denials and admit their role >>and what they'd done after being put under considerable pressure by >>the BBC's news and current affairs programme, Newsnight. Also a >>pack of raging extreme-left conspiracy-theorist nutters, you think? >>The only reason they admitted it had nothing to do with ethics or >>honesty, it was that incontrovertible evidence was rammed up their >>noses. They were left with no other option but to admit it, which >>is usually the only way to get anything resembling truth and >>honesty out of people like that. >> >>The damage done was however considerable - spin like this is not >>easy to undo, and the controversy still rages on, and, as a result, >>the other thing that still rages on is what it was all about in the >>first place: GMO contamination of the heritage varieties in the zea >>mays centre of diversification in Mexico. Not an unimportant matter >>- maize is one of the world's most important crops, which might not >>be a Good Thing, in fact it's not a good thing, but threatening its >>future survival is even less of a good thing. And attempting to >>hide the damage via a vicious and lying campaign by the responsible >>corporation to discredit and vilify the scientists who revealed it, >>twisting a major journal all out of shape in the doing, is even >>less of a good thing. >> >>And that a whole class of Americans will defend this behaviour and >>deny these events, thinking all they have to do is to sling a bunch >>of inept labels at a newspaper, is not only also not a good thing, >>it's pathetic. >> >>Best >> >>Keith Addison >>Journey to Forever Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
