TK was exactly right. OT

ST

On 6/19/08 9:47 AM, in article Q4w6k.9084$xZ.9049@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:9178567b-ebb9-4abb-9098-d966eac4b768@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> | On Jun 19, 9:36 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> | > While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> | > with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> | > right on the money.
> | > Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> | > mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
> | >
> | > http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
> | >
> | > New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> | > Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> | > Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> | > Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> | > rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> | > government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> | > "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> | > has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
> |
> | That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> | saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> | activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> | you're awarding the medal...
> |
> | R
>
> Agreed. Biofuels, when not derived from waste product, are an abomination
> and an insult to humanity. The idea that it's more important to feed our
> cars than our mouths... what could be more absurd? And not only do the
> economics not work out, but it's tough to show that you're actually gaining
> energy too, after you factor in everything that goes into growing crops.
>
> But as you say, what does this have to do with awarding points to TK? His
> attitude is simply that global warming itself is a myth. The only reason
> he'd care about biofuels is if it puts cheaper gas into his tank. Not that
> there's anything wrong with that concept, to a point.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>


You guys are so full of crap and yourselves!

HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels shit is gonna take all the corn the
USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"

RicodJour

On Jun 20, 6:03 pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels shit is gonna take all the corn the
> USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"

That's only part of it. The rest of the world is going to plow under
their crops, plant corn and make ethanol and starve themselves. That
should take some of the guilt off of the fat white guys and put it on
some fat black guys. I feel ever so much better!

R

Fred Fredburger

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:38 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
>> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
>> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.
>
> If the we-meme operates strongly enough, then confusion is not erased
> but automatically bypassed.
>

Yep. Works that way with the them-meme too, though.

Bill C

On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
> > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
> > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > discussion.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
problem. It's pretty rare when TK is right on the money, but he could
point out that the road we're riding on is basically black, and
usually rational folks would line up to say he's wrong.
I was in the "We'll have to see camp, I'm not sure." because
historically the problem has not been a lack of food, it's been one of
distribution, transport, and politics. I'm still not sure that ethanol
is sucking off enough of the excess production (Our govt. is still
paying folks to NOT grow crops) to cause a disaster. I'd guess a much
bigger problem is the cost spikes due to the cost of oil. Modern
farming, and transport, is incredibly dependent on petroleum and it's
price.
It's easier to go after biofuels than the folks producing the oil,
and the huge national taxes most places that are on top of that.
Bill C

Bill C

On Jun 21, 8:17*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem.p of that.
<<snipped>>
> *Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wanted to exclude Howard from that group though. What TK gets back
from him is what he's asked for. Just the fact that Howard "is" seems
to send Tom off the deep end.
Bill C

RicodJour

On Jun 21, 8:17 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem. It's pretty rare when TK is right on the money, but he could
> point out that the road we're riding on is basically black, and
> usually rational folks would line up to say he's wrong.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that TK cries wolf a lot, and
then when there's an actual wolf he gets the same shit? Wow - never
could have imagined that happening!

> I was in the "We'll have to see camp, I'm not sure." because
> historically the problem has not been a lack of food, it's been one of
> distribution, transport, and politics. I'm still not sure that ethanol
> is sucking off enough of the excess production (Our govt. is still
> paying folks to NOT grow crops) to cause a disaster. I'd guess a much
> bigger problem is the cost spikes due to the cost of oil. Modern
> farming, and transport, is incredibly dependent on petroleum and it's
> price.
> It's easier to go after biofuels than the folks producing the oil,
> and the huge national taxes most places that are on top of that.

If I haven't mentioned it already, and even if I did, you should read
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan. He covers food chains and the real
costs of industrial, organic and local foods. Excellent reading.

R

Paul G.

On Jun 20, 3:03*pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/19/08 9:47 AM, in article Q4w6k.9084$xZ.9...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
>
>
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9178567b-ebb9-4abb-9098-d966eac4b768@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com....
> > | On Jun 19, 9:36 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > | > While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> > | > with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> > | > right on the money.
> > | > *Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> > | > mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
> > | >
> > | >http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
> > | >
> > | > New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> > | > Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> > | > Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> > | > Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> > | > rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> > | > government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> > | > "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> > | > has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
> > |
> > | That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
> > | saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > | activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
> > | you're awarding the medal...
> > |
> > | R
>
> > Agreed. Biofuels, when not derived from waste product, are an abomination
> > and an insult to humanity. The idea that it's more important to feed our
> > cars than our mouths... what could be more absurd? And not only do the
> > economics not work out, but it's tough to show that you're actually gaining
> > energy too, after you factor in everything that goes into growing crops..
>
> > But as you say, what does this have to do with awarding points to TK? His
> > attitude is simply that global warming itself is a myth. The only reason
> > he'd care about biofuels is if it puts cheaper gas into his tank. Not that
> > there's anything wrong with that concept, to a point.
>
> > --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> You guys are so full of crap and yourselves!
>
> HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels shit is gonna take all the corn the
> USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"

He MAY have said something LIKE THAT, but he didn't say THAT. Don't
put something in quotes unless it's truly a quote.

On the other hand, a cursory search turns up a different poster who
was "exactly right":
"Discussion subject changed to "Nascar considering starving the world"
by Howard Kveck"

That was a post about NASCAR considering a switch to ethanol.
-Paul

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
> > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
> > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > discussion.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem.

Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.

TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.

There are reasons to advocate limited use of biodiesel
and so on, but it's not gonna affect global warming
very much, and it's not the same thing as corn-based
ethanol making the farm lobby rich and driving up
the price of food.

If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
what you're criticizing.

Ben

Bill C

On Jun 21, 7:03*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

>
> If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> what you're criticizing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.
You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
Bill C

Howard Kveck

In article <f8df9304-6fcc-423c-937c-440d91ed25f9@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 7:03*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> > that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> > with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> > what you're criticizing.
> >
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
> though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
> again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
> before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.

Then make the point, Bill. Why should Ben be expected to go find things to prove
*your* statement that everyone treated Kunich like an idiot for saying that the trend
toward use of biofuel had drawbacks. The main reason that is a nonstarter as an
argument is that Kunich didn't actually say anything like that. Ben is corrrect to
point out that he (TK) was raving about how biofuel stuff was going to cause mass
genocide and liberals/progressives didn't care. In other words, Kunich was being his
usual hysterical self. You know, if he'd said, "I think that the redirection of corn
and soy to the biofuel industry might have consequences for less priviliged people in
the Third World" he would have gotten little disagreement. But he had to go into
full-on drama queen mode and say things like, "There you have it as I was predicting.
Guilt ridden middle class white men are planning on starving the world in order to
pretend that they're going to fight world use of oil and global warming." Oh, and
that was a mild one for him.

Anyway, as for the biofuel/food isue: One point is that in Asia, the price of rice
is skyrocketing due to a limited supply (for example, drought has destroyed
Australia's rice industry, leading to the closure of the largest rice mill in the
Southern Hemisphere). This is *not* due to anything to do with biofuels. Rice does
not convert into biofuel, although the ricestraw has shown possibilities (and
ricestraw is a leftover from the harvest). Additionally, the land that rice is grown
on is very rarely converted into use by other crops, as it's unsuitable for such
things as corn (or pretty much anything but rice).

Another point is that the price of corn in Mexico and South America has been going
up for several years. This isn't due to them converting over to the use of corn as a
biofuel, as it started happening at least five or six years ago and there was no
corn/biofuel industry there then (and not much now). Brazil uses sugar cane for its
biofuel ethanol.

There are certainly a number of liberals/progressives calling for greater use of
biofuel but the driving force is companies like ADM. They get huge subsidies for
growing corn for biofuel. The subsidies they got for simply growing corn is one
reason why corn producers in Africa are out of business: food aid does not show up as
dollars, to be spent were the receiving country chooses (like buying from local
sources). It invariably is set up to show up as a comodity, sourced from here. And
that means subsidised ADM corn.

> You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??

No, he's not. Strawman.

Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the road is basically
black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more than everyone
combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that shit. He continues
to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in the air where
airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
> > > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm not sure why
> > > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> > folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> > problem.
>
> Then you can use the google archives to find out where
> somebody said that.
>
> TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
> mass genocide. *It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
> I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
> advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.

<snip>



Dumbass -


Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).

If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.

Eventually the problem is going to be solved. There will be some
backwards looking oil companies that won't like it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 21, 7:08*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF



Dumbass -


That's his engineering degree?!

omg. hahahahahahahahahaha!

Jesus.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bill C

On Jun 21, 10:08*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> I
>
> > *You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> * *No, he's not. Strawman.
>
Yes it was meant to be, it's a twist to the argument, like branching
it off into TK's genocide rant.

> * *Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the roadis basically
> black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
> overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
> know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more thaneveryone
> combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that shit. Hecontinues
> to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
> conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
> been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
> place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
> expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
> everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in theair where
> airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * *The bloody pubs are bloody dull
> * * * * * * * * * *The bloody clubs are bloody full
> * * * * * * * * * *Of bloody girls and bloody guys
> * * * * * * * * * *With bloody murder in their eyes
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
may do that.

Going back through and rereading everything, it's my memory that's
faulty in detail. You and Ben are much closer to accurate. The attacks
were on him, his sources, etc...not directly at the actual argument.
Thanks for the civil slap upside the head, and forcing me to go get
it right.

I did get something great out of it, other than the correction.
I'd missed this bit:

http://tinyurl.com/59jy46

The stuff at the end of the thread, from D-y is truly classic, and
highlights your points Howard. Maybe a bit subtle, since it doesn't
accuse you, and anyone left of Attila the Hun of wanting to
exterminate life on the planet, but it's good.
I'm sorry I missed it because it, instantly, brought back memories of
driving for miles with no lights since the electrical system was
terrible, but would generate enough electricity to keep the fuel pump
going and things like that if you shut off the lights for quite a
while before it cut out totally. Several alternators and other
charging system components just prolonged the agony.
The final and, for me, fatal flaw, (D-y's Chevy "three on the tree"
linkage bit is SO accurate you KNOW he's been there), was the at the
shifter in the Rabbit was held into the tunnel by a plastic gimbal
which allowed the stick to float and shift. Not a good idea to have
the pivot point, and sole support for the shifter to be made of cheap
plastic.
I was at a busy set of lights, headed for elctrical parts, pretty
pissed off, and when the light changed I slapped it into first. I'd
had it in neutral, revving it, hoping to see some charging activity,
no luck there. When I did the shifter shot through the floor, out onto
the ground taking the "leather" boot and all with it.
Can you say "red faced"? Even with replacement plastic parts this
continued to be a problem. Most likely due to worn shit holding the
gimbal assembly. It wasn't worth detailed troubleshooting after the
new one did the same thing after a while.

PS I really do hate it when I run with something from memory, and end
up red faced, again. I keep saying "That'll teach me", but it doesn't
seem to work. And yes I would expect people who claim to be better
than him to say "You got it right on this one." when he, or anyone
else does. Even the blind squirrell gets credit for finding a nut once
in a while. I keep being told it's worse when we do it because we are
supposed to be better, so I'd say that applies here too.
IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
much less provocation.
I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
does it apart, it validates their integrity.
It's easy to laud someone you like, it's much harder to give
recognition to someone you don't, particularly someone who attacks
you, but it's the right thing to do IMO, and makes you a better, more
credible person for being able to do it.
It really doesn't cost anything to give credit, in proportional
measure, where it's due.
My Bad
Thanks
Bill C

Ryan Cousineau

In article
<0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2-8939-b929819920dd@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 10:08*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > I

> IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
> the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
> totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
> you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
> react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
> makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
> much less provocation.

TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
John Tesh CD.

> I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> does it apart, it validates their integrity.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."