On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:35:24 -0500, dh wrote:

> By the way, I still don't care how or how often Al walks the walk or talks
> the talk. I think it's enough to call our attention to potential problems
> and outline solutions. Al has never suggested we need to suffer to be
> green; just innovative and thrifty. I have never said it's a goal to get
> rid of rich people, who can afford more than I can. I have often said we
> can make money building a green energy infrastructure and I'm quite
> certain Gore said the same in his movie, too(*).(+) I'd say some of us
> are interested in the message and others are hung up on the messenger (and
> then they tell us we're hung up on the messenger which, in my case at
> least is ridiculous, because we were discussing the idea of global warming
> back in 1980 at the energy company where I worked, long before I'd noticed
> some obscure Tennessee politician).


Um, let me see if I can paraphrase what you're saying here: you don't care
if Al Gore walks the walk as long as he talks the talk.

That means, as long as he is "On Topic" and delivering the 'proper'
message, he can do what he pleases.

IOW, as long as the message is Politically Correct, the actions suffer no
consequences. You have a funny way of picking people you choose to side
with.

So, with that being said, you have no problem with Bush commuting
"Scooter" Libby's sentance.

After all, Bush *TALKS* big about being tough on crime. That should be
enough for you, right?
(um, are you even BEGINNING to see how ridiculous what you've been saying
sounds)

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:40:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:35:24 -0500, dh wrote:
>
>> By the way, I still don't care how or how often Al walks the walk or talks
>> the talk. I think it's enough to call our attention to potential problems
>> and outline solutions. Al has never suggested we need to suffer to be
>> green; just innovative and thrifty. I have never said it's a goal to get
>> rid of rich people, who can afford more than I can. I have often said we
>> can make money building a green energy infrastructure and I'm quite
>> certain Gore said the same in his movie, too(*).(+) I'd say some of us
>> are interested in the message and others are hung up on the messenger (and
>> then they tell us we're hung up on the messenger which, in my case at
>> least is ridiculous, because we were discussing the idea of global warming
>> back in 1980 at the energy company where I worked, long before I'd noticed
>> some obscure Tennessee politician).
>
>
>Um, let me see if I can paraphrase what you're saying here: you don't care
>if Al Gore walks the walk as long as he talks the talk.
>
>That means, as long as he is "On Topic" and delivering the 'proper'
>message, he can do what he pleases.
>
>IOW, as long as the message is Politically Correct, the actions suffer no
>consequences. You have a funny way of picking people you choose to side
>with.
>
>So, with that being said, you have no problem with Bush commuting
>"Scooter" Libby's sentance.
>
>After all, Bush *TALKS* big about being tough on crime. That should be
>enough for you, right?
>(um, are you even BEGINNING to see how ridiculous what you've been saying
>sounds)
>

Brilliant, Hachi!

--
Scott in Florida

There ought to be one day-- just one--
when there is open season on senators.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:4gVni.6586$bP4.5296@trndny01...
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:35:24 -0500, dh wrote:
>
>> By the way, I still don't care how or how often Al walks the walk or
>> talks
>> the talk. I think it's enough to call our attention to potential
>> problems
>> and outline solutions. Al has never suggested we need to suffer to be
>> green; just innovative and thrifty. I have never said it's a goal to get
>> rid of rich people, who can afford more than I can. I have often said we
>> can make money building a green energy infrastructure and I'm quite
>> certain Gore said the same in his movie, too(*).(+) I'd say some of us
>> are interested in the message and others are hung up on the messenger
>> (and
>> then they tell us we're hung up on the messenger which, in my case at
>> least is ridiculous, because we were discussing the idea of global
>> warming
>> back in 1980 at the energy company where I worked, long before I'd
>> noticed
>> some obscure Tennessee politician).
>
> Um, let me see if I can paraphrase what you're saying here: you don't care
> if Al Gore walks the walk as long as he talks the talk.

No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in the
messenger, I'm interested in the message. I am grateful to Al Gore for
calling people's attention to a looming problem but if somebody else had
done that, I'd be grateful to them, too.

> That means, as long as he is "On Topic" and delivering the 'proper'
> message, he can do what he pleases.

Why not? What do I care about Al Gore? Sure, I'm interested in setting the
record straight on his accomplishments but Truth is a social good and that
has very little to do with Al Gore and much to do with preserving honest
debate.

Global Warming, in spite of what you think, is not about Al Gore. Al first
heard about it long ago, when he was a nobody. I first heard about it when
Al was a nobody. The thing about Al is that he does have the gift of vision
and he could see where this might be going and he's in a position to call
people's attention to it. If he does successfully call people's attention
to it and get some changes in public policy, fine. Everybody's ignoring the
actual scientists, so why not let Al take point on communications?

> IOW, as long as the message is Politically Correct, the actions suffer no
> consequences. You have a funny way of picking people you choose to side
> with.

You continually make the mistake of thinking Global Warming is about Al
Gore. It is not; Global Warming is about Global Warming. Al's simply smart
enough to realize that it's a problem and he's interested enough to try and
warn people about it.

> So, with that being said, you have no problem with Bush commuting
> "Scooter" Libby's sentance.
>
> After all, Bush *TALKS* big about being tough on crime. That should be
> enough for you, right?
> (um, are you even BEGINNING to see how ridiculous what you've been saying
> sounds)

I don't much care about Al's lifestyle, largely because, as I pointed out,
I've
been aware of and concerned about the potential problem of GHG-induced
warming since the very early 80's; years before I knew about Al Gore. I am
more interested in the message than the messenger. I am more interested in
the science than in what polls say.

Of course, there ARE plenty of other messengers; you just ignore them in
favor of focussing on Gore. There's several such messengers in the current
SciAm. Why don't you call them up and tell them they're wrong? Or on
somebody's payroll? Or that they only look at data that's Politically
Correct and draw conclusions that are Politically Correct? You're fully
qualified; you're a High School Graduate who once read a Geology book (or at
least part of it, or maybe owned one, or maybe had one in your locker for a
year).

Heck, you're The Man! In addition to being Mr. Climatologist, you're a
bigger Internet Insider Stud than Kahn and Cerf because you had a wicked
cool screen name!

By the way, Bush's job is leadership. Ttalking tough on crime and letting a
convicted perjurer off the hook sends a mixed message. At best. Did you
read what the judge said about the sentence he gave Libby?

At the moment, all Al can do is call our attention to the looming problem;
he's not in Congress or the Executive. If he runs for office, then we'll
see what he does..

Finally, as far as walking the walk goes, Al seems to me to be doing
that.He's building companies geared towards dealing with greening the planet
and he's paying extra for green electricity. As far as I'm concerned,
that's putting your money where your mouth is and I'm perfectly satisfied
with that. He's never said CO2 reduction requires a decrease in our
lifestyle and he's suggested, as have I, that there's money to be made. I
pointed out three "green" opportunities that we're not taking in my last
post. Too bad we didn't get serious about these things before the Japanese
and Koreans, or we might be the ones to make money on these new
technologies.

As for who's ridiculous, I'm certainly gaining a new appreciation of how
ridiculous you are. You replied, again, to a post you'd already replied to.
I had already decided, "Why bother? Hachi's incapable of learning; let the
child have the last word. My ego isn't going to fall apart over this. I
have plenty of other things going for me and this may be all he has." But
you still weren't satisfied and just had to post again. If I didn't pity
you, I'd be laughing at you.

No, I'm not the one having the meltdown.

In the last twelve months, I developed three different tools that will save
many man-hours per year and enhance operations. That's besides doing my
regular work. I also got paid for two articles and the people I work with
know it. People come to my office looking to me for advice, direction and
help with the tough problems. People I don't know call and ask for advice
or access to tools I've developed that they've heard about from others with
whom I've already shared the tools. I share the things I learn; I don't
feel the need to be miserly with my knowledge because I'm confident that
I'll learn more things that people will want. I've got a note here on my
desk about our latest Eagle Scout, a kid I was pleased to help. I've got
cards and letters from Eagle Scouts thanking me for my help getting to
Eagle.

Like I said, I have plenty of other things going for me. I'm not melting
down over you.

I will admit to being worried about Global Warming. We'll all be melting
down over that. I will admit to being disturbed by the Rightard War on
Science and bogus assaults on Gore are a tactic used to redirect attention
away from the problem. You're doing ExxonMobil's work. I hope they reward
you for it. But if they don't, that makes you a fool.

By the way, you should take your entire stock of arrogance and garage-sale
it away. Your life might improve.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, dh wrote:

> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:4gVni.6586$bP4.5296@trndny01...
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:35:24 -0500, dh wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, I still don't care how or how often Al walks the walk or
>>> talks
>>> the talk. I think it's enough to call our attention to potential
>>> problems
>>> and outline solutions. Al has never suggested we need to suffer to be
>>> green; just innovative and thrifty. I have never said it's a goal to
>>> get rid of rich people, who can afford more than I can. I have often
>>> said we can make money building a green energy infrastructure and I'm
>>> quite certain Gore said the same in his movie, too(*).(+) I'd say some
>>> of us are interested in the message and others are hung up on the
>>> messenger (and
>>> then they tell us we're hung up on the messenger which, in my case at
>>> least is ridiculous, because we were discussing the idea of global
>>> warming
>>> back in 1980 at the energy company where I worked, long before I'd
>>> noticed
>>> some obscure Tennessee politician).
>>
>> Um, let me see if I can paraphrase what you're saying here: you don't
>> care if Al Gore walks the walk as long as he talks the talk.
>
> No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
> the messenger, I'm interested in the message. I am grateful to Al Gore
> for calling people's attention to a looming problem but if somebody else
> had done that, I'd be grateful to them, too.


OK, here's the message:

The Earth is warming. Claimates are changing all over the world.

This is nothing new. It has been going on long before man got here, and
will continue long after Man is gone.

The North Pole has shifted about 700 miles as far as geologists can tell.
This means there have been shifts in Tropical and Temperate zones. Evidenc
of old deserts can be found in places where there is no explanation WHY
there would be a desert there, until one looks at its relationship to
where the North Pole was during this period.

Also shown is that there has *always* been an increase in Carbon Dioxide
before a climate change. Many, many times. Even before man appeared on the
scene. It appears to be a natural occurance, every 10-18,000 years.

I don't think there's any stopping it.

Is man speeding this? *TRUTH* is, no one can really tell. No one.
Period.



>
>> That means, as long as he is "On Topic" and delivering the 'proper'
>> message, he can do what he pleases.
>
> Why not? What do I care about Al Gore?

Um, he was running for President on his 'message'.


> Sure, I'm interested in setting
> the record straight on his accomplishments but Truth is a social good and
> that has very little to do with Al Gore and much to do with preserving
> honest debate.


Nothing he's been spweing has been proven.


>
> Global Warming, in spite of what you think, is not about Al Gore. Al
> first heard about it long ago, when he was a nobody. I first heard about
> it when Al was a nobody. The thing about Al is that he does have the gift
> of vision and he could see where this might be going and he's in a
> position to call people's attention to it. If he does successfully call
> people's attention to it and get some changes in public policy, fine.
> Everybody's ignoring the actual scientists, so why not let Al take point
> on communications?


Because it's Bullshit? If he were really concerned with spreading the
message, he could put his own house in order before pointing fingers at
everyone else.

>
>> IOW, as long as the message is Politically Correct, the actions suffer
>> no consequences. You have a funny way of picking people you choose to
>> side with.
>
> You continually make the mistake of thinking Global Warming is about Al
> Gore. It is not; Global Warming is about Global Warming. Al's simply
> smart enough to realize that it's a problem and he's interested enough to
> try and warn people about it.

But Al isn't smart enough to do any historical research before pushing the
Panic Button.

Let's say Global Warming is 75% a process of normal shifts in the Earth's
climate and 25% caused by the burning of fossil fuels, etc. And, I'm being
generous here.

What is flapping your gums about Global Warming going to do to *STOP* it?



>
>> So, with that being said, you have no problem with Bush commuting
>> "Scooter" Libby's sentance.
>>
>> After all, Bush *TALKS* big about being tough on crime. That should be
>> enough for you, right?
>> (um, are you even BEGINNING to see how ridiculous what you've been
>> saying sounds)
>
> I don't much care about Al's lifestyle, largely because, as I pointed out,
> I've
> been aware of and concerned about the potential problem of GHG-induced
> warming since the very early 80's; years before I knew about Al Gore. I
> am more interested in the message than the messenger. I am more
> interested in the science than in what polls say.

Back in the 70's GHGs were going to cause Global Cooling.
What changed?



>
> Of course, there ARE plenty of other messengers; you just ignore them in
> favor of focussing on Gore. There's several such messengers in the
> current SciAm. Why don't you call them up and tell them they're wrong?
> Or on somebody's payroll? Or that they only look at data that's
> Politically Correct and draw conclusions that are Politically Correct?
> You're fully qualified; you're a High School Graduate who once read a
> Geology book (or at least part of it, or maybe owned one, or maybe had one
> in your locker for a year).

<YAWN> I certainly know much more about Geology that Al Gore..or you.
You keep bringing it up. Are you jealous or something?



>
> Heck, you're The Man! In addition to being Mr. Climatologist, you're a
> bigger Internet Insider Stud than Kahn and Cerf because you had a wicked
> cool screen name!

<YAWN> Yet another point missed. Should I type slower you you can absorb
all this or something?


>
> By the way, Bush's job is leadership. Ttalking tough on crime and letting
> a convicted perjurer off the hook sends a mixed message.

Al Gore runing for President doesn't connote Leadership? I still failt to
see the difference between Gore pushing the Panic Button while burning
enough fossil fuel to heat a small town and Bush commuting Libby's
sentance.

They both *say* the right thing!


> At best. Did
> you read what the judge said about the sentence he gave Libby?
>
> At the moment, all Al can do is call our attention to the looming problem;
> he's not in Congress or the Executive. If he runs for office, then we'll
> see what he does..

Maybe then he'll admit that, <perhaps> he's talking out of his @$$?


>
> Finally, as far as walking the walk goes, Al seems to me to be doing
> that.He's building companies geared towards dealing with greening the
> planet and he's paying extra for green electricity.

"Green Electricity". Yup, right...

*ALL* electricity goes onto and comes off the National Grid.
I'm using the *same* amount of "Green Electricity" as Al Gore.
I'm just not "paying extra" so I can get the warm fuzzies telling people
how 'green' I am.

> As far as I'm
> concerned, that's putting your money where your mouth is and I'm perfectly
> satisfied with that.

Someone who thinks the Message is more important then the Messenger would
be.

> He's never said CO2 reduction requires a decrease in
> our lifestyle and he's suggested, as have I, that there's money to be
> made. I pointed out three "green" opportunities that we're not taking in
> my last post. Too bad we didn't get serious about these things before the
> Japanese and Koreans, or we might be the ones to make money on these new
> technologies.

And the Japanese are now being squeezed because of a Nuclear (Nucular?)
plant shutdown after an earthquake.


>
> As for who's ridiculous, I'm certainly gaining a new appreciation of how
> ridiculous you are. You replied, again, to a post you'd already replied
> to.

Sometimes it takes a couple hours to completely sort my thought.

Not days.


> I had already decided, "Why bother? Hachi's incapable of learning;


I have a Minor Degree in Geology, something Your Hero doesn't. Also,
Information Systems, something Your Hero doesn't. Am I as smart as Al
Gore? Perhaps not. Do I actually *know* what I'm talking about more then
Al Gore? I'd stake my reputation on it.


> let
> the child have the last word. My ego isn't going to fall apart over this.
> I have plenty of other things going for me and this may be all he has."

Not hardly. But if *I* can educate someone that's worshipping a hypocrite,
then I'll have felt I had accomplished something.


> But you still weren't satisfied and just had to post again. If I didn't
> pity you, I'd be laughing at you.
>
> No, I'm not the one having the meltdown.
>
> In the last twelve months, I developed three different tools that will
> save many man-hours per year and enhance operations.

And I have refined processes at three different Fortune 500 companies I
have worked for that have saved thousands or hundreds of thousands each.
And I don't even have an Engineering degree.


> That's besides doing
> my regular work. I also got paid for two articles and the people I work
> with know it. People come to my office looking to me for advice,
> direction and help with the tough problems. People I don't know call and
> ask for advice or access to tools I've developed that they've heard about
> from others with whom I've already shared the tools. I share the things I
> learn; I don't feel the need to be miserly with my knowledge because I'm
> confident that I'll learn more things that people will want. I've got a
> note here on my desk about our latest Eagle Scout, a kid I was pleased to
> help. I've got cards and letters from Eagle Scouts thanking me for my
> help getting to Eagle.

Excellent! I would certainly be proud!

This makes me wonder all the more why you're All Wet with your politics!


>
> Like I said, I have plenty of other things going for me. I'm not melting
> down over you.
>
> I will admit to being worried about Global Warming. We'll all be melting
> down over that. I will admit to being disturbed by the Rightard War on
> Science and bogus assaults on Gore are a tactic used to redirect attention
> away from the problem. You're doing ExxonMobil's work. I hope they
> reward you for it. But if they don't, that makes you a fool.

Whaddya mean, Rightard War on Science? I have provided plenty of science
in these discussions, as well as posting links to data on the IPCCs
website to back up what I've been saying.

If anyone has been denying science, it sure hasn't been me!



>
> By the way, you should take your entire stock of arrogance and garage-sale
> it away. Your life might improve.

I generally don't speak unless I feel I am correct.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:

>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in the
>messenger, I'm interested in the message.


That does not compute........

--
Scott in Florida

There ought to be one day-- just one--
when there is open season on senators.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

"Scott in Florida" <Justtofakeoutliberals@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hb54a3t3mhn8hmpf8e6urnav6b9kl4ul4o@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
>>the
>>messenger, I'm interested in the message.
>
>
> That does not compute........

Yes, it does. If a person's message is important, one pays attention to it,
even if you don't approve of the messenger. May require some mental
determination to work one's way around the messenger, but may well also be
worth it, esp. for the younger & future generations.

You don't have to like Al Gore to realize that he might have the right end
of the stick, bringing a legitimate concern to the fore. It also doesn't
mean that you have to agree w/his points 100%, yet consider that there is a
general & real concern, & ways to mitigate it.

Cathy

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:12:58 -0400, "Cathy F." <clfrclfr@adelphia.net>
wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <Justtofakeoutliberals@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hb54a3t3mhn8hmpf8e6urnav6b9kl4ul4o@4ax.com.. .
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
>>>the
>>>messenger, I'm interested in the message.
>>
>>
>> That does not compute........
>
>Yes, it does. If a person's message is important, one pays attention to it,
>even if you don't approve of the messenger. May require some mental
>determination to work one's way around the messenger, but may well also be
>worth it, esp. for the younger & future generations.
>
>You don't have to like Al Gore to realize that he might have the right end
>of the stick, bringing a legitimate concern to the fore. It also doesn't
>mean that you have to agree w/his points 100%, yet consider that there is a
>general & real concern, & ways to mitigate it.
>
>Cathy
>
>
Al Bore had NO credibility.

None....

--
Scott in Florida

There ought to be one day-- just one--
when there is open season on senators.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:12:58 -0400, Cathy F. wrote:

>>>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
>>>the
>>>messenger, I'm interested in the message.
>>
>>
>> That does not compute........
>
> Yes, it does. If a person's message is important, one pays attention to
> it, even if you don't approve of the messenger. May require some mental
> determination to work one's way around the messenger, but may well also be
> worth it, esp. for the younger & future generations.


Geeze, Cath, ya know, if Gore reigned in *his* "carbon footprint" and THEN
went around spouting the Gospel, I may be just a bit more inclined to cut
him a *LOT* of slack!

But when he pays more for energy to heat his *pool* than I do to power my
entire *house*, I just can't see myself being that gullible as to believe
he wants what's best for the planet.

And, as someone noted, he is making 'changes' to his home and lifestyle to
try to pull in his neck a little.

Of course, this all happened *after* it came out in the press about his
consumption of energy...

"Scott in Florida" <Justtofakeoutliberals@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hb54a3t3mhn8hmpf8e6urnav6b9kl4ul4o@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
>>the
>>messenger, I'm interested in the message.
>
>
> That does not compute........

Oh, yeah, it does show just how brainless many DEMONrats are when it comes
to seeing through LIEbrawl bullshit.



>
> --
> Scott in Florida
>
> There ought to be one day-- just one--
> when there is open season on senators.
>
> Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)
>
>

"Cathy F." <clfrclfr@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:PvCdnVHw0pXmvz_bRVn_vw@giganews.com...
>
> "Scott in Florida" <Justtofakeoutliberals@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hb54a3t3mhn8hmpf8e6urnav6b9kl4ul4o@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:02:07 -0500, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No, I don't care if Al Gore walks the walk because I'm not interested in
>>>the
>>>messenger, I'm interested in the message.
>>
>>
>> That does not compute........
>
> Yes, it does. If a person's message is important, one pays attention to
> it, even if you don't approve of the messenger. May require some mental
> determination to work one's way around the messenger, but may well also be
> worth it, esp. for the younger & future generations.
>
> You don't have to like Al Gore to realize that he might have the right end
> of the stick, bringing a legitimate concern to the fore. It also doesn't
> mean that you have to agree w/his points 100%, yet consider that there is
> a general & real concern, & ways to mitigate it.
>
> Cathy

You fucking LIEbrawls are totally clueless. HOW can one take ANYTHING Al
Gore says seriously when HIS OWN actions fly in the face of this words?



>
>
>
>