Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6311
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
#6312
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
#6313
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >
> > Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
> replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
> available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
> "modification" is asinine.
Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).
#6314
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >>Greg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> >efficiency, such
> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> I see.
> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously isn't
important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he favors
perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial modifications"
Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
#6315
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >>Greg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> >efficiency, such
> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> I see.
> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously isn't
important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he favors
perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial modifications"
Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
#6316
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >>Greg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> >efficiency, such
> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> >
> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>
> I see.
> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously isn't
important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he favors
perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial modifications"
Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
#6317
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Heard a story on the radio today about a gentleman in Germany who
> > advertises for people to volunteer to be tied to a slab or bed or
> > something and slowly cut to death with a knife and literally eaten piece
> > by piece - apparently some sexual thrill involved. He has killed at
> > least one volunteer that way and video taped it while the volunteer kept
> > encouraging him to keep cuttin' and eatin'
>
> You must not have been listening very closely, because what you *actually*
> heard on the radio was this:...
Why on earth would you presume to know what *I HEARD* on the radio, or
even that you and I heard the same broadcast? Yes - it's about the same
case, but one report was from CNN, the other from Reuters. Two *very
different* reports of the same thing, but each related very different
details and insight into the story.
The point of my post was that there you have two consenting adults in
the privacy of one's home - so by the logic of some here, there's
nothing wrong with it.
Below is the transcript of the account that I heard. Bizarre that you
would presume that we heard the same broadcast. I related it accurately
as it was broadcast - the broadcast that I heard had additional details.
"BERLIN (Reuters) - The trial of Armin Meiwes, the German computer
expert who gained worldwide notoriety by killing and eating a willing
victim, has begun, in a case of sexually inspired cannibalism so
perplexing it could make legal history.
Meiwes, 42, described by his lawyer as a "gentleman of the old school",
has confessed to killing a Berlin man who answered an advertisement he
had posted on the Internet seeking a fit man "for slaughter."
They met in Meiwes's elegant half-timbered home in the town of
Rotenburg, central Germany, in March 2001. Meiwes killed the man, named
only as Bernd-Juergen B., with a kitchen knife and filmed the deed on
video tape which may be shown at the trial.
Meiwes's lawyer Harald Ermel said it took the victim nearly 10 hours to
bleed to death and that he had repeatedly urged Meiwes to keep on
cutting him.
Meiwes cut up the body and stored parts in his freezer. "He believes he
ate about 20 kilograms and there were about 10 kilograms left over,"
said Ermel.
"He defrosted it little by little and ate it."
Police arrested Meiwes over a year later, in December 2002, after a
tip-off from someone who had spotted another of his adverts on the
Internet.
Meiwes is expected to repeat his confession at the trial that will be
attended by reporters from all over the world. He is already planning to
write his memoirs, his lawyer said.
Meiwes told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag last week: "I am guilty and
regret what I did." He said he had eaten his victim because he wanted to
make him part of himself, a desire that he had satisfied and that would
not recur.
Professor Andreas Marneros, director of the Halle Clinic for Psychiatry
and Psychotherapy, said: "This is cannibalism as a sexual perversion,
it's a phenomenon that has been known about for centuries. I have
examined four such people."
LEGAL DILEMMA
Prosecutors in the city of Kassel say a psychiatric examination found
Meiwes is not insane but they added that his victim may have been
incapable of rational thought.
So while prosecutors acknowledge the victim said he wanted to die, they
are seeking a life sentence on a charge of murder motivated by sexual
urges.
Meiwes's lawyer wants him to be convicted of "killing on request", a
form of illegal euthanasia which carries a sentence of six months to
five years.
The problem, legal experts say, is that Meiwes's victim wanted to be
eaten. That could make a murder charge difficult to apply, while the
lesser charge of manslaughter carries a term of 15 years or considerably
less, after which Meiwes would be free.
Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute for Criminology at Giessen
University, said the case might make legal history.
"This is killing undertaken for both killer and victim and cannot be
regarded as the worst case of premeditated killing.
"But I don't think it is a killing on request either because it was not
an altruistic, but an egoistic deed."
Kreuzer said the case may go as high as the Federal Constitutional Court
and that prosecutors may be forced to consult new medical experts to
assess Meiwes's mental state.
Meiwes's lawyer has revealed that his client had four other guests in
his home, but let them all go.
"There was a teacher, a cook, a hotel employee and a student. He had
them hanging from the ceiling head down and they had no chance of
freeing themselves. One felt sick, the other didn't want to go on, he
let them all down."
Ermel said Meiwes chatted about cannibalism with at least 280
like-minded people on the Internet. In Germany about 200 people on the
Internet were offering to be slaughtered, 30 ready to do the
slaughtering and 10 to 15 wanting to watch, he said.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6318
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Heard a story on the radio today about a gentleman in Germany who
> > advertises for people to volunteer to be tied to a slab or bed or
> > something and slowly cut to death with a knife and literally eaten piece
> > by piece - apparently some sexual thrill involved. He has killed at
> > least one volunteer that way and video taped it while the volunteer kept
> > encouraging him to keep cuttin' and eatin'
>
> You must not have been listening very closely, because what you *actually*
> heard on the radio was this:...
Why on earth would you presume to know what *I HEARD* on the radio, or
even that you and I heard the same broadcast? Yes - it's about the same
case, but one report was from CNN, the other from Reuters. Two *very
different* reports of the same thing, but each related very different
details and insight into the story.
The point of my post was that there you have two consenting adults in
the privacy of one's home - so by the logic of some here, there's
nothing wrong with it.
Below is the transcript of the account that I heard. Bizarre that you
would presume that we heard the same broadcast. I related it accurately
as it was broadcast - the broadcast that I heard had additional details.
"BERLIN (Reuters) - The trial of Armin Meiwes, the German computer
expert who gained worldwide notoriety by killing and eating a willing
victim, has begun, in a case of sexually inspired cannibalism so
perplexing it could make legal history.
Meiwes, 42, described by his lawyer as a "gentleman of the old school",
has confessed to killing a Berlin man who answered an advertisement he
had posted on the Internet seeking a fit man "for slaughter."
They met in Meiwes's elegant half-timbered home in the town of
Rotenburg, central Germany, in March 2001. Meiwes killed the man, named
only as Bernd-Juergen B., with a kitchen knife and filmed the deed on
video tape which may be shown at the trial.
Meiwes's lawyer Harald Ermel said it took the victim nearly 10 hours to
bleed to death and that he had repeatedly urged Meiwes to keep on
cutting him.
Meiwes cut up the body and stored parts in his freezer. "He believes he
ate about 20 kilograms and there were about 10 kilograms left over,"
said Ermel.
"He defrosted it little by little and ate it."
Police arrested Meiwes over a year later, in December 2002, after a
tip-off from someone who had spotted another of his adverts on the
Internet.
Meiwes is expected to repeat his confession at the trial that will be
attended by reporters from all over the world. He is already planning to
write his memoirs, his lawyer said.
Meiwes told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag last week: "I am guilty and
regret what I did." He said he had eaten his victim because he wanted to
make him part of himself, a desire that he had satisfied and that would
not recur.
Professor Andreas Marneros, director of the Halle Clinic for Psychiatry
and Psychotherapy, said: "This is cannibalism as a sexual perversion,
it's a phenomenon that has been known about for centuries. I have
examined four such people."
LEGAL DILEMMA
Prosecutors in the city of Kassel say a psychiatric examination found
Meiwes is not insane but they added that his victim may have been
incapable of rational thought.
So while prosecutors acknowledge the victim said he wanted to die, they
are seeking a life sentence on a charge of murder motivated by sexual
urges.
Meiwes's lawyer wants him to be convicted of "killing on request", a
form of illegal euthanasia which carries a sentence of six months to
five years.
The problem, legal experts say, is that Meiwes's victim wanted to be
eaten. That could make a murder charge difficult to apply, while the
lesser charge of manslaughter carries a term of 15 years or considerably
less, after which Meiwes would be free.
Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute for Criminology at Giessen
University, said the case might make legal history.
"This is killing undertaken for both killer and victim and cannot be
regarded as the worst case of premeditated killing.
"But I don't think it is a killing on request either because it was not
an altruistic, but an egoistic deed."
Kreuzer said the case may go as high as the Federal Constitutional Court
and that prosecutors may be forced to consult new medical experts to
assess Meiwes's mental state.
Meiwes's lawyer has revealed that his client had four other guests in
his home, but let them all go.
"There was a teacher, a cook, a hotel employee and a student. He had
them hanging from the ceiling head down and they had no chance of
freeing themselves. One felt sick, the other didn't want to go on, he
let them all down."
Ermel said Meiwes chatted about cannibalism with at least 280
like-minded people on the Internet. In Germany about 200 people on the
Internet were offering to be slaughtered, 30 ready to do the
slaughtering and 10 to 15 wanting to watch, he said.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6319
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Heard a story on the radio today about a gentleman in Germany who
> > advertises for people to volunteer to be tied to a slab or bed or
> > something and slowly cut to death with a knife and literally eaten piece
> > by piece - apparently some sexual thrill involved. He has killed at
> > least one volunteer that way and video taped it while the volunteer kept
> > encouraging him to keep cuttin' and eatin'
>
> You must not have been listening very closely, because what you *actually*
> heard on the radio was this:...
Why on earth would you presume to know what *I HEARD* on the radio, or
even that you and I heard the same broadcast? Yes - it's about the same
case, but one report was from CNN, the other from Reuters. Two *very
different* reports of the same thing, but each related very different
details and insight into the story.
The point of my post was that there you have two consenting adults in
the privacy of one's home - so by the logic of some here, there's
nothing wrong with it.
Below is the transcript of the account that I heard. Bizarre that you
would presume that we heard the same broadcast. I related it accurately
as it was broadcast - the broadcast that I heard had additional details.
"BERLIN (Reuters) - The trial of Armin Meiwes, the German computer
expert who gained worldwide notoriety by killing and eating a willing
victim, has begun, in a case of sexually inspired cannibalism so
perplexing it could make legal history.
Meiwes, 42, described by his lawyer as a "gentleman of the old school",
has confessed to killing a Berlin man who answered an advertisement he
had posted on the Internet seeking a fit man "for slaughter."
They met in Meiwes's elegant half-timbered home in the town of
Rotenburg, central Germany, in March 2001. Meiwes killed the man, named
only as Bernd-Juergen B., with a kitchen knife and filmed the deed on
video tape which may be shown at the trial.
Meiwes's lawyer Harald Ermel said it took the victim nearly 10 hours to
bleed to death and that he had repeatedly urged Meiwes to keep on
cutting him.
Meiwes cut up the body and stored parts in his freezer. "He believes he
ate about 20 kilograms and there were about 10 kilograms left over,"
said Ermel.
"He defrosted it little by little and ate it."
Police arrested Meiwes over a year later, in December 2002, after a
tip-off from someone who had spotted another of his adverts on the
Internet.
Meiwes is expected to repeat his confession at the trial that will be
attended by reporters from all over the world. He is already planning to
write his memoirs, his lawyer said.
Meiwes told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag last week: "I am guilty and
regret what I did." He said he had eaten his victim because he wanted to
make him part of himself, a desire that he had satisfied and that would
not recur.
Professor Andreas Marneros, director of the Halle Clinic for Psychiatry
and Psychotherapy, said: "This is cannibalism as a sexual perversion,
it's a phenomenon that has been known about for centuries. I have
examined four such people."
LEGAL DILEMMA
Prosecutors in the city of Kassel say a psychiatric examination found
Meiwes is not insane but they added that his victim may have been
incapable of rational thought.
So while prosecutors acknowledge the victim said he wanted to die, they
are seeking a life sentence on a charge of murder motivated by sexual
urges.
Meiwes's lawyer wants him to be convicted of "killing on request", a
form of illegal euthanasia which carries a sentence of six months to
five years.
The problem, legal experts say, is that Meiwes's victim wanted to be
eaten. That could make a murder charge difficult to apply, while the
lesser charge of manslaughter carries a term of 15 years or considerably
less, after which Meiwes would be free.
Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute for Criminology at Giessen
University, said the case might make legal history.
"This is killing undertaken for both killer and victim and cannot be
regarded as the worst case of premeditated killing.
"But I don't think it is a killing on request either because it was not
an altruistic, but an egoistic deed."
Kreuzer said the case may go as high as the Federal Constitutional Court
and that prosecutors may be forced to consult new medical experts to
assess Meiwes's mental state.
Meiwes's lawyer has revealed that his client had four other guests in
his home, but let them all go.
"There was a teacher, a cook, a hotel employee and a student. He had
them hanging from the ceiling head down and they had no chance of
freeing themselves. One felt sick, the other didn't want to go on, he
let them all down."
Ermel said Meiwes chatted about cannibalism with at least 280
like-minded people on the Internet. In Germany about 200 people on the
Internet were offering to be slaughtered, 30 ready to do the
slaughtering and 10 to 15 wanting to watch, he said.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> > fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
> But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> use.
Wind power has a lot of promise as a practical clean source of energy. Unfortunately, in a place well suited to wind
power, the waters offshore near Cape Cod Massachusetts, the local limousine liberals (e.g. Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite,
John Kerry [some days, depending on audience] etc)., are fighting it tooth and nail, because some of the windmills might be
visible on the distant horizon from their McMansions-on-the-shore. They prefer their electricity to come from fossil fuels,
such as oil----as in the major oil spill in Buzzards Bay earlier this year. The doomed fuel oil barge was enroute to the
Cape's oil fired power plant before killing thousands of birds, closing the entire Bay area to shell fishing, and reeking
havoc on all wildlife and human activity on the Bay. The proposed wind turbines would provide 75% of the Cape & Islands
area power.
In California, the very environmentally conscious Sierra Club is opposing wind power, claiming that it puts some birds at
risk. No word on how many birds fossil fuel plants kill. Also no word on what kind of power the Sierra Club actually
favors building, because they have opposed everything. One would presume that their offices and members live in an
electricity free world and their monthly rag is printed on magic fabric, certainly not dead tree paper. They have truly
gone BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.