Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6681
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
X-no-archive: yes
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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. .
> >
> No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
> grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
Strawman.
> Every good right-wing
> fundamentalist knows that.
I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is powered by
those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of horrors
windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and computer are
specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its owner,
right?
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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. .
> >
> No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
> grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
Strawman.
> Every good right-wing
> fundamentalist knows that.
I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is powered by
those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of horrors
windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and computer are
specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its owner,
right?
#6682
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
X-no-archive: yes
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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. .
> >
> No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
> grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
Strawman.
> Every good right-wing
> fundamentalist knows that.
I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is powered by
those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of horrors
windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and computer are
specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its owner,
right?
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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. .
> >
> No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
> grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
Strawman.
> Every good right-wing
> fundamentalist knows that.
I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is powered by
those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of horrors
windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and computer are
specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its owner,
right?
#6683
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
#6684
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
#6685
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
> In article <3FCFF4B2.3011A2C7@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> ?This
> >> >> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that
> routine
> >> >> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> >> >> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better
> to
> >> >> defer
> >> >> >> maintenance and not
> >> >> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
> >> operated
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >> But the effect of
> >> >> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
> >> >> expensive
> >> >> >> because of overzealous
> >> >> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
> >> >> polluting
> >> >> >> plants are left in
> >> >> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
> >> >> extensively
> >> >> >> on this, and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met
> a
> >> >> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument
> with
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to
> have
> >> any
> >> >> credibility.
> >> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business
> >
> >To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't
> even
> >try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was
> killed,
> >Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ.
> The
> >WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century.
> They
> >reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain
> the
> >basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in
> addition to
> >their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
> >practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual
> fund
> >scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
> >activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader
> of
> >Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
> >staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of
> the
> >Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.
> >
> >> cannot be considered an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with
> actually
> >following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the
> earlier
> >topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy
> (BACT)
> >for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
> >"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.
>
> Depends on how extensive the changes are, which is why the EPA sued, and which
> is why a number of utilities settled with the EPA.
>
> >
> >To quote the article,
> >
> > "Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
> > "ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
> > that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
> > and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
> > to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
> > "identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
> > appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
> > sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
> > way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
> > more traditional, inspections."
> >
> > In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
> > by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
> > representative notes the extent to which "the
> > Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
> > professionally' invested in these cases." The official
> > notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
> > than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
> > change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
> > for anything you might not want a congressman or a
> > magistrate to see."
> >
> >Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,
>
> Yeah, sure, like the WSJ is believable on this.
>
> If this is so bad, quote from CNN, or ABC, or NY Times, or some source not a
> business cheerleader.
>
> >
> > An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
> > PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
> > political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
> > public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
> > very intimidating."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
> >> >> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said
> that
> >> >> Daimler
> >> >> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
> >> Exchange,
> >> >> as if
> >> >> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
> >> didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> >exist!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
> >> >
> >> >Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on
> the
> >> New
> >> >York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
> >> claim
> >> >that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
> >> NYSE
> >> >than ADPs.
> >>
> >> OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:
> >
> >> "Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New
> York
> >> Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)
> >>
> >> So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.
> >
> >Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed.
>
> Did you read what the NYSE itself said? I posted it. All that was there
> earlier were ADRs.
NYSE ADRs are listed on NYSE by definition! And not only are you wrong now, you
also said that "DC stock *IS* still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of
a company not headquartered in the US. <emphasis added> Wrong again, Lloyd.
>
>
> >But earlier
> >you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
> >company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is
> wrong
> >too.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share
> in
> >> 18 countries simultaneously..." --
> >> http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html
> >
> >The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is
> what
> >you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like
> saying the
> >first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been
> around
> >for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before
> DCX
> >was dreamt of.
> >
>
> Only as ADRs.
Which of course are all LISTED on the NYSE, contrary to your claim!
"DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a company not
headquartered in the US
#6686
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
> >wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
> >form
> >> of
> >> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >> >
> >> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
> >
> >That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
> >marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
> Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
If a company in business sells anything to anybody without making a profit, it's
doing something horribly wrong.
>
> Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
> lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
Yes, a huge profit deal by leasing, as opposed to selling aircraft where Boeing
wouldn't make a cent. You do realize that Boeing can make money by either
selling OR leasing the planes right? Leasing would benefit the government by
avoiding a one time outlay now for a plane that could otherwise be paid off (and
eventually purchased outright) over time. Just like you lease your Benz, Lloyd.
But if you are stuck with the idea that Boeing is so bad, just remembered who's
been lobbying for this deal. Why it's a chief Boeing lobbyist. And who might
that be? Why Linda Daschle. Hmm, that name sounds familiar.....could it be the
wife of top Democrat Senator Tommy Daschle? You bet your Rent-a-Benz it is. Oh
yes, who else does Mrs. Daschle lobby for? Why United Technologies. Oh yes, the
owner of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. The supposed pure Democrats in
bed with big business, and lobbying at that. Even liberal icon President-wannabe
Howie Dean says, ""It's a good idea in general to do something for Boeing."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...743EDT0642.DTL
Naturally, unlike President Bush, the Daschles will NOT make their joint tax
return public.
>
>
> > The defense business is less
> >competitive, but for good reason (security).
> >
> >On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
> >subsidies since it's inception.
> >
> >
> To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
So you admit it got a free start at life through direct subsidies. Oh how
convenient that it paid back some of the earlier cash subsidies AFTER the risk was
assumed. But then again, you still don't think the Chrysler bail-out loan
guarantees were a subsidy because the government assumed the RISK of Chrysler not
repaying. But that's the special PAAP way....Parker Accepted Accounting
Principles.
#6687
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
> >wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
> >form
> >> of
> >> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >> >
> >> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
> >
> >That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
> >marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
> Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
If a company in business sells anything to anybody without making a profit, it's
doing something horribly wrong.
>
> Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
> lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
Yes, a huge profit deal by leasing, as opposed to selling aircraft where Boeing
wouldn't make a cent. You do realize that Boeing can make money by either
selling OR leasing the planes right? Leasing would benefit the government by
avoiding a one time outlay now for a plane that could otherwise be paid off (and
eventually purchased outright) over time. Just like you lease your Benz, Lloyd.
But if you are stuck with the idea that Boeing is so bad, just remembered who's
been lobbying for this deal. Why it's a chief Boeing lobbyist. And who might
that be? Why Linda Daschle. Hmm, that name sounds familiar.....could it be the
wife of top Democrat Senator Tommy Daschle? You bet your Rent-a-Benz it is. Oh
yes, who else does Mrs. Daschle lobby for? Why United Technologies. Oh yes, the
owner of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. The supposed pure Democrats in
bed with big business, and lobbying at that. Even liberal icon President-wannabe
Howie Dean says, ""It's a good idea in general to do something for Boeing."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...743EDT0642.DTL
Naturally, unlike President Bush, the Daschles will NOT make their joint tax
return public.
>
>
> > The defense business is less
> >competitive, but for good reason (security).
> >
> >On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
> >subsidies since it's inception.
> >
> >
> To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
So you admit it got a free start at life through direct subsidies. Oh how
convenient that it paid back some of the earlier cash subsidies AFTER the risk was
assumed. But then again, you still don't think the Chrysler bail-out loan
guarantees were a subsidy because the government assumed the RISK of Chrysler not
repaying. But that's the special PAAP way....Parker Accepted Accounting
Principles.
#6688
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
> >wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
> >form
> >> of
> >> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >> >
> >> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
> >
> >That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
> >marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
> Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
If a company in business sells anything to anybody without making a profit, it's
doing something horribly wrong.
>
> Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
> lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
Yes, a huge profit deal by leasing, as opposed to selling aircraft where Boeing
wouldn't make a cent. You do realize that Boeing can make money by either
selling OR leasing the planes right? Leasing would benefit the government by
avoiding a one time outlay now for a plane that could otherwise be paid off (and
eventually purchased outright) over time. Just like you lease your Benz, Lloyd.
But if you are stuck with the idea that Boeing is so bad, just remembered who's
been lobbying for this deal. Why it's a chief Boeing lobbyist. And who might
that be? Why Linda Daschle. Hmm, that name sounds familiar.....could it be the
wife of top Democrat Senator Tommy Daschle? You bet your Rent-a-Benz it is. Oh
yes, who else does Mrs. Daschle lobby for? Why United Technologies. Oh yes, the
owner of jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. The supposed pure Democrats in
bed with big business, and lobbying at that. Even liberal icon President-wannabe
Howie Dean says, ""It's a good idea in general to do something for Boeing."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...743EDT0642.DTL
Naturally, unlike President Bush, the Daschles will NOT make their joint tax
return public.
>
>
> > The defense business is less
> >competitive, but for good reason (security).
> >
> >On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
> >subsidies since it's inception.
> >
> >
> To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
So you admit it got a free start at life through direct subsidies. Oh how
convenient that it paid back some of the earlier cash subsidies AFTER the risk was
assumed. But then again, you still don't think the Chrysler bail-out loan
guarantees were a subsidy because the government assumed the RISK of Chrysler not
repaying. But that's the special PAAP way....Parker Accepted Accounting
Principles.
#6689
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" wrote:
> Lesbian couples can even have children.
Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
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! =-----
#6690
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" wrote:
> Lesbian couples can even have children.
Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
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! =-----