On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:51:10 -0800 (PST), in sci.electronics.design
James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 27, 1:15 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST), James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, Martin Griffith wrote:

[...]

This sort of sums it uphttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natur...

andhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food26feb26,0,3838970.story

Not fair--Mr. Bush responds wholeheartedly (if ill-advisedly)--with
Congress in tow--to their (Greens in general, and the LA Times in
particular) criticism about not supporting alternative fuels, then
they lambaste him when he does.

That's not helpful. We need less advocacy & more sensible
discussion. But I suppose it's outrage that sells.

I didn't wite them, they are just 2 links that I found while waiting
for the first cup of coffee to boil, this morning.

No worries--I enjoyed the articles and appreciated the links. I'm
glad to see the public finally wising up to what I saw as a bad idea
(environmentally & economically) from the start.

My frustration was with the LA Times, not with you.

Best wishes,
James Arthur
The Times of Londinium (murdock crap)didn't have the UN/FAO links,
which the LAT did, it is so good when a tree paper posts links to the
source on the web.
So i thought it was worth quotifying.

If you want to see a really good paper, try this
http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article846732.ece


martin