In article , Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

My secrets a
1) Buy used cars from new-car dealers -- the vast majority of new-car dealers
cherry-pick their trade-ins; the crap goes to the auto auction, and the good
ones go to the dealer's used-car lot. So far, I'm 5-for-5 with this approach.
2) Know the value of what you're buying, and don't pay a penny more for it. Be
prepared to walk away.

That's a fine attitude to have. But if in the end you have to pay a
couple hundred more than you hoped, and you found the car you wanted,
you probably still have a good deal.

True. I do bend that rule occasionally; an extra $500 on a ten-thousand-dollar
truck isn't much.

Shopping for cars is a pain
because the salespeople seem to assume at the onset that you're an
idiot who hasn't a clue--and they probably make thousands (extra) by
working that way.

They're frequently right. I have a relative who regularly gets screwed buying
cars because (a) he's *not* prepared to walk away, and (b) his demeanor makes
that blatantly obvious to the salespeople. He's a smart guy, but he can't
negotiate worth a damn.

I recently bought a used car from a dealer too,
"walked out" and got a phone call the next morning...

Last time I walked out of a dealership, I hadn't gotten three miles down the
road before the phone rang...

Here around
Indianapolis, there are two companies that are trending to own almost
every used car dealership, and they seem to want to control the
pricing... Bad trend for the consumer.

Which two are those? And where in Indy are you? I'm on the NW side, near 42nd
& Kessler.

Upscale wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

We're NOT polluting the atmosphere - at least not as much as before. The air
in the US (and most industrialized countries) is much cleaner than ten years
ago and ten years ago it was cleaner than it was fifty years ago and fifty
years ago the air was WAY cleaner than it was in, say 1850 London.

If more people are coughing today, it's not because of pollution; it's due
to health care.

A hundred years ago, a kid with asthma would have died by his second
birthday. With modern medicine, he can live to a ripe old age where he can,
every day, pester all those around him for cleaner air.

You don't hear villagers in Kenya agitating for cleaner air. Those who have
a health problem with the smoke from burning zebra **** are dead. To those
that remain alive, it's no biggie.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:55 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 1/24/2010 9:31 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In articleQKadnaRCEurIxsHWnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews. com, Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Although practical by nature and wise to the ways of the world after
almost 70 years of living in it, I am indeed guilty of cherishing some
idealistic principles when in comes to empirical science and its
principle of observation.

Yeah, I think we've all been sucked in a time or two. Most of us also
reopen our eyes shortly after that and make up for the slip.


An endeavor with even the appearance of being based on lies and/or
distortion, no matter how slight, will do NOTHING to advance humankind
toward a goal of living in harmony on this planet.

These known distortions will, however, cost trillions of dollars and
redirect monies which could have saved lives of the most
poverty-stricken people, and they have already killed some.


I really would like some convincing evidence that the "scientific
methods" I learned many years ago in college, said methods having
brought indisputable advancement for human good, are NOT being subverted
to the extent suspected in this religiopolitical AGW issue by greed and
political agendizing!

Sadly, I wouldn't hold my breath, Swingy.


We, as humans, and in order to move forward, have a desperate need to
get to the bottom of the appearance of impropriety in ANY application of
"science" toward the human condition.

Verily. I feel so sorry for reputation science is getting right now.


IMO, there should be _NOTHING BUT_ *skepticism* until this issue is laid
to rest, one way or the other.

Damn Tootin'!


End of story ...

Surely the alarmists won't let that alone...

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:49:02 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 24, 5:26*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern
stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.

However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up
faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the
real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I
should.

No, Luigi. They "homogenize" data from other sites to blend your one
temperature so it always looks higher, no matter what.


---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:01:30 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Jan 24, 11:29*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Poor WeeGee is a True Believer. Maybe he can come up with something.
giggle


You want to discuss weather patterns with a Canuckistani from the
Yukon who has fled to warmer climes? :-)

According to him, it's downright _tropical_ up in Yellowknife
nowadays. I expect to see WeeGee and Marilyn tanning themselves by the
pool in swimsuits in January RSN.

I wonder what he would have thought if he lived when there was an
actual Northwest Passage through the ice up there. It was a hell of a
lot warmer then than it is now, and that was way before our dependence
on oil.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:27:36 -0800 (PST), the infamous Father Haskell
scrawled the following:

On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Computer codes can't make glaciers or ice caps melt.

No, it takes different water use by the people around Kilimanjaro to
do that.

P.S: When a glacier melts here, another grows there. That's just the
way it is. Earth negotiates it without our help, thankfully.

P.P.S: Did you see the people recanting the Himalayan glacier disaster
story? http://fwd4.me/Clk Buy a clue, Preach.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Bill
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

My secrets a
1) Buy used cars from new-car dealers -- the vast majority of new-car
dealers
cherry-pick their trade-ins; the crap goes to the auto auction, and the
good
ones go to the dealer's used-car lot. So far, I'm 5-for-5 with this
approach.
2) Know the value of what you're buying, and don't pay a penny more for
it. Be
prepared to walk away.

That's a fine attitude to have. But if in the end you have to pay a
couple hundred more than you hoped, and you found the car you wanted,
you probably still have a good deal.

True. I do bend that rule occasionally; an extra $500 on a
ten-thousand-dollar
truck isn't much.

Shopping for cars is a pain
because the salespeople seem to assume at the onset that you're an
idiot who hasn't a clue--and they probably make thousands (extra) by
working that way.

They're frequently right. I have a relative who regularly gets screwed
buying
cars because (a) he's *not* prepared to walk away, and (b) his demeanor
makes
that blatantly obvious to the salespeople. He's a smart guy, but he can't
negotiate worth a damn.

I recently bought a used car from a dealer too,
"walked out" and got a phone call the next morning...

Last time I walked out of a dealership, I hadn't gotten three miles down
the
road before the phone rang...

Here around
Indianapolis, there are two companies that are trending to own almost
every used car dealership, and they seem to want to control the
pricing... Bad trend for the consumer.

Which two are those? And where in Indy are you? I'm on the NW side, near
42nd
& Kessler.

Ray Skillman and Huebler, I think. Ray Skillman just bought the old Reeves'
Buick
dealership. I'm on the south side of Indy. I go to "King's Ribs"
which isn't too far from you, I think. : ) Picked up some on the way
home from the
woodworking show at the state fairgrounds this past weekend. Good show.

Bill

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:54:33 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

You meant "politicians", didn't you? REAL scientists don't skew data,
hide data, delete emails, or deny peer review for money or ideology.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

"Bill" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Bill
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

My secrets a
1) Buy used cars from new-car dealers -- the vast majority of new-car
dealers
cherry-pick their trade-ins; the crap goes to the auto auction, and the
good
ones go to the dealer's used-car lot. So far, I'm 5-for-5 with this
approach.
2) Know the value of what you're buying, and don't pay a penny more for
it. Be
prepared to walk away.

That's a fine attitude to have. But if in the end you have to pay a
couple hundred more than you hoped, and you found the car you wanted,
you probably still have a good deal.

True. I do bend that rule occasionally; an extra $500 on a
ten-thousand-dollar
truck isn't much.

Shopping for cars is a pain
because the salespeople seem to assume at the onset that you're an
idiot who hasn't a clue--and they probably make thousands (extra) by
working that way.

They're frequently right. I have a relative who regularly gets screwed
buying
cars because (a) he's *not* prepared to walk away, and (b) his demeanor
makes
that blatantly obvious to the salespeople. He's a smart guy, but he can't
negotiate worth a damn.

I recently bought a used car from a dealer too,
"walked out" and got a phone call the next morning...

Last time I walked out of a dealership, I hadn't gotten three miles down
the
road before the phone rang...

Here around
Indianapolis, there are two companies that are trending to own almost
every used car dealership, and they seem to want to control the
pricing... Bad trend for the consumer.

Which two are those? And where in Indy are you? I'm on the NW side, near
42nd
& Kessler.

Ray Skillman and Huebler, I think. Ray Skillman just bought the old
Reeves' Buick
dealership. I'm on the south side of Indy. I go to "King's Ribs"
which isn't too far from you, I think.

Well, it may be a bit of a drive for you, but it's worth it!

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:05:26 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:45:20 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
movement, and the path leads back to the UN.

I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.

Can you prove that statement, Uppy? (Ah dinna thin so.)

What I'm amazed at is that more of the hybrids aren't being built. The
combo is dynamite!

They're still too spendy for me. Too much cost, too little benefit. If

A brand new Prius 10 goes for as little as $22.8k out the door.


I could recover the extra cost in 5 years with savings in running cost,
I'd be interested. But as long as the pitch is "will nobody think of
the children!" I ain't biting.

That pitch don't hunt.

With a roughly $10k pop in the price tag, how long would an extra
20mpg take for a ROI?

Hmm, Highlander jumps from 20 up to 27mpg, or a mere 7mpg boost, it
would take a long time at a $9,500 bump.

Camry jumps from 22 to 33mpg and is a $5,800 bump, quicker ROI, 6.6
years, figuring 20k/yr and $2.89/gal gas. 606 vs 909 gallons,
$875.67/yr. Not bad, plus you get the benefit of screaming
acceleration when you want to play, a quieter car when your foot is
off the pedal, and a better resale value. Works for me...if I was a
commuter and didn't need a full sized truck. g

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

In article , "Bill" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Which two are those? And where in Indy are you? I'm on the NW side, near
42nd
& Kessler.

Ray Skillman and Huebler, I think. Ray Skillman just bought the old Reeves'
Buick dealership. I'm on the south side of Indy. I go to "King's Ribs"
which isn't too far from you, I think. : ) Picked up some on the way
home from the
woodworking show at the state fairgrounds this past weekend. Good show.

Is that the one at 16th & Kessler? Smells *great* driving by. Haven't eaten
there yet, though.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...


It also may not save any money to buy used. I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that used
to exist in the good old days.


On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.


It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
hundred thousand miles too.

--

-Mike-

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...


Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
2004 with 157000km is $11000.


Incentives like 0% interest can indeed turn the depreciation argument upside
down, since they're usually only offered on new cars. You can spend a lot
more on the price of a car at 0% interest than you can at even low interest
rates, and still come out ahead.

--

-Mike-

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
.. .


Have you factored in maintenance? The maintenance costs for a used
car can go up exponentially; particularly if it has a timing belt
instead of a chain. With most new cars requiring _no_ significant
maintenance (aside from oil changes, rubber & radiator fluid at 50k),
until about 120k; the maint charges after 120k add up quickly.


If the car has a timing belt, it's true that this does add a maintenance
hit - usually somewhere around $600 if you pay to get it done. If you do it
yourself, under $100. I don't agree that after 120K miles, maintenance
charges add up quickly.

--

-Mike-

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...


Even now, a new Matrix XR is about $20500 with 0% financing and some
incentives added on top. Checking the local auto trader listings, a
2008 with 45000km is currently $18000. A 2006 with 79000km is $15000, a
2004 with 157000km is $11000.


Incentives like 0% interest can indeed turn the depreciation argument upside
down, since they're usually only offered on new cars.

No, they can't. Zero interest simply means that you wind up paying full price
for the car, instead of full price plus a whole lotta interest. Either way,
the instant the paperwork is signed, it becomes a used car and is worth a lot
less than you paid for it. The only difference is how much less.

You can spend a lot
more on the price of a car at 0% interest than you can at even low interest
rates, and still come out ahead.

"Come out ahead" compared to buying a 4-year-old used car? Nope. Not even
close.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


You can spend a lot
more on the price of a car at 0% interest than you can at even low
interest
rates, and still come out ahead.

"Come out ahead" compared to buying a 4-year-old used car? Nope. Not even
close.

I don't buy 4 year old used cars though. Mine are 2-3 years old (model
years). For people who finance for long terms like 6 years, the 0% can make
quite a difference. I don't, but many have to.

--

-Mike-

On Jan 26, 6:54*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
"Chris Friesen" wrote in message

el...



It also may not save any money to buy used. *I wanted a Honda or Toyota
hatchback. *Around here used ones were going for a significant fraction
of the new price--ten year old cars going for half of new. *Since I was
planning on driving it into the ground, I figured I may as well buy
new--that way I know the history of the car.

There are some exceptions due to market demand, but for the most part,
buying used vehicles saves a great deal of money. *The biggest part of
depreciation happens in the first couple of years in a car's life, and
buying a 2-3 year old car with 20-30K miles on it generally can save about
half the price of the car. *Most cars today are more than capable of
exceeding 100K miles with nothing more than a brake job, and quite capable
of doubling that without significant repairs. *Not much to be gained these
days by knowing the history of a car. *Notwithstanding the extreem
situations that might be referenced anectodally, most people pretty much
drive cars normally, and there just aren't the history of problems that used
to exist in the good old days.

Yes, there are many exceptions, trucks being a major one. When I
bought my 2001, a two-year old truck with 20K was selling for $1K less
than I paid for my new one. Nuts! OTOH, we bought a three-year old
2000 Sable for about half the original price with 12K miles on it.
Both vehicles have been fine (though the corroded out brakes/lines on
my truck cost a small fortune).

On the other hand, if you're planning on turning over vehicles every few
years then it definitely makes financial sense to buy used.

It makes plenty of sense if you're going to keep the car for a couple
hundred thousand miles too.

You also have to weight the reliability. If you rely on the vehicle
for work, you're in tough shape when it's down.

On Jan 25, 8:42*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:01:30 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:



On Jan 24, 11:29 pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:14:01 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti....

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Poor WeeGee is a True Believer. Maybe he can come up with something.
giggle

You want to discuss weather patterns with a Canuckistani from the
Yukon who has fled to warmer climes? :-)

According to him, it's downright _tropical_ up in Yellowknife
nowadays. I expect to see WeeGee and Marilyn tanning themselves by the
pool in swimsuits in January RSN.

Send AlBore up there. They'll be crying for warming, global or
otherwise.

I wonder what he would have thought if he lived when there was an
actual Northwest Passage through the ice up there. It was a hell of a
lot warmer then than it is now, and that was way before our dependence
on oil.

You mean when they were farming on Greenland?

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:02:24 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Larry Jaques
wrote:

With a roughly $10k pop in the price tag, how long would an extra
20mpg take for a ROI? '''


20 mpg? In a Saskahoochian winter?

ROFLMAO.

Your mileage may vary when fighting 180kph blizzards and rolling
through 2' of powder while pulling a 20T trailer full of moose meat.


$10K means nothing if you die in a blizzard because your frigging
hybrid's battery goes flat when you're snowed in o a grid road for 24
hours.

Y'all up in the GWN have never experienced the joy of living in a city
which has been named as one of the top ten placed to live, have you,
Dave? Pardon my LoCal state of mind for forgetting about you Fort
Stinkin' Des^H^H^HFreezer types.


We live in the real world, here in the Great White North, That means we
drive with our tanks full, shovels and sleeping bags in the trunk, and
enough booze, cabbage rolls and moose meat to survive until the Hydro
crew comes to find us when they're trying to restore the power to the
west side of the country.

Sorry, old chap. My commments were meant only for those living in the
civilized sector of society, Bear Whiz Beer boy.

P.S: Please keep sending your cheap pineywood lumber to us, and keep
refining that tarry sand of yours for us, eh? 'At's a lad.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

DGDevin wrote:
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by
the fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
only been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies,
he works with organizations that get funding from companies like
ExxonMobil. It amazes me how some people who like to imagine they
are informed on this issue somehow manage to miss that and claim the
$$$ motive is all on the other side. Well it doesn't really amaze
me, it's actually quite predictable.

You are quite possibly correct. Given the choice of results coming from
entities funded by private enterprise or the public largess, who should I
believe?

Hmmm. Each has their "experts," so the decision must be based on other
factors.

One group creates wealth, the other destroys it. One group stands to make
money and employ people, the other promotes feeling good. One allows the
"invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Let me think...

J. Clarke wrote:

Yep, yet another of his convenient lies. If there was already a
system in place to trade carbon credits then we wouldn't need new
laws to implement carbon credits. Sounds to me like scammer lobbying
to legitimize his scam.

Near as I know, there is no requirement
(yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
send him their money.

I oughta try that--I wonder if anyone has tried selling carbon
credits on ebay?

Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

On Jan 26, 11:10*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Yep, yet another of his convenient lies. *If there was already a
system in place to trade carbon credits then we wouldn't need new
laws to implement carbon credits. *Sounds to me like scammer lobbying
to legitimize his scam.

Near as I know, there is no requirement
(yet) to buy these carbon credits, no issuing agency and, near as I
know, no regulation as to what they are or where the money goes. It
would appear that, under the circumstances, anybody with a printer
and a little design skill could print up a few million of these
things and get rich selling them to those that feel that throwing
their money away somehow offsets their sins against the environment
with the only real result being adding to the wealth of the issuing
company. Kind of like a televangelist. "Send me your money and God
will love you for it". The only "love" in the business is the
televangelist "loving" the fact that people are so gullible as to
send him their money.

I oughta try that--I wonder if anyone has tried selling carbon
credits on ebay?

Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Look for Ron White's bit:

=Ron White: I was sitting on a bean bag chair, naked, eating Cheetos
the other day when Robert Tilton came on TV. He's a televangelist out
of Dallas. He looked at me and said,
"Are you lonely?"
=Yeah.
"Have you spent half your life in bars pursuing sins of the flesh?"
=This guy's good!
"Are you sitting in a bean bag chair naked eating Cheetos?"...
=Yes, sir!
"Do you have the urge to get up and send me a thousand dollars?"
=Ha, ha close! I thought he was talking about me there for a second!

On Jan 26, 11:10*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:

One allows the
"invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
economic upheaval?

Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.

Chris

On 1/26/2010 10:18 AM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 26, 11:10 am, wrote:


Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

There's already a nice hole at 34.943909,50.757952...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Jan 26, 12:04*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/26/2010 10:18 AM, Robatoy wrote:

On Jan 26, 11:10 am, *wrote:

Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish National
Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

There's already a nice hole at 34.943909,50.757952...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Nice one in Mirnyy too. G

On Jan 26, 10:34*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/26/2010 10:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:

One allows the
"invisible hand" to determine progress, the other uses "consensus."

Would that be the "invisible hand" that contributed to massive global
economic upheaval?

No, that would be the "iron fist" of government.

Not sure I'd want that particular hand to determine anything.

Of course you don't. Marxists wouldn't.

DGDevin wrote:

Not only that, but continuing to burn a finite resource and
continuing to pour countless billions into the coffers of nations
which often don't like us very much seem like foolish policies in
their own right. I'm not a climate scientist so I don't *know* if
man-made climate change is happening (ditto with everyone else here
including especially the ones who think they do know) but it seems to
me there are a bunch of good reasons to move aggressively on
replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of energy. However
some folks just want to drive their Escalade down to the
corner for a quart of milk and what happens in a decade or two ain't
their damn problem--selfish and stupid, a lovely combination.

What "finite" resources? I guess you mean oil even though the provable
reserves of petroleum increase every year.

What nations "don't like us..."? The ones we send billions to each year?
Well, they like our money.

"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is NOTHING
that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
difference in our energy needs.

On Jan 26, 1:57*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is NOTHING
that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:57:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
shot to hell. All in all - not bad for a 15 year old truck in the rust
belt. My total investment - (minus of course my time...) - under $2K.

But, that begs the question. What would you peg your time to be worth
if you had to put a dollar figure on it? For many people, their time
is what is worth the most to them.

On 1/26/2010 2:04 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:57:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
shot to hell. All in all - not bad for a 15 year old truck in the rust
belt. My total investment - (minus of course my time...) - under $2K.

But, that begs the question. What would you peg your time to be worth
if you had to put a dollar figure on it? For many people, their time
is what is worth the most to them.

I never count my time spent on something I do when I'm not "at work",
enjoy doing in any event, and especially when reaping a benefit at the
same time.

It is, as we say in S Louisiana, "lagniappe". (the thirteenth doughnut
when you buy a dozen).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:19:28 -0600, Swingman wrote:

But, that begs the question. What would you peg your time to be worth
if you had to put a dollar figure on it? For many people, their time
is what is worth the most to them.

I never count my time spent on something I do when I'm not "at work",
enjoy doing in any event, and especially when reaping a benefit at the
same time.

Sure, I can't argue with that. If you enjoy it, then it's a win win.
But, if your time *was* worth more doing something else (from a
monetory, enjoyment or must do point of view), then you have to peg
some sort of value on the work that needs to be done and decide which
route is most worthwhile to follow.

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 26, 11:10 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


Dunno. But for $18 you can plant a tree is Israel, via the Jewish
National Fund. I'm sure that counts.

Depends on exactly where they're planning on planting it?

The Jew says to the Arab: "Why are you complaining? This used to be a
desert, now it's a forest!"

And the Arab thinks: "Yeah, but it was MY desert and now it's YOUR forest."

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
NOTHING that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make
more than a trace difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

I agree, but the rabble claim that nuclear is the least "clean" of anything.
And since, in the energy field, "consensus" trumphs facts, we're doomed.

I'm afraid as long as decisions are made on the basis of fear, nuclear is
destined to be a piddly player.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


"Clean, renewable source of energy" - like what? Whale oil? There is
NOTHING
that is both sparkling clean and renewable that can make more than a trace
difference in our energy needs.

Yes there is. Nuclear.

Fine for the rest of the world. Now, they need to come up with something
that would work in the US.

Morris Dovey wrote:

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged,
do you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...


Yes, it is sufficient to conclude there is no global warming danger if the
un-fudged numbers do not point in the same direction.

The universal presumption in almost all things is "that which was will
continue to be." In the absence of known forces to the contrary, it is
reasonable to assume there will be no change. One certainly does not
fabricate changes then claim a trace gas is the cause.

J. Clarke wrote:

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?

Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. -
and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or even
believable.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:57:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
shot to hell. All in all - not bad for a 15 year old truck in the rust
belt. My total investment - (minus of course my time...) - under $2K.

But, that begs the question. What would you peg your time to be worth
if you had to put a dollar figure on it? For many people, their time
is what is worth the most to them.

Perfectly good/valid question. When I undertook this, I considered the cost
of replacing my truck vs. the cost of rebuilding it. At the time I could
replace it for around $12K. We already had two car payments and the truck
was paid for. I did not want to incur another payment. So - that decision
all by itself, made my labor rate $0. I approached the project as one in
which anything I could do to save money was a money savings versus a cost.

I do think we sometimes forget that aspect of things. We tend to focus on
what our time is worth, but we then forget to realize what our time has
saved us.


--

-Mike-

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:19:28 -0600, Swingman wrote:

But, that begs the question. What would you peg your time to be worth
if you had to put a dollar figure on it? For many people, their time
is what is worth the most to them.

I never count my time spent on something I do when I'm not "at work",
enjoy doing in any event, and especially when reaping a benefit at the
same time.

Sure, I can't argue with that. If you enjoy it, then it's a win win.
But, if your time *was* worth more doing something else (from a
monetory, enjoyment or must do point of view), then you have to peg
some sort of value on the work that needs to be done and decide which
route is most worthwhile to follow.

Very true - but if the savings in investing my time was sufficient to not
either force me to more work, or to enable more long term free time (freedom
from the payment), then I consider it a plus.

--

-Mike-

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:260120101445329987%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

How far do you live from a reactor?

A couple or three kilometres.

Yes, there's a reactor in Saskatoon...

I'd rather live near a reactor than downwind from a sour gas well or a
coal burning power station.

You would huh? I live 11 miles from 3 reactors. I'm not anti-nuclear.
There have been however, enough causes for concern in the operations of
those reactors. Have you really thought about the effect of that sour gas
well and the likes of a reactor disaster?

--

-Mike-