"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives these
conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know anyone who is
really living through this stuff - or are you guys just "deciding" for
them what should be, based on what you think, but do not know? I
think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd likely
do anything to help that child, but read up on OI, and the suffering
involved. I am not sure that the disease is really inherited, more
likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know until it is too late.
OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and other diseases. If that were
to run in a family, I'd want to know and take precautions so my children
wouldn't get it. As I said, I'm beyond the stage where would need to
make decisions (even my kids are finished procreating, AFAIK). But I'd
urge people with family history to do some planning. Then they have the
facts to make their own decisions, and they should be respected no matter
what. You'll find no inducement for eugenics from me.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that "anything
to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much BS. These people
are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff. I really do not see
you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off of
those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but suffering is
not a word that they would apply to their own lives - that is you word to
make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off before they are born.
They would tell you that life sucks for them in some respects, but that life
is very good for them in others. You really need to research OI more Han.
Like everything else you "research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one with
that condition?

As I said, I'm
beyond the stage where would need to make decisions (even my kids are
finished procreating, AFAIK). But I'd urge people with family
history to do some planning.

And just what do you define "planning" as? You are starting to sound like
Hitler.

Then they have the facts to make their
own decisions,

Oh geezus - nice politically correct sounding bull**** phrase. "to make
their own decisions". On this particular point Han, - you are screwed up!


and they should be respected no matter what.

Yup - they should be respected for making a decision that is more
comfortable for them - regardless of the life they are throwing away. Good
thing your own parents did not think that way Han. They might have made a
mistake and have terminated you...

--

-Mike-

On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and
inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.

One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...



No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
planed for times like these.

My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
debt free ever since.

We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
expensive cars and buying huge homes.

Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.

We are still debt free.

It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
this methodology has been rewarding.

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
for this retirement thing ...


If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context of
your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that "anything
to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much BS. These people
are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff. I really do not see
you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off of
those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but suffering is
not a word that they would apply to their own lives - that is you word to
make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off before they are born.
They would tell you that life sucks for them in some respects, but that life
is very good for them in others. You really need to research OI more Han.
Like everything else you "research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one with
that condition?
================================================== ===============
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a lot of
the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:44:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).

Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.

My bad - I clicked on the wrong reference. I'll try harder :-). Here's
the right reference:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...hange-skeptic-
reverses-course/

The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior
estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step
further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.€�

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:30:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:44:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).

Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.

My bad - I clicked on the wrong reference. I'll try harder :-). Here's
the right reference:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...hange-skeptic-
reverses-course/

The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior
estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step
further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

OK, I repeat:

Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
deep sigh (Reread Swingy's earlier swat, too.)

So, Muller's report is due to be released today. Let's wait until
some folks (both Believers and Deniers) have a chance to take a closer
look and do peer reviews/critiques of it before we go anywhere with
it, eh?

The missing datasets (solar and oceanic?) bother me a whole lot. And
I'd like to see his temperature station list to see if he is accepting
the limited set now available which automatically skews the data
higher. BTW, this report is being released with an open request for
peer review. It's not a done deed until everyone has checked his
work, Mr. True Believer. I'm also iffy about the use of CO2 in ice
samples since there is still a good possibility that it follows warmth
rather than leading it.

Here's the text of Muller's NYT article, since, apparently, nobody but
Swingy and I have read it:
--snip--
July 28, 2012
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful
and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show
that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and
a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an
increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase
results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the
scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007
report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible,
according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before
1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a
substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods
developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed
us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We
carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating
(we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data
selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from
poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is
completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that
none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our
conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that
match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the
particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful
sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small,
rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such
as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of
the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our
view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but
systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape
to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar
activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far
the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
“Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is,
in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite
measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun
very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve
gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from
trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they
shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered
seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as
well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas,
to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis
does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge
computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and
adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close
agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the
known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that
much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is
speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of
the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number
of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up;
likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding
ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s
possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years
ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an
interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect
evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United
States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the
world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers
now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of
temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of
volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches
solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny
by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis
of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and
computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the
scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of
any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the
temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to
proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in
the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China
continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per
year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically
adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take
place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is
universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley
Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global
warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing
across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should
be done.

Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of
California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the
author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science
Behind the Headlines.”

( http://tinyurl.com/blvkg68 copyright New York Times newspaper)

--snip--

Two paragraphs are key, too. They begin with "It's a scientist's
duty" and "Hurricane Katrina". They show that his skepticism is still
with him for most things. Why don't you Libs ever read or research
_any_ of the articles you tout, anyway? Crikey!

--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

(comparing Paine to the current CONgress deep sigh)

Larry Jaques wrote:


Here's the text of Muller's NYT article, since, apparently, nobody but
Swingy and I have read it:

Not so apparent. It's just that not everyone who read it posted anything
about it here.

--

-Mike-

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and
inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think
that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also
not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary)
"prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is
definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and
Florida.

One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but
we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...



No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
planed for times like these.

My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
debt free ever since.

We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this
same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving
very expensive cars and buying huge homes.

Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.

We are still debt free.

It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
this methodology has been rewarding.

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for
the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the
revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe.
It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the
kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been
very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend according
to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ...


If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.

I am still getting 3.9% on my TIAA money ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"CW" wrote in
m:



"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
"anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
I really do not see you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
"research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
with that condition?
================================================== ===============
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know they
/may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease such as
Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on not
implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early first
trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have another chance
for a child without the problems. And I know this is easy talk for
someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I said, I would respect
ANY decision such a couple make.

There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going out
of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around near us I
help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile organizations of my
choice.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
was trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know
they /may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease
such as Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on
not implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early
first trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have
another chance for a child without the problems. And I know this is
easy talk for someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I
said, I would respect ANY decision such a couple make.

There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going
out of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around
near us I help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile
organizations of my choice.

I may come across as harsh Han, but I'm one who has a problem with the whole
abortion thing and that included - or maybe even is more intense, when it
comes to aborting "defective fetuses". Personal opinion, I realize but I
have a big issue with that line of thinking. Does not matter to me what
trimester it is in.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and
inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.

One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...



No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
planed for times like these.

My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
debt free ever since.

We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
expensive cars and buying huge homes.

Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.

We are still debt free.

It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
this methodology has been rewarding.

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
for this retirement thing ...


If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.

....or you could buy California municipal bonds.

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and
inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think
that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also
not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary)
"prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is
definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe
and Florida.

One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but
we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...



No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means
and planed for times like these.

My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for
6 years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have
been debt free ever since.

We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this
same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving
very expensive cars and buying huge homes.

Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.

We are still debt free.

It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
this methodology has been rewarding.

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for
the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the
revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe.
It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get
the kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have
been very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend
according to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ...


If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.

...or you could buy California municipal bonds.

Ha!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
was trying to say. At "worst" I am advocating that a couple who know
they /may/ (note emphasis) be getting a child with a dreaded disease
such as Huntington's get counseling and testing done. With an eye on
not implanting an embryo that tests positive, or aborting in an early
first trimester abortion a fetus like that. Knowing they have
another chance for a child without the problems. And I know this is
easy talk for someone who hasn't had to make the decisions. As I
said, I would respect ANY decision such a couple make.

There are indeed children all around with problems. I am NOT going
out of my way to find them to help them, but the few who are around
near us I help as I can. I also contribute to worthwhile
organizations of my choice.

I may come across as harsh Han, but I'm one who has a problem with the
whole abortion thing and that included - or maybe even is more
intense, when it comes to aborting "defective fetuses". Personal
opinion, I realize but I have a big issue with that line of thinking.
Does not matter to me what trimester it is in.

I appreciate that, Mike, and I honor it as well. As I said, I have not
been in the position (knock on wood), and would not now know what I'd
have done. Of course it would have been my wife who would have had to
make the decision, not me. But, theoretically, let us go back to the
sickle cell example. If both parents are heterozygote, the theoretical
chance of getting a baby who is homozygous (and who would likely get into
real big trouble at some point) is 1 in 4, as is the chance of a baby
without sickle cell at all. Theoretically, it is possible to do in vitro
fertilization and choose the embryo with the best chances for a healthy
life for implantation. Just an example of possibilities. I am agnostic,
but I could say that God has given us the ability to do the best
possible. Is it necessary to throw that ability away and just go with
the throw of the dice?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard wrote:

The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the
prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a
step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

I had a good friend who introduced me to the concept of "Quality Control
Thinking," which consisted of asking the appropriate, simple, question. In
this case, the question is:

"So what?"

Han wrote:

I appreciate that, Mike, and I honor it as well. As I said, I have
not been in the position (knock on wood), and would not now know what
I'd have done. Of course it would have been my wife who would have
had to make the decision, not me. But, theoretically, let us go back
to the sickle cell example. If both parents are heterozygote, the
theoretical chance of getting a baby who is homozygous (and who would
likely get into real big trouble at some point) is 1 in 4, as is the
chance of a baby without sickle cell at all. Theoretically, it is
possible to do in vitro fertilization and choose the embryo with the
best chances for a healthy life for implantation. Just an example of
possibilities. I am agnostic, but I could say that God has given us
the ability to do the best possible. Is it necessary to throw that
ability away and just go with the throw of the dice?

Thanks for understanding Han. What you raise above is not for this group!
That conversation could go on to what would likely be the longest thread in
the history of this newsgroup - and we've had some pretty long ones here.
We clearly think differently and I would enjoy discourse in that area, it's
just that I don't believe we ought to open that Pandora's box here. Email
me if you want and we can bat it around a bit - and if you'd prefer not,
that's ok too.

--

-Mike-

"Han" wrote in message ...

"CW" wrote in
m:



"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
"anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
I really do not see you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
"research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
with that condition?
================================================== ===============
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
trying to say.
================================================== ====================
He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion should
never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no matter what. The
fact that the kid might be born no matter what the problem, including cases
where the mothers life is in danger. Pro life? No, it's anti woman.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:34:30 -0700, "CW" wrote:



"Han" wrote in message ...

"CW" wrote in
om:



"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent a
lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization and
checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic defect, then
you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who lives
these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to know
anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you guys
just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you think,
but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
"anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a bluff.
I really do not see you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them off
before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for them in
some respects, but that life is very good for them in others. You
really need to research OI more Han. Like everything else you
"research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
with that condition?
================================================== ===============
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I was
trying to say.
================================================= =====================
He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion should
never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no matter what. The
fact that the kid might be born no matter what the problem, including cases
where the mothers life is in danger. Pro life? No, it's anti woman.

+1, CW.

--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

(comparing Paine to the current CONgress deep sigh)

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what you are.
It earned you the famous "**** off" award.


--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:34:30 -0700, "CW" wrote:



"Han" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote in
m:



"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:



My personal feeling is that if there is a chance you can prevent
a lifetime of suffering, for instance by in vitro fertilization
and checking whether the embryo does suffer from a genetic
defect, then you should consider that.


The point is... what is that "lifetime of suffering" that you and
Larry talk about? Fine for you to think about that in the context
of your own perfect lives, but do your really know anyone who
lives these conditions? Have you really ever met and gotten to
know anyone who is really living through this stuff - or are you
guys just "deciding" for them what should be, based on what you
think, but do not know? I think both you and Larry have a lot to
learn...

I have not been personally involved, and once there is a child I'd
likely do anything to help that child,

Well - they are all around you, so why not go and do all of that
"anything to help that child"? Sorry Han - but this is just so much
BS. These people are all around us. To say "if...." is just a
bluff. I really do not see you as that kind of guy...



but read up on OI, and the
suffering involved.

"suffering"? As in the use of that term to justify your killing off
of those people? How about - they do suffer through things, but
suffering is not a word that they would apply to their own lives -
that is you word to make yourself feel comfortable in killing them
off before they are born. They would tell you that life sucks for
them in some respects, but that life is very good for them in
others. You really need to research OI more Han. Like everything
else you "research" here... Look deeper.


I am not sure that the disease is really
inherited, more likely a "sporadic" mutation, so you wouldn't know
until it is too late.

So what - big deal. It is what it is.


OTOH, there are tests for Huntington's and
other diseases. If that were to run in a family, I'd want to know
and take precautions so my children wouldn't get it.

And so - would you kill those children just so you did not have one
with that condition?
================================================== ===============
At no point did he advocate killing anyone. I don't agree with Han a
lot of the time but in this case, he makes perfect sense.

Thanks, CW. I don't think that Mike Marlow unsderstood fully what I
was trying to say.
================================================== ====================
He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

+1, CW.

-1 or -10 or whatever you facebook idiots use. It's no surprise that Larry
would post such a thing.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what
you are. It earned you the famous "**** off" award.
----------------------------------
Truth hurts HUH?

Lew

On 7/30/12 10:37 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what
you are. It earned you the famous "**** off" award.
----------------------------------
Truth hurts HUH?

Lew


Yes, it does... but in this case you have it backwards.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ==============================
Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to turn time back 50
years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman should be subservient to men.
I'm one that does not see woman as baby factories. I'm one that believes
that woman have a right to run their own lives.
Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:16:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift grin! Spend and
inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that
just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a
good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity"
by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a
recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.

One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being
frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we
went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...



No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and
planed for times like these.

My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We
refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6
years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been
debt free ever since.

We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same
starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very
expensive cars and buying huge homes.

Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to
finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.

We are still debt free.

It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only
buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance
short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to
begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and
patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy,
this methodology has been rewarding.

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the
moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving
charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a
good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same
situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well-
paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up
for this retirement thing ...


If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.

It's amazing what you can do if ;you live within your income and don't
carry debt. Paid my house off in 10 years, though it's not fancy I
have acreage to grow food, But I've watched neighbors with $1800 plus
a months payment just consumed with survival.

Mike M

In article ,
says...

Larry Blanchard wrote:

The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen
scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the
prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a
step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

I had a good friend who introduced me to the concept of "Quality Control
Thinking," which consisted of asking the appropriate, simple, question. In
this case, the question is:

"So what?"

If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most say
"well start building solar".

If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half century.

If they're right this isn't something we can be half-assed about. We
have one technology that produces no carbon emissions, and that is fully
developed and ready for production. But the greenies like it even less
than they like global warming, and so nothing has been done.

McCain listened to the global warming people and in his campaign he said
what he was going to do about it and his numbers were spot on. We saw
where that got him.

Personally I don't give a crap anymore. It's clear that nobody is going
to do anything about it except posture and use it as an excuse for more
taxes. So either it's going to happen or it's not and either it's the
end of the world or it's not, and putting energy into whining about it
is a waste of effort.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Most of what you said is uninformed. Your last comment shows what
you are. It earned you the famous "**** off" award.
----------------------------------
Truth hurts HUH?


Nope.

--

-Mike-

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ==============================
Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to turn time
back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman should be
subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

snip
Thanks for understanding Han. What you raise above is not for this
group! That conversation could go on to what would likely be the
longest thread in the history of this newsgroup - and we've had some
pretty long ones here. We clearly think differently and I would enjoy
discourse in that area, it's just that I don't believe we ought to
open that Pandora's box here. Email me if you want and we can bat it
around a bit - and if you'd prefer not, that's ok too.

OK, but thanks, I'm pretty well done discussing it.
All the best to you and yours!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ====================
========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

J. Clarke wrote:

"So what?"

If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
say "well start building solar".

If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
century.


Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq meter.
At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.

Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness, and 50%
efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the size of the
Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of about 50GW. Imagine
the cost to build and maintain something 1200 square miles in extent!

The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips with the idea
that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.

It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living in the
shade.

On 31 Jul 2012 11:44:57 GMT, Han wrote:

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.

+1

--
When we are planning for posterity, we ought
to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine

(comparing Paine to the current CONgress deep sigh)

On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ====================
========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view.

We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.


In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.


I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

"So what?"

If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
say "well start building solar".

If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up
200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
century.


Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq meter.
At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.

Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness, and 50%
efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the size of the
Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of about 50GW. Imagine
the cost to build and maintain something 1200 square miles in extent!

The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips with the idea
that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.

It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living in the
shade.

The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth of
new plants this year.

If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
that to happen.

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do something
about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops producing CO2
at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as much as the rest
of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what
the problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger.
Pro life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ==================
== ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want
to turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as
baby factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to
run their own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share
that view.

We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.

You can make laws that give a personal choice. Obviously, that can't be
done with laws that impose a tax. But the law can say that you are free
to choose between these health insurance policies.

In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should
make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.


I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.

Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have jurisdiction
over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may say, for
instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate that pregnancy
of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will respect your right to
do as you see fit". Then, of course you have the right to end any
relationship with the woman, unless she is your responsibility as a
minor. But even then, it is her body, and she needs to live with the
consequences.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

"So what?"

If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most
say "well start building solar".

If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean
up 200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half
century.


Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq
meter. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.

Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness,
and 50% efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the
size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of
about 50GW. Imagine the cost to build and maintain something 1200
square miles in extent!

The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the
earth closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips
with the idea that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.

It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living
in the shade.

The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth
of new plants this year.

If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
that to happen.

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.

I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:


I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??

The point where things blurr is on what the definition of "reasonably" is.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have
jurisdiction over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may
say, for instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate
that pregnancy of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will
respect your right to do as you see fit". Then, of course you have
the right to end any relationship with the woman, unless she is your
responsibility as a minor. But even then, it is her body, and she
needs to live with the consequences.

Pandora's box. Thought you were not going to go there Han...

--

-Mike-

On 7/31/12 11:55 AM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/31/12 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what
the problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger.
Pro life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ==================
== ========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want
to turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as
baby factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to
run their own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share
that view.

We do that with every law we make, or we wouldn't need the laws.

You can make laws that give a personal choice. Obviously, that can't be
done with laws that impose a tax. But the law can say that you are free
to choose between these health insurance policies.

In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should
make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.


I guess we all have out own absolutes, then.
To me, the absolute if the life inside the woman.
We cannot talk about human rights without the right to be human.

Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have jurisdiction
over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may say, for
instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate that pregnancy
of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will respect your right to
do as you see fit". Then, of course you have the right to end any
relationship with the woman, unless she is your responsibility as a
minor. But even then, it is her body, and she needs to live with the
consequences.


I hold the same high regard for the rights of the woman inside the
woman's womb.
Plain and simple.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/31/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The issue
is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that has been
developed to a point where we can start construction on 1000 GW worth
of new plants this year.

If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that we
need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real effort
into developing the technology to that level. But we can't wait for
that to happen.

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??

I have yet to see a persuasive argument disputing the concept that, on a
global scale, a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.
Arguments for local disruptions, yes. Arguments for global catastrophe, no.

"Han" wrote in message ...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

He fully understood. He is a pro lifer that believes that abortion
should never be an option and pregnant woman should give birth no
matter what. The fact that the kid might be born no matter what the
problem, including cases where the mothers life is in danger. Pro
life? No, it's anti woman.

Your last comment shows what you are.
================================================== ====================
========== Yes, it does. I'm one of those people that don't want to
turn time back 50 years. I'm one that doesn't believe that woman
should be subservient to men. I'm one that does not see woman as baby
factories. I'm one that believes that woman have a right to run their
own lives. Don't bother replying. You have been plonked.

Yawn....

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone should
act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and related
subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who should make
her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute
================================================== ========================================
Agreed.

Han wrote:

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.

I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??

Yes. It's called "futility."

Your efforts could be put to better use than being part of the bucket
brigade trying to bail the Titanic.