What - Intelligent Thought?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
fine power source.

William Asher wrote:
Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.

Refried beans - the ultimate energy source.

On Feb 12, 9:51 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/11/07 10:02 PM, in article
m, "Kurgan Gringioni"





wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
. com, "Kurgan Gringioni"

wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST wrote:

It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......

Dumbass -

Ripping our economy to shreds?

Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.

In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in ****holes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.

Nice job of patriotism, you ****ing moron.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

You do not know what I want you piece of ****.......
You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge

Moron -

You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".

I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
exchange for their oil.

Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

BULL**** assbag! You show me where I EVER said that! I SAID making drastic
changes to just OUR economy would be devastating.....



Dumbass -


How would spending money on local energy sources be devastating
compared to sending it to OPEC nations? Seems like to me that it would
be good for our economy - hiring American companies to manufacture
windfarms and the like.

Sorry to see that you are pro-OPEC, perhaps not in word, but in deed.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Feb 12, 10:24 pm, ST wrote:


concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.

Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
100K investment right?????



Dumbass -


I already stated that massive investment in wind farms would need
federal price supports because the energy market is subject to OPEC
manipulation. If they see too many alternative sources coming on line,
they raise production until the price goes down far enough to kill the
alternative projects (like the Exxon Colony project I referenced
earlier). Then they cut their production again after the alternative
projects are dead.

Nice to see that you are pro-OPEC.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Feb 11, 11:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message

...

In article , ST wrote:

And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
windbags.

The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
plane that
will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
House says so
too. What's the deal?

The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC?

Dude,

If you'd ever tried to drive through Tysons Corner,
you'd know that is a perfectly reasonable request.

Ben

Jack Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:


The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.


Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

Gee.. how fscking funny.

Considerinmg that your hero, g.w . the lesser not only suggested a
military plane but thinks the non-stop flight is a good idea as well.

Gotta love con-hypos. As long as something serves their party, then all
is good.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:31:26 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".

See, you're not as stupid as they say. When you can't defend your
argument, attack an argument that I didn't make.

But you knew that - I think (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On 12 Feb 2007 14:32:59 -0800, "Bill C"
wrote:

Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
don't know **** and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
commie plotters.
Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
with no understanding of engineering would go there.
Bill C

I knew that. Just checking to see if you did. Since I invented the
stock market, I knew it all along.

For me, life has been a bear. Mr. Bull should be along any moment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:05:43 GMT, ST wrote:

You have some kind of controls to keep the wind stable? Storage of power?

I'm not sure where you got from my comments that I own a wind turbine
or even do research on it. And while I've done my share of odd jobs in
my life, I don't claim to be a research anything or ever to have done
it in my past, once I got out of business school. Unless the odd tax
question counts.

Try again - I read an article in the WSJ. My sole claim to authority
was that I read an article in the WSJ. My choice is to believe you
(congratulations on a post without obscenities, BTW) and Mr. Bull, or
believe the WSJ. In this case, I choose, yes, the WSJ.

To actually anser your question (to differentiate me from Mr. Bull),
no, I can't control wind stability enough to keep my Stetson on my
head. Storage of power is plugging the phone and tablet PC to the wall
at night. Do either of these count?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:20:47 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

If you want to complain about a politician flying in military planes, why didn't
you complain about George W. Bush using an S-3B Viking to get to the USS Abraham
Lincoln back on 22 May, 2003?

The Democrats in Congress aren't complaining - they just ask he use an
Osprey next time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:53:42 -0800, "Fred Fredburger"
wrote:

It is, however, unshakable Christian doctrine that man is sinful.

****ing bunch of Liberals.

Ahh, now we get to the root of the jealousy and anger. Even after poll
after poll shows conservatives are getting more than us liberals, they
think we are having all the fun.

Ok, maybe that works out. Liberals can enjoy it all the time while
conservatives can only enjoy it when it is for the express purpose of
having babies. Otherwise, its sinful. And not to be enjoyed.

And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...