A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What - Intelligent Thought?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old February 13th 07, 10:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...

My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.


Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.


Ads
  #82  
Old February 13th 07, 10:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
she would
take commercial flights.


Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.

And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.

The problem with you is that you'll cry corruption at any questionable thing
a Republican does and you won't notice far worse on the Liberal side.

But then we always knew that about you.


  #83  
Old February 13th 07, 10:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
They were
marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
combustion
engines was in the 1880s.


By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
ought to be REALLY good.


  #84  
Old February 14th 07, 01:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
y_p_w
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message

...



I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
she would
take commercial flights.


Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.


The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican
representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned)
as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most
opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she
could fly a large entourage.

And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.


Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time
to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift
Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more
pressing matters.

What do you think it really more likely?

1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they
wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those
big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new
Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and
asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in".
They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are
outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we
give you and like it".

--or--

2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the
89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home
in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it
to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes.
She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home
and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what
can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the
negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter
stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather
conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it
by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to
"non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies
for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks
them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold
of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it
out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed
after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky".

-- --

Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was
assigned last Thursday.

  #85  
Old February 14th 07, 01:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,199
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 7:13 pm, "y_p_w" wrote:
On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message


...


I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
she would
take commercial flights.


Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.


The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican
representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned)
as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most
opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she
could fly a large entourage.

And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.


Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time
to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift
Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more
pressing matters.

What do you think it really more likely?

1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they
wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those
big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new
Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and
asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in".
They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are
outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we
give you and like it".

--or--

2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the
89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home
in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it
to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes.
She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home
and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what
can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the
negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter
stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather
conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it
by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to
"non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies
for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks
them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold
of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it
out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed
after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky".

-- --

Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was
assigned last Thursday.


That this is still ongoing is ridiculous. I like Pelosi about as much
as I like syphilis, and view them similarly. I was ****ed at the first
reports,which were WAY out of line with what was really going on, as
the following detailed reporting made clear.
To try and make this into something is ridiculous. It's the "Boy who
cried wolf". When she DOES, do hideous ****, and she will, noone is
going to notice because of all the noise that's already been made over
nothing.
People are all wound up over this but the former #3 at the CIA has
been idicted on contracting charges and that's not even on TK's radar
screen. Maybe because there is NO corruption as he has told us OVER
AND OVER AND OVER, it's all a plot.

From a source Tom likes:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251760,00.html

SAN DIEGO - The CIA's former No. 3 official and a defense contractor
were charged Tuesday with fraud and other offenses in the corruption
investigation that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham to prison,
The Associated Press has learned.

From the Wa. Post.

Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade
Ann Scott Tyson, A01 (Post) 02/12/2007 Article ...Meanwhile, the
unexpected deployment of five additional Army brigades into Baghdad
has created an urgent need for 2,000 Humvees with the new armor.Shiite
forces in recent months have stepped up their targeting of U.S.
soldiers in Baghdad with sophisticated EFPs, described...

More well thought out planning from our current leadership.
Bill C

  #86  
Old February 14th 07, 04:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Fred Fredburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 503
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

William Asher wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in
:

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


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


Not healthy. I was a member of the engineering team that first studied
the feasibility of breaking wind. We determined that the net energy loss
involved would accelerate the universe's progress towards entropy. And
stuff.

Now that you mention it in this context, it would also accelerate the
creation of greenhouse gases.

I don't really weigh 300 lbs, I've just been refraining from passing gas
in the interest of humanity. Just say "NO!" to getting your finger pulled!
  #87  
Old February 14th 07, 05:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

In article ,
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?


The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think it isn't
worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a refueling
stop, in addition to the logistics of security. Again, she isn't the one requesting
the plane - the Sergeant at Arms and the White House want it this way and the DoD
are complying.

It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make it across
the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of silly. If
there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected, then they need
to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not good: expensive,
time consuming, etc.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #88  
Old February 14th 07, 05:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
she would
take commercial flights.


Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
(Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
military roles.

And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.

The problem with you is that you'll cry corruption at any questionable thing
a Republican does and you won't notice far worse on the Liberal side.

But then we always knew that about you.


Tom, that story has been knocked down a metric buttload of times. Give it up. She
isn't the one asking for the plane. Besides, as you well know, her district is in
San Francisco, not Virginia. The flight she wanted to make was home for Leo
McCarthy's funeral. By the way, Hastert used (mostly) a C-20, which is essentially a
Gulfstream III. That has a cappacity of 26 people, not one as you stated above. You
are the one crying corruption when there isn't any.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #89  
Old February 14th 07, 05:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
They were marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
combustion engines was in the 1880s.


By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
ought to be REALLY good.


The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to
acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty,
burned dirty.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #90  
Old February 14th 07, 06:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
y_p_w
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 8:32 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
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?


The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think it isn't
worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a refueling
stop, in addition to the logistics of security. Again, she isn't the one requesting
the plane - the Sergeant at Arms and the White House want it this way and the DoD
are complying.


Wel - the $200,000 figure seems to be for the C-32, and there's still
no evidence of Speaker Pelosi ever asking for a specific aircraft. My
understanding is that the C-37A she was flown in on Thursday and back
to Washington has a far lower operating cost.

It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make it across
the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of silly. If
there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected, then they need
to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not good: expensive,
time consuming, etc.


You'll generally notice that there aren't many commercial flights that
go cross-country in a 737. The specified range of a 737-700 is
theoretically enough to fly cross-country, but I don't imagine most
airlines want to take the chance of losing a plane or at the very
least making an unscheduled refueling stop. I do understand that the
newer 737-700ER has a longer range, but most American carriers seem to
want a larger plane for cross-country trips.

Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
without scratching.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ? [email protected] Racing 21 October 14th 06 02:15 PM
[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design Ernst Noch Racing 63 September 1st 05 06:25 PM
Intelligent comment Mikefule Unicycling 25 July 21st 05 03:05 AM
more intelligent computers Miles General 7 December 8th 04 01:52 AM
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 7 September 30th 03 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.