| Author | Message | ||
     Bigblock |
Again, I will say no insult was intended to be directed at you in particular, we's and you's get used to personilize our arguments. Of course, solar and wind or nuclear, or anything at this present time aren't going to replace fossil but renewable, wind and solar are mature enough right now to certainly help reduce our independance on fossil, I think you'll find( there I go using "you" again  )especially with the most recent oil prices this is going to be happening more and more, and probably on a local and private level much more than a large scale centralized production level. By the way, I would not call myself a liberal or a green, I am a registered Libertarian. Way more conservative than republicans and way wackier than liberals or greens! This forum is titled stop the gas increase, and this is my opinion on what I think can help control the prices of energy. Energy has many prices, including infrastructure, development, distribution, clean-up costs, and , yes, even long term health effects. Again, I realize my last post may not have been as courteous as it could have been on rereading it, so again I apologize to any I may have insulted, I hope that's enough said, And I suppose my skin could be a little thicker as well. | ||
| Bigblock |
in this country, it seems the taxpayers get asked to bail out most of the NP, and they usually operate at less than 50% of their design capacity. You can quote your "worldwide stats" all you want, but that doesn't wash here, o grammar school teacher. And there you go with the personal insults again. This isn't some "story" about a solar power plant in LI, it is an active solar home, and it works. Again, don't you think first hand experience counts for anything? Am I a liar? I saw the meter running backwards, as he was racking up credit on a cloudy day while running his equipment. Are we to only believe some "3rd party data" provided by who knows who, there is plenty of third party data to show the viability of solar and wind, you seem to only believe Your "3rd party data" that supports your argument, but have no ears to hear anything else. Now I am outa here. | ||
| Oldog |
Bruce & Big Block what are your views on developing hydrogen fusion technologies do you all think it's a waste of time and money? My only thinking on nuclear is that the plants don't seem to have that long of a life and by using the low grade uranium the waste generated seems to be greater, whats your .02$ | ||
| Bigblock |
Well almost outa here. So, brucelee, where is all your third party data to refute solar and wind, and show how efficient nuclear is in USA now. I don't see anything you have given us other than some quotes from a foreign minister Downer of Australia, I wonder how much of an impartial 3rd party he is, and what the relevance to the situation in america is. You are real quick to ask for 3rd party data, but I don't see you actually providing any. Real 3rd party, not oil company or nuclear power company or advocate sponsored data. | ||
| Bigblock |
I am no expert on nuclear technology, but it seems that fuysion power is somewhat of a holy grail. If they could really produce power with fusion that was both cost effective and safe, with no dangerous waste to dispose of, and make the life of the plant long enough to justify building it and the possibility of disposing of the radioactive plant pieces, if indeed there are any,, then I would certainly be in favor of such a technology. A high shool friend's father worked in livermore on the large laser test array there, nuclear fusion being the main area of his research, and while an incredible thing it was, I am not sure if they even achieved break-even in his lifetime, let alone made an excess of power.( he died of cancer some few years ago) I think if they actually can develop a efficient and workable technology, then, I suppose it's not a waste of money, but I suppose up to now it is, but I think that type of research wins big on "cool" factor, and helping find new tech for other applications, my friends dad had the coolest shop, and was always working on all kinds of neat stuff, and actually had a lot of practical applications that he developed, and he was a troubleshooter par exceelance for many agencies, public and private, includine the DOD | ||
| Brucelee |
"Of course, solar and wind or nuclear, or anything at this present time aren't going to replace fossil but renewable, wind and solar are mature enough right now to certainly help reduce our independance on fossil, I think you'll find( there I go using "you" again )especially with the most recent oil prices this is going to be happening more and more, and probably on a local and private level much more than a large scale centralized production level. " I certainly agree that as the price of ANY energy resource changes, this will make other sources more or less attractive. My beef was with the suggestion from M2 that the government should start to "rig prices" so that demand for cheaper fossil fuels was diminished. This method simply artificially tries to make one source cheaper and in the end, only ends up slowing up supplies for the disaffected source. If solar, wind, or nuclear energy are to fill our bill, it should be on the underlying price relationships, not because some GREEN has decided that solar power is more virtuous. In other words, lets not have the government making bets, lets let the market make the call. | ||
| Brucelee |
"Well almost outa here. So, brucelee, where is all your third party data to refute solar and wind, and show how efficient nuclear is in USA now." If you recall, you indicated that wind and solar energy were cost competitive with fossil fuel sources. Since these technologies are but a speck on the energy grid, I doubted that. Seems to me that if they were cost effective we would see a huge adoption of them. Failing that, you have some good data on how they can or would be? You have provided nothing but your friends house story. So, I am still skeptical but open to some other form of data. Re: Nuclear Energy--again since there are over 1000 plants in operation world wide, I would suggest that if this technology were NOT cost competitive, there are some very stupid investors, governments, etc. out there and they have continued to lose money for over 30 ys. Like to hear more about that. Moreover, if these plants were cost competitive when oil was $25 a barrel, how much more so would they be now? If you want to do a fascinating read, do a google on France's recent reevaluation of their nuclear power program. Very persuasive indeed. Oh and BTW-don't be insulted when I ask you for data, this is not personal. It simply means your friend's solar house is not a terribly persuasive argument. | ||
| M2me |
My beef was with the suggestion from M2 that the government should start to "rig prices" so that demand for cheaper fossil fuels was diminished. You are missing my point and not dealing with reality. The reality is that government already "rigs prices" through tax subsidies, etc. to fossil fuel producers. See the Energy Bill that recently passed. I am not saying that government should start to rig prices. Government already does. I'm saying that government should rig prices to make fossil fuels less attractive, not more so like it has been doing for decades. Look at the chart I posted earlier. A slight change in our energy policy would make a huge difference in the world wide demand for oil. The question isn't whether government policy should be used to rig it. Government policy already rigs it! The question is what the government policy's goal should be. Short term profit boosting for oil and gas companies, or a long term energy plan for the United States? | ||
| Brucelee |
http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-13.htm This is a great site for information about nuclear power. And I booted the data on the number of power plants world wide which is around 557, not 1000 as I stated. | ||
| Brucelee |
M2-you will need to elucidate how the US Govt subsidizes oil producers. I do not know how this is in the energy bill but perhaps you can tell me. To the degree that is done, I would not support it nor any other subsidies for that matter. As every sane economist would argue, demand and supply will adjust if the price mechanism is allowed to work. As I cited earlier in the this discussion, gas prices adjusted for inflation were essentially flat from 1950 to recently. There is no reason to expect that supply and demand have ceased to work in the long run just because of this recent spike. Rising prices dampen demand and stimulate supply. Always! Face it, you trust government intrusion in economic matters, I do not. Price increases tied to taxes do nothing to stimulate supply, only soften demand. Money diverted to government has no economic value add in this case. | ||
| M2me |
you will need to elucidate how the US Govt subsidizes oil producers. I do not know how this is in the energy bill but perhaps you can tell me. Offers a total $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives over 10 years, with nearly $9 billion earmarked for oil and gas production, electricity reliability and coal pollution projects. Less than $5 billion will be spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26189154.htm Tax breaks and incentives is another way of saying "subsidizes". Maybe the oil and gas producers don't understand free market economics. I guess the price of oil more than doubling in the past four years isn't incentive enough for them. They need billions in pubic funds as additional incentive. Here's a few interesting details that probably have oil and gas companies smiling: Offers energy companies royalty relief for drilling in Gulf of Mexico deep waters. Allows oil refiners that increase capacity of existing plants by at least 5 percent to expense half the cost of investments. Dropped language in Senate bill requiring the federal government to find ways to cut U.S. oil demand, or to require better fuel mileage for gas-guzzlers. You don't trust government intrusion in economic matters? Do you live on an uncharted island? Government has been intruding in economic matters for thousands of years. Deal with it! | ||
| Brucelee |
"Tax breaks and incentives is another way of saying "subsidizes". Maybe the oil and gas producers don't understand free market economics. I guess the price of oil more than doubling in the past four years isn't incentive enough for them. They need billions in pubic funds as additional incentive. " I am going to plow through the actual bill rather than rely on Rueters summary. What I can tell you is that if you drop an entities tax rate, this is not a subsidy unless they have just gotten some special deal over some other similar entity. I have no idea what the tax rates or rules are for oil producers so I will reserve judgement. I will say that as a user of oil products, I certainly would not want the govt to RAISE the tax rate on oil producers as that would find its way into prices. I am for tax relief for everyone, including me. "Here's a few interesting details that probably have oil and gas companies smiling: Offers energy companies royalty relief for drilling in Gulf of Mexico deep waters." I don't know what this means, do you? Allows oil refiners that increase capacity of existing plants by at least 5 percent to expense half the cost of investments. " This simply allows the recapture of depreciation more quickly for certain projects. Why is this a bad thing? "Dropped language in Senate bill requiring the federal government to find ways to cut U.S. oil demand, or to require better fuel mileage for gas-guzzlers." Write you Congressman and asked him why this is a good or bad thing! I have no problem keeping the US Govt out of regulating demand for oil. Sorry but I don't think you have convinced anyone that the Feds need to be MORE DEEPLY involved in energy matters. Frankly, I think they have done quite enough thanks. | ||
| Brucelee |
Me By the way, as you continue to rant on about oil company profits, you might want to go back to ECON 101 (did you ever study that?) and brush up on how capital markets supply funds and demand a return, and its interaction with supply and demand. You might then understand why higher profits for oil industry firms right now is in nation's long term best interests. Here is a hint? How long does it take to produce a working oil form exploration to pumping? How much on average does that cost? Is that cost going up or down in the last decade? What are some of the costs being driven by. I would tutor you on it but you will learn better if you read it on your own. Pop quiz on Tuesday morning. (Message edited by brucelee on September 05, 2005) | ||
| M2me |
I am for tax relief for everyone, including me. Here are some other provisions of the bill. Are these good or bad? You say that tax breaks for oil producing companies are "good" but "government involvement" for renewable energy is "bad". I'm confused. Which is it?
Royalty relief for drilling in Gulf of Mexico deep water means that oil companies will have to pay less royalties on oil drilled there. Private companes pay royalties on oil, gas or other resources that they produce from federally leased land. It's part of the lease. The more oil they get, the more they pay. This provision is an incentive to drill for oil in Gulf of Mexico deep water. You and Blake are cut from the same cloth. You guys spin everything so much that there is no way to understand what the facts and truth are. It's a debating style that does not seek the truth. It merely seeks to confuse the opponent. It's goofy and seems pointless! The facts and truth are that government is DEEPLY involved in energy matters and has been for a very long time. I am arguing about the details of that involvement and whether it should be tweaked to move us toward lessening our nation's dependence on oil as an energy resource. That's it. Please stop trying to spin it into something else! | ||
| Brucelee |
Ah, try to keep your cool and a clear head. You are fogging up the mirror. "I am for tax relief for everyone, including me." I will reiterate this, but I should add, especially me. "Here are some other provisions of the bill. Are these good or bad? You say that tax breaks for oil producing companies are "good" but "government involvement" for renewable energy is "bad". I'm confused. Which is it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: "Allows $800 million in tax-credit bonds by 2008 for renewable energy investments by municipal power authorities and rural cooperatives. " Don't know enough to have an opinion. Unlike you, I will admit to that frequently. "Offers tax credits for purchases of hybrid or fuel cell vehicles, with the size of the credit linked to the weight of the vehicle and its fuel economy." Why? Why try to make these vehicles cost effective if they are not? Frankly, rising prices MAY do this without a government subsidy, so why bother. BTW-do YOU drive a Prius, tell me that you do! "Offers 30 percent tax credit for purchases of residential solar water heating or photovoltaic equipment through 2007." Ditto above. This has been tried before and these technologies still suck economically or the tax credit would not be needed! Shoot, I got one of the original solar tax credits back in the 70s. House still sucked and was NOT cost effective, even with the tax credit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Royalty relief for drilling in Gulf of Mexico deep water means that oil companies will have to pay less royalties on oil drilled there. Private companes pay royalties on oil, gas or other resources that they produce from federally leased land. It's part of the lease. The more oil they get, the more they pay. This provision is an incentive to drill for oil in Gulf of Mexico deep water." This is good. Lowers cost of drilling and production. Generates more oil for me to use! "You and Blake are cut from the same cloth. " Geez, I hope so! Blake is one of my heroes. "You guys spin everything so much that there is no way to understand what the facts and truth are. It's a debating style that does not seek the truth. It merely seeks to confuse the opponent. It's goofy and seems pointless! " Who is debating you? The laws of supply and demand will work no matter what you think of them. Confess, you are just a frustrated socialist, who thinks that "good people" can do better than selfish people. That train, my friend, has left the station! | ||
| Brucelee |
Perhaps Stanford Economist Sowell can shed some light for us all? An oil 'crisis'? Thomas Sowell (archive) August 23, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend With oil prices passing the record-breaking $60 a barrel level and heading even higher, the word "crisis" is now being used and all sorts of political "solutions" are being proposed. Is there really a crisis? One of the dictionary definitions of a crisis is "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." Is that where we are when it comes to oil? Are we either going to solve the problem of oil or see it destroy us economically? Political and media definitions of "crisis" are much looser than the dictionary's definition. In political semantics, the word "crisis" has come to mean any situation that someone wants to use to justify doing something that will be called a "solution." Crises are a dime a dozen by political and media definitions. Almost as common as crises are conspiracy theories. Whenever the price of gasoline shoots up, California's Senator Barbara Boxer can be depended on to demand an investigation of the oil companies. The fact that previous investigations have found no conspiracies is no deterrent. Why, then, are oil prices so high? There is no esoteric reason. It is plain old supply and demand. With the economies of huge nations like China and India developing more rapidly, now that they have freed their markets from many stifling government controls, more oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply. What should our government do? We will be lucky if they do nothing. But, with Congressional elections coming up next year, that is very unlikely. Candidates for Congress next year, and politicians hoping to run for President in 2008, are virtually guaranteed to come up with all sorts of "solutions." These "solutions" will be packaged as brilliant new ideas, courageous and far-seeing. But most will be retreads of old ideas that remain untested or which have been tested in the past and found wanting. Price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for cars, "alternative energy sources," and other nostrums are sure to surface once again. The last time we had price controls on gasoline, we had long lines of cars at filling stations, these lines sometimes stretching around the block, with motorists sitting in those lines for hours. That nonsense ended almost overnight when President Ronald Reagan, ignoring the cries of liberal politicians and the liberal media, got rid of price controls with a stroke of the pen. What happened is what usually happens when government restrictions are ended: There was more production of oil. In fact the 1980s became known as the era of an "oil glut" and gasoline prices declined. Today production is being held back, not by price controls, but by political hysteria whenever anyone suggests actually producing more oil ourselves. Organized nature cults go ballistic at the thought that we might drill for oil in some remote part of Alaska that 99 percent of Americans will never see, including 99 percent of the nature cultists. People used to ask whether there is any sound if a tree falls in an empty forest. Today, there are deafening political sounds over oil-drilling in an empty wilderness. Nor can we drill for oil offshore, or in many places on land, again for political reasons. Nor can we build enough refineries or even build hydroelectric dams as alternative sources of power. Many of the same people who cry "No blood for oil!" also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents -- in other words, trading blood for oil. Apparently the only things we can do are the things in vogue among nature cultists and the politicians that cater to them, such as windmills and electric cars. That is why we would be better off if the government did nothing and let people adjust their own energy consumption individually in their own ways as the prices of gasoline and fuel oil rise. But that is also politically unlikely. ©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. Economics is a great field for nostalgia buffs because the same old fallacies keep coming back, like golden oldies in music. Back in 1960, a best-selling book titled "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard showed that the known reserves of petroleum in the United States were only enough to last another 13 years at the current rate of usage. Yet, 13 years later, the United States had larger known reserves of petroleum than in 1960. This has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century -- despite an ever-growing use of oil. There is of course some finite amount of oil and of other natural resources. The big leap is in going from saying that there is a finite amount to saying that we are running out. When John Stuart Mill was a young man, he worried that we were running out of music, since there were only 8 notes and therefore there was only a finite amount of music possible. At that point Brahms and Tchaikovsky had not yet been born nor jazz created. No matter how many centuries' supply of oil there is on the planet, the high cost of oil exploration ensures that only the most minute fraction of that oil will be known at any given time. Thus there have long been recurring false predictions that we were running out of petroleum, as well as other natural resources. The high cost of extracting and processing oil ensures that not even half of the oil in a known pool of oil will be brought to the surface and sent off to the refineries. A generation ago, only about a quarter of the oil in a pool was likely to be brought to the surface. That is because the cost of extracting and processing oil from a given pool tends to increase as you drain from deeper into that pool. Even at $60 a barrel, most of the oil that is known to exist is too costly to extract. How much will be extracted depends on how much higher the price of oil goes -- and how much new technology can recover more oil at lower costs. What if the government did nothing about oil prices? Rising prices would lead people to reduce their use of oil and lead producers to drain some of the more costly oil out of the ground. Many people in politics and in the media seem to be alarmed about the rising cost of gasoline and of the petroleum from which it is made. But they only seem to be. What they are really alarmed about are the prices -- and prices and costs are very different things. Prices are what pay for costs. The government can impose price controls on gasoline or petroleum tomorrow but that will not have the slightest effect on the cost of oil exploration or the cost of extracting and processing the oil that is found. When the costs are no longer being fully covered by prices, production is likely to be cut back, whether it is the production of oil or anything else. This is not speculation. This is what has been happening for literally thousands of years, going back to price controls in ancient Rome and Babylon. Yet price controls have always been popular politically, despite being counterproductive economically. After all, how many votes do economists have and how many voters know economics? Some people love to believe that prices should be kept down to a "reasonable" level, something that everyone can "afford." Yet the notion of "reasonable" prices is itself unreasonable. The costs of producing oil don't depend on what we can afford or consider "reasonable." Nor does the cost of anything else. Someone can always invoke the image of an elderly person on a fixed pension being unable to buy enough fuel oil to keep warm in the winter. Taking care of such isolated situations would not make a dent in the massive government budget. But the real goal of such anecdotes is to justify imposing government controls on all of us. Make no mistake about it, there are many people out there just itching to tell us what to do -- and make us do it. That is why the word "crisis" gets used so much, and not just about oil, in order to soften us up for their taking over our lives. That is a bigger problem than the so-called "oil crisis." | ||
| M2me |
Brucelee, I've given up on you. I'm not even going to bother explaining how illogical your 08:52 pm post is. OK, I'll try! Drilling for oil sucks economically or the tax incentives for doing it would not be needed! Actually, that was super easy!  | ||
| Cochise |
Drillers get money for drilling, not only if they find oil, they can go down 100 feet, nope no oil, I'm ready. What, drill over here? Ok, nope no oil here. Who cares, I'm still gettin' paid. | ||
| Brucelee |
"I've given up on you. I'm not even going to bother explaining how illogical your 08:52 pm post is. OK, I'll try! Drilling for oil sucks economically or the tax incentives for doing it would not be needed! Actually, that was super easy! " Life is always easy in the liberal world. There are good guys and bad guys and we (the liberals) are the good guys. Well, lets try the short version. 1. I create an oil company. I need capital (cash) from both investors and lenders. I need ALOT of capital as finding and drilling for oil is very expensive. 2.To get cash from investors, I need to promise a return. From lenders, I need to promise them they get there money back with interest. 3. As a new company, I have no profits. I explain that it may take 10 years of cash flow out before I pump a drop of oil and get any money back on profits. 4. To get them to give me money, I will need average or above average profits? What do you think the hurdle rate would be here if YOU were the investor? Now, you can flex the model here. In order to continue to sink holes in the ground using cash that will not see a return for say 10 yrs, I will need to have low or high profits. Are you willing to give me YOUR money? Even YOU can figure this out! PS- Answer is, high returns are necessary to obtain capital when returns are A-uncertain B-not due for a long time. If you can't figure this out, Back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. PPS- you are truly a very lazy thinker. | ||
| Brucelee |
"Drillers get money for drilling, not only if they find oil, they can go down 100 feet, nope no oil, I'm ready. What, drill over here? Ok, nope no oil here. Who cares, I'm still gettin' paid." Well, if you are the drilling company yes. If you are oil company, who is paying the drilling company, no! Makes sense? | ||
| Cochise |
I guess what I'm saying is, drilling companies don't always try their hardest to find oil, if they don't get paid more for finding it. They should be paid a bigger amount for finding oil, and I'm sure they would "find" it a whole hell of a lot more than they do at present. It may not be that they are getting paid up front for drilling, but they may get more "grant" money for just the drilling itself. (Message edited by cochise on September 05, 2005) | ||
| Brucelee |
Cochise, This is what I was getting at earlier. As an oil company looks at each prospective well, they are doing projections as to the costs of extracting oil from that well vs. projected market prices and profits. All companies have hurdle rates for capital projects. If a project doesn't cut it, it does not get funded. The same thing is true for an oil well. If a have a "dog" of a well, very expensive to tap, I won't tap it until I think I can make some money on tapping it. I may leave it capped till prices indicate I should move. Make sense? | ||
| Blake |
Drilling companies only drill where and how far down their oil company bosses tell them. Those are the folks like Exxon, Phillips, etc, who are paying them their day-rate. Drilling companies, like the one I worked for off and on during a four year interval in the '80's are simply services contract companies, no different in concept than a contract machinist. They simply do as they are told. | ||
| Blake |
As to the deep water subsidies... the risks are much much greater, so the gov cedes that point by reducing their share of the profits. Sounds like a normal astute, up-front and honest business consideration to me. Hey, if you'll take the big risk, we'll agree to lay off a bit of our share of the profits for those wells that might show good. Businesses do that all the time for each other. Clients do it for their attorneys. Our military does it for soldiers. Businesses do it for their employees. It is standard operating procedure. Brucelee, Bigblock, M2me, others. Please keep the personal stuff out of this.  Anyone who devolves to personal attack has lost the debate. And that kind of behavior is simply prohibited on this board. John (M2me), you of all people should know that. Please send to me an email explaining to all the BadWeB custodians why, after waging yet another personal attack in lieu of congenial discussion, you should be allowed to continue posting on this board? | ||
| Brucelee |
Blake, Other than calling M2 a liberal and a lazy thinker, I think I have been pretty restrained in responding to his language. I think I have been consistent in my arguments also. I do not favor the govt adding taxes to the price of our gas, which was the original issue raised way back in this thread. Having said all that, I will try harder not to be provocative with him. He loses his cool! Thanks for the heads up! | ||
| M2me |
What personal attacks? I have seen no personal attacks from anyone, not from me and not from Brucelee. Pointing out that someone's post is illogical, when in fact it is, is not a personal attack. You can not oppose government involvement in the promotion of alternative fuels on the grounds that it isn't "free market capitalism" and at the same time praise tax breaks and incentives for oil drilling. That's not logical. You are praising the very thing you are opposing. I have pointed out again and again that it is pure fantasy to think that energy is based purely on free market capitalism. It isn't and hasn't been for a very long time. That's the reality we need to work with. It isn't logical to base your arguements on some fanstasy world where energy prices are dictated solely by free market capitalism. I have shown data and links about the Energy Bill. I'm sorry but these are facts. There is lots of government involvement with the production and choices of energy sources. If you want to argue logically you have to deal with facts. | ||
| CJXB |
What personal attacks? You don't trust government intrusion in economic matters? Do you live on an uncharted island? Government has been intruding in economic matters for thousands of years. Deal with it! Try to read what you post and see if everything you post is really necessary, for instance you could have left out the part in red in your post above, I would take that as a personal attack. It contributed nothing to the discussion/debate, and without it takes nothing away from your post. The red comes across as rude and meant to be insulting and imply stupidity, right ?! You and Blake are cut from the same cloth. You guys spin everything so much that there is no way to understand what the facts and truth are. It's a debating style that does not seek the truth. It merely seeks to confuse the opponent. It's goofy and seems pointless! You wouldn’t call this a personal attack !?? I don’t see anything useful at all or how it contributes to the discussion what so ever ?? This may be your perception, but that doesn’t make it reality and certainly didn’t need to be posted, call what I do goofy and pointless and see if I don’t take it as a personal attack. You can do better than this m2me, I know you can !! I realize there have been unnecessary comments by all those that Blake pointed out, but you ask the question, I’m just trying to answer it from my perspective !! CJ | ||
| Mikej |
"Gas Prices Drive Man To Commute By Horse" http://www.wral.com/apstrangenews/4935653/detail.html | ||
| Ara |
Don't step in the exhaust. | ||
| M2me |
CJ, you're right. The parts you have in red could have and should have been left off of my posts. I would ask any and all custodians to read over all my posts on this thread. With the exception of the words that CJ has already pointed out, where have I waged "yet another personal attack in lieu of congenial discussion"? Where have I lost my cool? |
