http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* hi - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1d63346396a424a7?hl=en
* New Phyx Theoré - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/989ed32c3ae8ea06?hl=en
* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 11 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* OT: Calibrating a sound level pressure meter - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/21a5e0c259fd4f68?hl=en
* What is going on chemical market research? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/f643314868da4250?hl=en
* QUESTIONS& ANSWERS ABOUT ISLAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fc2b276be2f8be08?hl=en
* Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
* unijunction needed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/ecf807243db79a90?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1d63346396a424a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 11:48 pm
From: "shahzypk@hotmail.com"
Just Visite These Sites
http://fashion1298.blogspot.com
http://cricketin2011.blogspot.com
http://fashion4paki.blogspot.com
http://hollywood1233.blogspot.com
http://hotbollywoodactressesno1.blogspot.com
http://pakihealthpk.blogspot.com
http://dogbreedspk.blogspot.com
http://fashion1299.blogspot.com
http://mehndipk12.blogspot.com
http://goldandsilverpk.blogspot.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Phyx Theoré
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/989ed32c3ae8ea06?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 3:06 am
From: mohamed Rochdi
free porn
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 4:24 am
From: kreed
On Sep 27, 4:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> kreed wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>
> >>> The reports are here:
> >>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...>
> >>> I've only read the one on the physical science basis.
>
> >>> The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
> >>> thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous reports.
> >>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
> >>> "...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
> >>> aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
> >>> development, risk management and the framing of a response
> >>> through both adaptation and mitigation."
> >>> In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what to
> >>> do. I can't wait.
>
> >> **No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
> >> appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant
> >> and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel
> >> industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be
> >> dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.
>
> > That is a very scientific observation.
> > We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.
>
> **I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the
> science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.
>
>
>
> >> Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
> >> action will be too little too late.
>
> > Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
> > constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling
> > us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin,
> > cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides
> > of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial
> > shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about
> > lies and lead productive lives.
>
> **I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and
> comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid science, in
> preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach. You, Tony
> Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and Alan Jones are a good match
> for each other. None of you deals with the science.
>
That is an extremely contradictory statement. You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual, and as being
"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.
Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
These people are therefore owned, and both groups who own them want
the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.
We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.
This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.
the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too. If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.
Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 4:42 am
From: kreed
On Sep 27, 11:14 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Arfa Daily wrote:
> >> Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
> >> seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
> >> have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
> >> chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
> >> so often the case in these discussions :-)
>
> > **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
> > the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
> > longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
> > a cogent argument. It's better for my health.
>
> > Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
> > research. Here are some prices in the US:
>
> >http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...
>
> > Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
> > than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
> > in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
>
> > I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
> > preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
> > Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
> > significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
> > the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
> > approximately 6 times that of ICs.
>
> > Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
> > deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
> > reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
> > rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
> > experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
> > the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
> > industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
> > the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
> > do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
> > political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
> > issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
> > warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
> > government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
> > issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
> > was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
> > planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
> > that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
> > ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
> > today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
>
> > Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
> > (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.
>
> > --
> > Trevor Wilson
> >www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
> that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
> have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
> deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" .... but ... I can almost see the
> head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
> that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
> this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
> for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
> world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
> religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
> down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
> in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
> any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
> programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
> there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
> down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
> twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
> "CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.
>
Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.
There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.
Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore. Be very careful of
them.
Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.
It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.
The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on - wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.
> Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
> models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
> when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
> variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
> Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
> from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
> place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
> his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
> inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
> result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
> as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
> ? What kind of scientist is he ?
>
> My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
> situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
> and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
> sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
> isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
> Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
> of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
> up and be counted.
>
> And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
> stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
> movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
> they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
> have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
> man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
> of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
> similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.
>
> I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
> warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
> understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
> and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
> subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
> But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
> hysteria that has gripped the world over it.
>
> I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
> changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
> activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
> all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
> There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
> of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
> activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
> is still out.
>
> Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
> expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
> their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
> really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.
>
> Arfa
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 5:20 am
From: F Murtz
Phil Allison wrote:
> "kreed"
>
>> Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.
>
>
> The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981 edition, gives both spellings as equal
> alternatives.
>
> So do others, both US and UK ones - PLUS the MS Spell Checker !!!
>
>
> The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
> Breathes and CHANGES.
>
> So we can all have * FUN * with it.
>
> And bets of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants off to hell !!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
In english the word is Straitjacket.
straitjacket // n. & v. (also straightjacket)
n.
1 a strong garment with long sleeves for confining the arms of a violent
prisoner, mental patient, etc.
2 restrictive measures.
v.tr. (-jacketed, -jacketing)
1 restrain with a straitjacket.
2 severely restrict.
Others alter the word and some misguided dictionaries follow.
for instance if you want to alter a word, stand outside the macquarie
university and yell the word out a few times.
I have never seen a dictionary introduce new words so readily as macquarie.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 5:27 am
From: "Phil Allison"
"Fuckwit Murtz"
** Hey FUCKWIT.
DO NOT post quotes without the source.
> Others alter the word and some misguided dictionaries follow.
** HEY FUCKWIT !!
Got any idea how dictionaries are created ??
Obviously fucking NOT.
----------------------------
The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
Breathes and CHANGES !!
So we can have * FUN * with it.
And best of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants like this Murtz cretin off to
hell !!!!!!!!!
May he long reside there, in a straightjacket and ROT !!
... Phil
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 6:43 am
From: F Murtz
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Fuckwit Murtz"
>
> ** Hey FUCKWIT.
>
> DO NOT post quotes without the source.
The Oxford English Dictionary which is an english dictionary,Not one
which puts every diverse weird spelling that it can come up with.
The oxford eventually puts alternative spellings in when they become
accepted but macquarie does it early which accelerates the misspelling
enormously so that it becomes common more quickly.
>
>
>
>> Others alter the word and some misguided dictionaries follow.
>
> ** HEY FUCKWIT !!
>
> Got any idea how dictionaries are created ??
>
> Obviously fucking NOT.
> ----------------------------
>
>
> The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
> Breathes and CHANGES !!
>
> So we can have * FUN * with it.
>
> And best of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants like this Murtz cretin off to
> hell !!!!!!!!!
>
> May he long reside there, in a straightjacket and ROT !!
>
>
> ... Phil
>
>
>
>
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 6:44 am
From: kreed
On Sep 27, 9:42 pm, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:14 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Arfa Daily wrote:
> > >> Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
> > >> seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
> > >> have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
> > >> chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
> > >> so often the case in these discussions :-)
>
> > > **Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
> > > the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
> > > longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
> > > a cogent argument. It's better for my health.
>
> > > Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
> > > research. Here are some prices in the US:
>
> > >http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...
>
> > > Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
> > > than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
> > > in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
>
> > > I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
> > > preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
> > > Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
> > > significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
> > > the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
> > > approximately 6 times that of ICs.
>
> > > Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
> > > deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
> > > reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
> > > rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
> > > experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
> > > the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
> > > industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
> > > the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
> > > do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
> > > political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
> > > issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
> > > warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
> > > government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
> > > issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
> > > was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
> > > planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
> > > that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
> > > ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
> > > today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
>
> > > Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
> > > (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.
>
> > > --
> > > Trevor Wilson
> > >www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> > Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
> > that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
> > have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
> > deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" .... but ... I can almost see the
> > head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
> > that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
> > this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
> > for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
> > world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
> > religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
> > down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
> > in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
> > any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
> > programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
> > there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
> > down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
> > twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
> > "CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.
>
> Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
> know that the speaker
> or the forum is bought and has no credibility.
>
> There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
> "tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
> discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
> building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
> draconian internet censorship) etc.
>
> Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
> their lies are exposed
> to the world, and no one believes them anymore. Be very careful of
> them.
> Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
> the
> "scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
> up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
> it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
> by supporting this scam.
>
> It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
> was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
> common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
> truth.
>
> The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
> emperors new clothes on - wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
> deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
> class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
> be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" but of
> course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
> enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.
>
> > Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
> > models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
> > when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
> > variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
> > Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
> > from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
> > place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
> > his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
> > inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
> > result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
> > as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
> > ? What kind of scientist is he ?
>
> > My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
> > situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
> > and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
> > sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
> > isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
> > Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
> > of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
> > up and be counted.
>
> > And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
> > stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
> > movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
> > they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
> > have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
> > man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
> > of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
> > similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.
>
> > I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
> > warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
> > understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
> > and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
> > subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
> > But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
> > hysteria that has gripped the world over it.
>
> > I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
> > changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
> > activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
> > all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
> > There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
> > of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
> > activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
> > is still out.
>
> > Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
> > expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
> > their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
> > really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.
>
> > Arfa
Also take a look at the Green Movement.
Note that like most evils, it always starts out with reasonable
things, like don't throw rubbish everywhere, dont dump large
quantities of toxic waste in streams, or land etc (especially where it
gets back into your food or water supply). Fair enough, people say.
Then over time things change
The entire core and philosophy of the modern Green movement is to sell
to people to a totally non-negotiable blinding hate and loathing of
yourself and humans generally, that "people are filth, a disease, have
to be gotten rid of (Except for greenies and those in power of course
who are totally exempt from this, they are allowed to drive large
cars, fly everywhere, have large families, huge homes, and electricity
usage etc - where you and I are absolute filth who shouldn't be
allowed electricity, children, meat, or any resources).
Out of interest, I was pointed by another poster to a guy called
"Alfred Adask" who discovered an interesting phrase in the drug
enforcement laws - where the term "Man and other animals" is used. He
used this successfuly as a defense to get a charge of producing
nutritional supplements dropped. I would advise checking this out.
Note the term "animals" - very convenient to remove someone's rights
and possibly a reason why the government is so keen on pushing
"evolution" (Note the implication - If you are evolved from animals -
you are an animal yourself, have no rights, like cattle and are not a
human being ?)
Note too that for greenies, who tend over time to get everything they
want legislated for - Nothing at all is ever enough. They get handed
everything, then they come up with a set of crazier and crazier
demands. There is no room whatsover for negotiation, or avoiding bad
consequences - their word is the way it is and that is the end of it.
Electricity ? Can't have coal, becuase of "carbon pollution", but
hydro and wind are ok - No carbon ?
Hydro - Oh no, damming rivers destroys wildlife, and some rare
fish.
Wind ? No way, it kills some rare bird, and the noises from the
blades distresses animals.
Nuclear - Oh no, Chernobyl !
Solar - They haven't attacked that yet - but the fact is that it isnt
a solution in that it doesn't work at night, in climates where there
isnt much sun, and with high rise apartment buildings and office
blocks would not have enough roof space to collect sufficient power.
It also doesnt work well when there is bad weather. It would be
useless to power heavy industry or something like an aluminium plant.
As you can see - the goal is not to make "clean" (though unaffordable)
power, but to progressively remove these resources from the average
person, and turn us back to a feudal state where we are mere slaves
and animals, and these elites are our rulers living in unbelievable
luxury. People like that are kept on the edge of starvation, they
have no rights, they do not question, they do not protest, they do
little to resist, and are flat out surviving. This sort of society is
the wet dream of anyone in power, who wants to stay in power. Without
affordable energy, the ability to travel you are nothing and have no
economic future, no way out of ignorance or any form of life. Take a
look at countries where this already happens.
Look also at Agenda 21 which is a scary policy of environmental evil.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:03 am
From: "Phil Allison"
"Fuckwit Murtz"
>
>
>> ** Hey FUCKWIT.
>>
>> DO NOT post quotes without the source.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary
** What version ?
What edition ??
You bullshitting, autistic prick.
** HEY FUCKWIT !!
Got any idea how dictionaries are created ??
Obviously fucking NOT.
----------------------------
Cos you are a MORON .
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:14 am
From: kreed
On Sep 27, 6:46 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> kreed wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> kreed wrote:
> >>> On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >>>>> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"
>
> >>>>>>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>
> >>>>>>> Correct spelling.
>
> >>>>>> I did correct the spelling.
>
> >>>>> ** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.
>
> >>>>> The spelling IS correct !!!!!!
>
> >>>>> Pedantry is a mental illness.
>
> >>>> Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
> >>>> expressing himself, he is correct.
>
> >>>> strait jacket
> >>>> [streyt-jak-it]
> >>>> strait jack et
> >>>> [streyt-jak-it]
> >>>> noun
> >>>> 1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
> >>>> as of a violently disoriented person.
> >>>> 2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
> >>>> Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
> >>>> thinking.
>
> >>> and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
> >>> example.
>
> >> **If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
> >> to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
> >> to others for the moron that you are.
>
> > No, I am not being puerile,
>
> **Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.
>
> Im giving an example that most on this
>
> > group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
> > "faith". An analogy if you like.
>
> **Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good, solid
> SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite requests, have
> supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's talk about who has
> their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his rooted in science. You are are
> very shakey ground.
>
>
>
> >> I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
> >> Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
> >> rational discussion.
>
> > To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
> > addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan race"
> > or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous, discredited to
> > start with that any thinking person has already dismissed it for what
> > it is.
>
> **Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then supply your
> peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Unless, of
> course, you happen to lack ammunition.
>
>
>
> > It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
> > yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
> > religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind
>
> **Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.
>
>
>
> > Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,
>
> **I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific organisations. If
> you have some evidence that these organisations have been "bought off", then
> you need to supply some evidence pertaining to:
>
> * Who bought them off?
> * Why they were bought off?
> * Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because they've
> been bought off?
> * Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were "bought
> off".
>
> YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.
>
> or
>
> > other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
> > seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
> > vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
> > my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.
>
> **YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.
>
>
>
> > The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
> > without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
> > not believing."
>
> **If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
> possibilities:
>
You forgot one.
"Has lived in the real world, seen how things work, has enough life
experience to spot when they are being scammed, lied to, or someone is
pissing on their head and trying to tell them that they are not
pissing, it is rain."
> * That person is as dumb as a rock.
> * That person is lying.
> * That person has not taken the time to read the data.
> * That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some income
> from the use of fossil fuel.
"gains some income from the use of fossil fuel"
HMM. that applies to 99% of the nation. Restrict usage, make
unaffordable, take away fossil fuel and watch how fast the nation
turns into a place that makes the 3rd world look like luxury. A large
majority of people are ALIVE because of Fossil fuel in the form of
products, transport, chemiclas, medicines but most importantly food
(via fertilizer). Wake up.
Your industry -Hi Fi- would be gone overnight in the blink of an eye.
Valve amps and other "inefficient" high powered or class A units would
likely be banned under some bodgy energy efficiency standards and
probably confiscated.
You might do ok in selling audiophile headphones, and hand cranked
generators for use with portable MP3 players though, as no one would
be able to afford to power anything bigger. On the other hand, no
one would be able to afford to pay the freight on these things, as
fuel usage is involved. What a bummer.
> * That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and reason.
We see that in your posts. AGW is a religion to you, a fanatic
religion.
>
> > Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
> > which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
> > world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to the
> > mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".
>
> **There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.
>
Dickhead. Read the post properly.
Hm, by your logic becuse the Nazis dont exist anymore (well don't
officially, except in the green movement) so therefore Auchwitz and
the other horrors of the regime don't exist and are not relevant ?
There would have been no free state in the west if this climate
madness had gone ahead in its full form without people waking up.
Gillard is trying hard though.
> Not that many truly
>
> > believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to avoid
> > the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those around them,
> > who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be seen supporting or
> > associating with someone who speaks it publicly.
>
> **Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society is free
> and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false, dismissed.
>
>
>
> > Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,
>
> **I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?
>
> Im
>
> > not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it would
> > be a waste of time anyway.
>
> **A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note your
> continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.
>
Avoidance of discussing known paid for data made to order.
I wouldn't give it credibility by discussing it.
I may as well try and convince someone who is fanatical islam that if
they kill an infidel, they won't go to heaven and enjoy an eternal
orgy with willing young virgins.
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 1:44 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
>> source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
>> to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
>> aluminium industry.
>>
>> * Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
>> level (in Australia).
>> * Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
>> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
>> approximately $200.00/Tonne.
>> * The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
>> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
>> approximately $400.00/Tonne.
>> * The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
>> * Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
>> reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
>> very profitable.
>>
>> The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
>> don't menton the massive profits.
>
> Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
> about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf>
> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf>
> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf>
>
> Price (not adjusted for inflation)
> US$ per lb
> 2010 1.214
> 2009 1.252
> 2008 1.205
> 2007 0.794
> 2006 1.017
> 2005 0.688
> 2004 0.649
> 2003 0.681
> 2002 0.840
> 2001 0.880
> 2000 0.771
> 1999 0.655
> 1998 0.657
>
> Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
> in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
> industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
> went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
> during this time period to produce this difference?
**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).
I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 1:57 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>>
>>>>> The reports are here:
>>>>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...>
>>>>> I've only read the one on the physical science basis.
>>
>>>>> The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
>>>>> thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous
>>>>> reports. <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
>>>>> "...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
>>>>> aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
>>>>> development, risk management and the framing of a response
>>>>> through both adaptation and mitigation."
>>>>> In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what
>>>>> to do. I can't wait.
>>
>>>> **No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
>>>> appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant
>>>> and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel
>>>> industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be
>>>> dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.
>>
>>> That is a very scientific observation.
>>> We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.
>>
>> **I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand
>> the science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
>>>> action will be too little too late.
>>
>>> Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
>>> constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of
>>> controlling us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it
>>> straight in the bin, cut the big guys out of controlling everything
>>> (including both sides of our government and media) stop them from
>>> creating artificial shortages of resources in order to fleece us,
>>> and stop worrying about lies and lead productive lives.
>>
>> **I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous
>> questions and comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid
>> science, in preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand
>> approach. You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and
>> Alan Jones are a good match for each other. None of you deals with
>> the science.
>>
>
> That is an extremely contradictory statement.
**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any
science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.
You avoid the fact that
> you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual,
**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good
repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences)
were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the
US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil
industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard.
Care to explain that?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and as being
> "solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
> theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
> industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.
**Care to prove it?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
>
> Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research.
> These people are therefore owned,
**Care to prove that?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and both groups who own them want
> the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
> to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
> they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
> ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
> cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
> Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
> competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
> worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
> billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
> facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
> history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
> happened.
**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
>
>
> We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
> results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
> if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
> to get.
**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
>
> This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
> Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
> by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.
**So, what you are saying is this:
AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their
stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the
uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for
some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.
>
> the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
> day too.
**Were they? Cite your proof of this.
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
> science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
> you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
> industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.
>
> Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
> warming industry.
**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science.
Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you
would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then
criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 3:21 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 27, 6:46 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"
>>
>>>>>>>>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct spelling.
>>
>>>>>>>> I did correct the spelling.
>>
>>>>>>> ** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.
>>
>>>>>>> The spelling IS correct !!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>> Pedantry is a mental illness.
>>
>>>>>> Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
>>>>>> expressing himself, he is correct.
>>
>>>>>> strait jacket
>>>>>> [streyt-jak-it]
>>>>>> strait jack et
>>>>>> [streyt-jak-it]
>>>>>> noun
>>>>>> 1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the
>>>>>> arms, as of a violently disoriented person.
>>>>>> 2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
>>>>>> Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
>>>>>> thinking.
>>
>>>>> and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
>>>>> example.
>>
>>>> **If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
>>>> to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
>>>> to others for the moron that you are.
>>
>>> No, I am not being puerile,
>>
>> **Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.
>>
>> Im giving an example that most on this
>>
>>> group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
>>> "faith". An analogy if you like.
>>
>> **Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good,
>> solid SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite
>> requests, have supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's
>> talk about who has their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his
>> rooted in science. You are are very shakey ground.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
>>>> Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
>>>> rational discussion.
>>
>>> To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
>>> addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan
>>> race" or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous,
>>> discredited to start with that any thinking person has already
>>> dismissed it for what it is.
>>
>> **Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then
>> supply your peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a
>> barrel. Unless, of course, you happen to lack ammunition.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
>>> yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
>>> religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind
>>
>> **Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,
>>
>> **I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific
>> organisations. If you have some evidence that these organisations
>> have been "bought off", then you need to supply some evidence
>> pertaining to:
>>
>> * Who bought them off?
>> * Why they were bought off?
>> * Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because
>> they've been bought off?
>> * Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were
>> "bought off".
>>
>> YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.
>>
>> or
>>
>>> other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
>>> seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
>>> vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
>>> my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.
>>
>> **YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
>>> without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
>>> not believing."
>>
>> **If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
>> possibilities:
>>
>
> You forgot one.
**Nope.
>
> "Has lived in the real world, seen how things work, has enough life
> experience to spot when they are being scammed, lied to, or someone is
> pissing on their head and trying to tell them that they are not
> pissing, it is rain."
**Except that you have consistently failed to support your arguments with
any science. OTOH, I have consistently referred you to good, solid,
reputable science.
>
>> * That person is as dumb as a rock.
>> * That person is lying.
>> * That person has not taken the time to read the data.
>> * That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some
>> income from the use of fossil fuel.
>
> "gains some income from the use of fossil fuel"
>
> HMM. that applies to 99% of the nation.
**Possibly.
Restrict usage, make
> unaffordable, take away fossil fuel and watch how fast the nation
> turns into a place that makes the 3rd world look like luxury.
**Watch what happens over the next decade or two. In case you've been living
under a rock, you might realise that oil is running out.
A large
> majority of people are ALIVE because of Fossil fuel in the form of
> products, transport, chemiclas, medicines but most importantly food
> (via fertilizer). Wake up.
**So? What do you propose we do as the oil runs out?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
>
> Your industry -Hi Fi- would be gone overnight in the blink of an eye.
> Valve amps and other "inefficient" high powered or class A units would
> likely be banned under some bodgy energy efficiency standards and
> probably confiscated.
**Points:
* I have little to do with the products you mention.
* High end amplification represents a miniscule proportion of energy usage.
>
> You might do ok in selling audiophile headphones, and hand cranked
> generators for use with portable MP3 players though, as no one would
> be able to afford to power anything bigger. On the other hand, no
> one would be able to afford to pay the freight on these things, as
> fuel usage is involved. What a bummer.
>
>
>> * That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and
>> reason.
>
> We see that in your posts. AGW is a religion to you, a fanatic
> religion.
**It's called science. Something you appear to have no familiarity with.
Your inability to answer my questions says it all.
>
>>
>>> Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
>>> which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
>>> world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to
>>> the mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".
>>
>> **There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.
>>
> Dickhead. Read the post properly.
**Calling me names does nothing to enhance your ability to read plain
English. You spoke in the present tense. The USSR is gone. Any references
should, therefore, be in the past tense.
> Hm, by your logic becuse the Nazis dont exist anymore (well don't
> officially, except in the green movement) so therefore Auchwitz and
> the other horrors of the regime don't exist and are not relevant ?
**Nazis may still exist, though the Third Reich no longer does. Auschwitz is
no longer used as a concentration camp. It is a tourist attraction.
>
> There would have been no free state in the west if this climate
> madness had gone ahead in its full form without people waking up.
**What "climate madness" do you refer to?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
> Gillard is trying hard though.
>
>
>> Not that many truly
>>
>>> believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to
>>> avoid the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those
>>> around them, who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be
>>> seen supporting or associating with someone who speaks it publicly.
>>
>> **Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society
>> is free and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false,
>> dismissed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,
>>
>> **I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?
**Have you read the IPCC AR4?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
>>
>> Im
>>
>>> not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it
>>> would be a waste of time anyway.
>>
>> **A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note
>> your continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.
>>
>
> Avoidance of discussing known paid for data made to order.
> I wouldn't give it credibility by discussing it.
**Nope. Avoidance of answering direct questions is an indication of
ignorance. You have no clue. You have not read the IPCC AR4. That much is
abundantly clear. What is also clear is that you would probably fail to
understand the report if you had taken the time to read it. Instead, you
prefer to concentrate your time on listening to Alan Jones, George Pell,
Tony Abbott and the other extremist nutters, who understand nothing about
science.
>
> I may as well try and convince someone who is fanatical islam that if
> they kill an infidel, they won't go to heaven and enjoy an eternal
> orgy with willing young virgins.
**What you SHOULD do, is read the damned science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Calibrating a sound level pressure meter
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/21a5e0c259fd4f68?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 4:45 am
From: "N_Cook"
Just for my own purposes so relative rather than absolute but if possible to
calibrate then all the better. No access to a calibrated one to
cross-calibrate, falling ball calibrator etc.
An old Dawe 1405D that sems to have little info out there. Mic and
electronics works and I've now repaired the suspension on the meter but fsd
is now .586V but is marked as 1.45V .
As the replacement phosphor bronze is probably more stiff than the original
, if any thing , I would expect greater fsd . It may be .45V marked and a
type number 1 or something ahead of the .45, there is quite a gap.
Anyone experinece of the ipod app, toy? or worth borrowing someone's ipod
and obtaining the app if any absolute use for cross-calibration
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:40 am
From: "N_Cook"
Other than the B battery test mark on the scale for running off the 1960s
B122
type 22.5V battery . But of course no standard for what the B equates to for
light load and less than 22.5V , seems to work adequately on 15V , I intend
using 2xPP3 , 18V
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 8:34 am
From: nesesu
On Sep 27, 7:40 am, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> Other than the B battery test mark on the scale for running off the 1960s
> B122
> type 22.5V battery . But of course no standard for what the B equates to for
> light load and less than 22.5V , seems to work adequately on 15V , I intend
> using 2xPP3 , 18V
With nominal batery voltage [22.5V] applied from a bench supply, where
does the meter pointer fall relative to the 'battery' markings on the
scale?
If the pointer is in the 'good' area just above the minimum battery
mark then the meter deflection is in the right ball park, not as far
out as your first post would suggest.
My B&K came with a calibrator source that fits over the mic and emits
a tone of about 1kHz to tweak the calibration if needed.
Neil S.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is going on chemical market research?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/f643314868da4250?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 5:33 am
From: chris mortin
Hi Friends,
Hi guys I have something very interesting stuff for you
Go here http://goo.gl/3k2pE
==============================================================================
TOPIC: QUESTIONS& ANSWERS ABOUT ISLAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fc2b276be2f8be08?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:28 am
From: bv
QUESTIONS& ANSWERS ABOUT ISLAM
How does Islam elevate the status of women?
________________________________________
According to the Qur'an, men and women are equal before God; both
created for the sole purpose of worshipping god through faith and good
deeds.
"O humankind! Be conscious of your Lord Who created you from a single
soul, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread
countless men and women. Be conscious of your Lord through Whom you
demand your mutual rights and honor the wombs; God always watches over
you." (Qur'an 4:1)
Islam recognizes women as individuals with specific rights. Among
these are: the right to life, the right to learn; the right to earn,
own and dispose property; the right to choose a husband; the right, as
a wife, to her pre-marriage standard of living; the right to be
treated equally; and the right to inherit. Women, like men, are
rewarded by God for a righteously led life.
Muslim women dress in a way that is modest and dignified. The purpose
of clothing is not only to protect oneself from physical elements, but
also to protect oneself from immorality and pride. Some traditions of
dress, and more generally, the treatment of women in some Muslim
countries and societies, are often a reflection of culture. This is
very often inconsistent and even contrary to Islam teachings. Prophet
Muhammad said: "The most perfect in faith among you believers is he
who is best in manner and kindest to his wife."
Why is the family so important to Muslims?
The family is the foundation of Islamic society. The peace and
security offered by a stable family unit is greatly valued and seen as
essential for the spiritual growth of its members. It is quite common
in the Muslim community to find large, extended families living
together; providing comfort, security and support to one another.
Parents are greatly respected in the Islamic tradition. Mothers, in
particular are greatly honored. God says in the Qur'an: "And we have
enjoined upon man to be good to his parents. With difficulty upon
difficultly did his mother bear him, and wean him for two years. Show
gratitude to Me and to your parents; to Me is your final
goal!" (Qur'an 31:14)
Marrying and establishing a family is very strongly encouraged. "And
among His signs is that He created for you mates from among
yourselves; that you may find peace with them. And He put between you
love and compassion. Surely in this are signs for people who
reflect." (Qur'an 30:21)
A Muslim marriage is both a sacred act and a legal agreement, in which
either the groom or the bride is free to include legitimate
conditions. Marriage customs vary widely from country to country.
Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: "When a servant of God
marries, he completes half his faith." Marriage is the institution
upon which families are based.
Does Islam give Women equal rights?
Yes, definitely. Islam teaches equality between women and men.
However, in some Muslim countries and societies a patriarchal culture
dominates, and women are denied of their God-given rights.
Nowhere does the Qur'an state that one gender is superior to another.
God makes it clear that the only criterion for superiority is piety
and righteousness…virtues only He can judge.
"O humankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into
nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly,
the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in
piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (Qur'an 49:13)
Islam recognizes women as individuals with specific rights. Among
these are: the right to life, the right to learn; the right to earn,
own and dispose property; the right to choose a husband; the right to
a marriage gift; the right to retain her maiden name; the right, as a
wife, to her pre-marriage standard of living; the right to be treated
equally; the right to seek divorce; the right to inherit; and the
right to a final will.
Women, like men, are rewarded for a righteously led life.
"…Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer, will
enter the Garden (of Paradise)…" (Qur'an 40:39)
What does Islam say about wives and husbands?
________________________________________
"And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among
yourselves, that you may live in tranquility with them; and He has
brought between you love and mercy. Truly, in this are signs for those
who reflect." (Qur'an 30:21)
Marriage is based on mutual love and respect. The Islamic marriage is
a sacred contract bet
IF YOU WISH TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ISLAM, WE PREFER TO VISIT THE FOLLOWING
WEBSITES:
http://www.chatislamonline.org/ar
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran
http://www.islamhouse.com/s/9661
http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1
http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/index.aspx?lang=e
http://www.thekeytoislam.com
http://www.islamland.com
http://www.thetruereligion.org
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran
http://www.prophetmuhammed.org
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 8:39 am
From: "hrhofmann@att.net"
On Sep 26, 10:46 pm, Winston <Wins...@BigBrother.net> wrote:
> RL Anderson wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
>
> > Many years ago, while I was a telephone central office technician, I
> > used to use a lot of Freon TF solvent. I really loved using it because
> > it did such a great job.
>
> > Fast forward to today. I realize that this solvent has not been
> > available for quite some time. I would like to "pick the brains" of the
> > gurus in the group on what solvent is available that is almost as good
> > as Freon TF. I have some cleaning that needs to be done and most of the
> > available solvents, from some comments I have checked out, are not up to
> > the job.
>
> Try naphtha. Be very careful because it is flammable
> and extremely volatile. Use lots of ventilation.
>
> http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926175
>
> --Winston
I use naptha as a good general purpose solvent, and resort to paint
remover when desperate.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 11:48 am
From: Winston
hrhofmann@att.net wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:46 pm, Winston<Wins...@BigBrother.net> wrote:
(...)
>> Try naphtha. Be very careful because it is flammable
>> and extremely volatile. Use lots of ventilation.
>>
>> http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926175
>>
>> --Winston
>
> I use naptha as a good general purpose solvent, and resort to paint
> remover when desperate.
Cheap local sources have dried up for me.
I understand that the stuff is used in
preparing drugs now. I can get it as
Coleman Camping Fuel in gallons but I'm
always asked "where are you camping?"
as if they had the slightest interest.
:)
--Winston
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 12:09 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), "hrhofmann@att.net"
<hrhofmann@att.net> wrote:
>I use naptha as a good general purpose solvent, and resort to paint
>remover when desperate.
Which one?
<http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/423.html>
Using paint stripper is probably overkill for contact cleaning. All
those mentioned are hazardous in some manner. All of those mentioned
will eat plastics. However, when desperate, I use automotive brake
cleaner (hexane, xylene, ethyl benzene, toluene, methyl alcohol, etc).
Unfortunately, it's almost as toxic and also eats plastic.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 12:29 pm
From: Winston
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), "hrhofmann@att.net"
> <hrhofmann@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I use naptha as a good general purpose solvent, and resort to paint
>> remover when desperate.
>
> Which one?
> <http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/423.html>
> Using paint stripper is probably overkill for contact cleaning. All
> those mentioned are hazardous in some manner. All of those mentioned
> will eat plastics.
I haven't seen any problem with VM&P Naphtha on plastics,
(whatever VM&P *really* is.) :)
It is really gentle and will clean gunk off of plastic
coated flooring (for example) without any damage to
the surface.
> However, when desperate, I use automotive brake
> cleaner (hexane, xylene, ethyl benzene, toluene, methyl alcohol, etc).
> Unfortunately, it's almost as toxic and also eats plastic.
Nasty-in-a-can.
--Winston
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 1:19 pm
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
In article <MPG.28ead8b585ea2229989687@news.eternal-september.org>,
RL Anderson <RLAnderson@arczip.com> wrote:
>Many years ago, while I was a telephone central office technician, I
>used to use a lot of Freon TF solvent. I really loved using it because
>it did such a great job.
>
>Fast forward to today. I realize that this solvent has not been
>available for quite some time. I would like to "pick the brains" of the
>gurus in the group on what solvent is available that is almost as good
>as Freon TF. I have some cleaning that needs to be done and most of the
>available solvents, from some comments I have checked out, are not up to
>the job.
Some of the DuPont "Vertrel" solvent products might suit, perhaps?
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 2:55 pm
From: Jim Yanik
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:2574871q9tkbr0mfaacsa2tfj3n4bcc80n@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:39:25 -0700 (PDT), "hrhofmann@att.net"
><hrhofmann@att.net> wrote:
>
>>I use naptha as a good general purpose solvent, and resort to paint
>>remover when desperate.
>
> Which one?
><http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/423.html>
> Using paint stripper is probably overkill for contact cleaning. All
> those mentioned are hazardous in some manner. All of those mentioned
> will eat plastics. However, when desperate, I use automotive brake
> cleaner (hexane, xylene, ethyl benzene, toluene, methyl alcohol, etc).
> Unfortunately, it's almost as toxic and also eats plastic.
>
>
>
perhaps automotive Mass Air Flow Sensor cleaner would work?
my can of CRC cleaner says it's plastic safe and leaves no residue,and you
can find it at most auto parts stores and even Wal-Mart.
it's around $3 per 11 oz can.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: unijunction needed
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/ecf807243db79a90?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 12:25 pm
From: JeffM
alp soandso wrote:
>I hope I have done something taboo by crossposting.
>
What you did was *non* cross-posting;
what you did was MULTI-post.
I can't think of a situation where that is a superior method.
>As a matter of fact, there are some interesting links
>in a reply in that other group.
>
...which echoes my point.
>Electronics is not my strong suit.
>
You STILL haven't said if this is for a REPAIR.
It sounds like you are trying to build
a project that you found in a magazine from 1967.
If that is the case,
an LM555 would probably be a *much* better way to go:
cheaper and far more readily available.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
1 Response to sci.electronics.repair - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest
I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. Good day!
Aluminium plant in Dubai
Post a Comment