2004 GASOLINE PRICES Lines: 70

From : tbone

Q: milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... lol...youre the one that keeps blabbering on about the north slope. i never brought that area up! resort to name calling when ya havent a clue! besides storm scopes tell alot more than a storm. ever hear of clear weather turbulance so on the north slope they fly a bunch of ill equipped planes. -- milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com with hoof in mouth puts you in a rather unfavorable light there twit. did you actually expect that comment to go unchallenged yet you snipped it from above to obscure what my response related to. so name me one flight route in alaska were anyone is going to fly 300 miles without a weather report. you just do not get it do you youre under the dislussional logic that a weather report can tell whether a route will be vfr ifr calm windy turbulant or what. it cant! it can only give information that may predict the likelyhood of such. weather in mountain passes can change from clear to socked in in minutes. keep trying. when you get to alaska and actually find out what living here is like youll be embarrassed. how many airports in alaska lack towers or weather stations how many are unicom or unattended how many lack the luxury of atis reports you dont get around alaska much now do you wrong questions all the way around. very few have *any* of that /except/ the weather stations. there are weather stations at virtually all village airports in alaska. you do know what an awos is which i mentioned earlier right and where the dont have an awos they do have a weather observer with a few odd exceptions atqasuk 60 miles south of barrow is one... because there is no significant difference between atqasuk weather and barrow weather. with your twisted knowledge it would appear that alaskan pilots only fly to airports and only fly in vfr conditions. good grief. poor boy. if that is what you get out of what ive said its one more clear indication that you just really should come to alaska for a visit before you mouth off about what its like here. oh what happened to that list of towns that dont have a runway it should be right behind that list of town in arizona that you cant drive to. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

Replies:

From : miles

tbone wrote if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own and be dependent on them. what about using our own oil while we work towards not needing oil at all functioning brainsteps suggest reliance on foriegn oil is not good sense at all. anwr is not the only place being prevented from drilling or exploring. not even close. really give me a list and please include the reason why each one is being stopped or better yet florida off shore as well as many gulf states where much of it has been shut down by your type. now your type is trying to shut down california offshore. i do not know your types lunacy for the reasons for doing so. you can answer that and then lol a typical conservative answer. i am sore that you are also aware of the fact that it is a migration path that would lead to the possible extinction of the animals muhahaha!! spoken like a true leftist without a clue! have you been there your type said the same thing about the alaskan pipeline. guess what it is elevated and does not stop migration. the area in anwr is a wasteland. very little migration traffic because of its distance from naturual resources the animals depend on. your claims are those echod by leftist propagandists who sit in washington and have little first hand knowledge. they showed pictures of anwr with lush forests streams etc. to try to buy support against drilling. what a bunch of lunacy. the area in anwr in question is a wasteland. there are no lush forests and streams. dang leftist propaganda and the people that buy into it. if you and others like you are so concerned about our dependency on other nations for oil then why dont they and you do something about the amount that they use great. we agree on the need to reduce consumption. but we still need oil today and id rather use ours than depend on someone else to provide it. i aready answered this the other guy. i would rather waste their oil than ours because when we run out and its only a matter of time until it happens we lose. not so at all. with a bit of hope on technology by the time oil is used up alternative fuels will take over. .

From : mgg

btw happy easter same to you! it was a great day other than the fact the mlb.tv took a crap and i couldnt watch the red sox beat toronto in extra innings --mike sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own and be dependent on them. what about using our own oil while we work towards not needing oil at all functioning brainsteps suggest reliance on foriegn oil is not good sense at all. since there is no indication of anything being done to eliminate our need for oil even with our dependence on foriegn oil what would possibly make you think it would begin without it. anwr is not the only place being prevented from drilling or exploring. not even close. really give me a list and please include the reason why each one is being stopped or better yet florida off shore as well as many gulf states where much of it has been shut down by your type. i find this funny that you label me when you really dont know a thing about me. did you bother to do any research as to why this has been done or is it just enviro whackos to you and the actual reasons mean nothing. now your type is trying to shut down california offshore. i do not know your types lunacy for the reasons for doing so. as i expected without so much as a thought from you anyone that would do it is just a lunatic. perhaps if exxon didnt just turn its back on the damage it caused in valdees and they still havent coffed up a penny there but probably spent billions fighting it people wouldnt be so paraniod of drilling in their own back yards. sorry dude but the oil comanies and their complete lack or concern for their own actions and outcomes brought this on. you can answer that and then i dont know what you are trying to say here. lol a typical conservative answer. i am sore that you are also aware of the fact that it is a migration path that would lead to the possible extinction of the animals muhahaha!! spoken like a true leftist without a clue! have you been there your type said the same thing about the alaskan pipeline. guess what it is elevated and does not stop migration. how do you know how many animals died during its construction were you there here is another question do you really think that a single pipeline suspended off of the ground will have any where near the long term environmental impact of a drilling sight complete with garages pumps crew quarters generator housings radio towers and all that is required to support it how do you intend to elevate all of that the area in anwr is a wasteland. very little migration traffic because of its distance from naturual resources the animals depend on. and how do you know this do you live there or visit it frequently. your claims are those echod by leftist propagandists who sit in washington and have little first hand knowledge. and your first hand knowlege is comming form where desert boy they showed pictures of anwr with lush forests streams etc. to try to buy support against drilling. what a bunch of lunacy. the area in anwr in question is a wasteland. there are no lush forests and streams. dang leftist propaganda and the people that buy into it. and how do you know this by the same propaganda that the right wing shows taken of the most remote areas possible during the worst possible times unless you care to prove otherwise the area is a migration route and the fact that it is not lush and full of trees and streams makes the ecology in the area all the more fragile. the funny thing is that this land was that the democrats were probably bitching about some land being designated for preservation and the republicans voted to give them this land because they thought it was worthless just to shut them up and now that it may actually be worth something to the oil companies for which they serve... if you and others like you are so concerned about our dependency on other nations for oil then why dont they and you do something about the amount that they use great. we agree on the need to reduce consumption. but we still need oil today and id rather use ours than depend on someone else to provide it. and we have oil today and while it will take years to develope new oil fields we can begin conserving today. as long as oil is cheap and easy nothing else is going to be done. perhaps we need another embargo to wake up the average ignorant american before it is too late. i aready answered this the other guy. i would rather waste their oil than ours because when we run out and its only a matter of time until it happens we lose. not so at all. with a bit of hope on technology by the time oil is used up alternative fuels will take over. well now thats the real problem isnt it. if you are counting on hope then you are being foolish. we need to be working seriously on this now and it just aint happening. we are also hoping for a cure for cancer but that still hasnt happened yet either.

From : mgg

wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote i find this funny that you label me when you really dont know a thing about me. if the shoe fits. as i expected without so much as a thought from you anyone that would do it is just a lunatic. perhaps if exxon didnt just turn its back on the damage it caused in valdees and they still havent coffed up a penny we agree here. exxon should have been made to pay more. they did cough up a few pennies though but not even close to what was needed. but that was a tanker not a drilling rig. your foreign oil you love so much comes in tankers and docks on our coasts. they often spill as well so what the heck is your point regarding foreign vs. domestic oil how do you know how many animals died during its construction were you there the construction of the pipeline did not reduce herd counts. look it up before you go guessing. read below for more info on this. here is another question do you really think that a single pipeline suspended off of the ground will have any where near the long term environmental impact of a drilling sight complete with garages pumps crew quarters generator housings radio towers and all that is required to support it how do you intend to elevate all of that what animals make that area their home answer..zero. the place is a vast wasteland. geez you buy into the leftist propaganda crap big time. where such facilities are planned is not in the migration paths of any animals. the city you live in probably was at one time though. lets burn it down and save the animals. and how do you know this do you live there or visit it frequently. as a matter of fact. yes and thanks for asking. any more stupid questions and your first hand knowlege is comming form where desert boy sigh...i have 1st hand knowledge clueless boy. and how do you know this by the same propaganda that the right wing shows taken of the most remote areas possible during the worst possible times rofl...visit alaska sometime and learn the facts clueless boy. anwr does contain some spectacular pristine areas rich in wildlife. the boundry follows the mountain ridgelines north to the coastal plains at camden bay. however long before reaching the coast the mountains give way to a vast area void of almost all vegetation and wildlife. the area in question is along the northern coast east of prudhoe where the pipeline begins. the mountains are to the south. because of this migration is very limited. where are animals coming and going to the ecology of the area as you point out is not fragile at all. it is mostly frozen wasteland. the funny thing is that this land was that the democrats were probably bitching about some land being designated for preservation and the republicans voted to give them this land because they thought it was worthless just to shut them up and now that it may actually be worth something to the oil companies for which they serve... bull. they created anwr because it contains about 18 million acres of pristine wilderness. when the boundries were drawn up they simply continued the line down to the coast. the result was it encompassed another 1 million acres of wasteland nobody on either side cared about at the time. now that they found oil in it both sides care. perhaps we need another embargo to wake up the average ignorant american before it is too late. thats exactly what your type needs. maybe youll wake up and do two things to stop dependency on foreign oil. first as you point out develop alternative fuels. second explore at home for oil. to make your type happy dont tap it just find it. oddly you lefties refuse to allow such exploration. for your info. anwr contains 19 million acres. the coastal plain wasteland is 1.5 million acres. if oil is allowed to be tapped there the total area effected by construction of any kind is 2000 acres. 2000 out of 19 million. the herd counts of caribou in prudhoe bay area have risen considerably since the pipeline began there. your type has been completely unable to substantiate any negative impact propaganda dished out in making its claims against anwr. .

From : tbone

sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote i find this funny that you label me when you really dont know a thing about me. if the shoe fits. lol. as i expected without so much as a thought from you anyone that would do it is just a lunatic. perhaps if exxon didnt just turn its back on the damage it caused in valdees and they still havent coffed up a penny we agree here. exxon should have been made to pay more. they did cough up a few pennies though but not even close to what was needed. but that was a tanker not a drilling rig. your foreign oil you love so much comes in tankers and docks on our coasts. they often spill as well so what the heck is your point regarding foreign vs. domestic oil please milesh we are talking about off shore drilling rigs here. if one of them fails or has a severe accident hundreds of thousands of raw crude can be pumped into the ocean with no easy way to stop it or clean it up. even when they did have an easy way such as with the valdees they did nothing and were unprepared due to nothing more than not wanting to invest the money. do you really think that they would do any more if one of these rigs failed. how do you know how many animals died during its construction were you there the construction of the pipeline did not reduce herd counts. look it up before you go guessing. read below for more info on this. good for that but like i said a pipe line is a different animal than a drilling site. here is another question do you really think that a single pipeline suspended off of the ground will have any where near the long term environmental impact of a drilling sight complete with garages pumps crew quarters generator housings radio towers and all that is required to support it how do you intend to elevate all of that what animals make that area their home answer..zero. the place is a vast wasteland. geez you buy into the leftist propaganda crap big time. where such facilities are planned is not in the migration paths of any animals. the city you live in probably was at one time though. lets burn it down and save the animals. well if my city was and i doubt it it happened way before my time and there wasnt anything that i could do about it. if it is truly not in the migration path of any animals then what is stopping them and how do you know this do you live there or visit it frequently. as a matter of fact. yes and thanks for asking. any more stupid questions perhaps if you actually answered it did you live there which i doubt since they normally dont build houses on national reserves or have you visited and if so when where and how often. and your first hand knowlege is comming form where desert boy sigh...i have 1st hand knowledge clueless boy. ok then please explain how this is not a bust or attack i really would like to know. and how do you know this by the same propaganda that the right wing shows taken of the most remote areas possible during the worst possible times rofl...visit alaska sometime and learn the facts clueless boy. anwr does contain some spectacular pristine areas rich in wildlife. the boundry follows the mountain ridgelines north to the coastal plains at camden bay. however long before reaching the coast the mountains give way to a vast area void of almost all vegetation and wildlife. the area in question is along the northern coast east of prudhoe where the pipeline begins. the mountains are to the south. because of this migration is very limited. where are animals coming and going to the ecology of the area as you point out is not fragile at all. it is mostly frozen wasteland. i noticed that you said migration is limited not non-existant and that the area is mostly frozen wasteland not completely. this indicates that some animals do migrate through it and that the land may have just enough to let them do it. i bet the real reason that people are fighting so hard is due to typical corporate greed and political corruption. if they do begin drilling there and find that this is really just the edge of what looks like a vast oil field and the main part appears to be in the lush protected areas that they will begin drilling there and destroying that as well. the funny thing is that this land was that the democrats were probably bitching about some land being designated for preservation and the republicans voted to give them this land because they thought it was worthless just to shut them up and now that it may actually be worth something to the oil companies for which they serve... bull. they created anwr because it contains about 18 million acres of pristine wilderness. when the boundries were drawn up they simply continued the line down to the coast. the result was it encompassed another 1 million acres of wasteland nobody on either side cared about at the time. now that they found oil in it both sides

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote im sure youre aware that the area in question in anwr is a vast wasteland void of almost any vegetation or wildlife. the above statement is ignorant and glaringly false. if people want to argue about anwr the least they could do is learn something about it rather than fabricate fantasies about what it is or is not. see http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/wildlife.html which among other things says the arctic national wildlife refuge is home to some of the most diverse and spectacular wildlife in the arctic. the refuges rich pageant of wildlife includes 36 fish species 36 land mammals nine marine mammals and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species. and here is a great slide show http//www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/battle.htm -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote lol a typical conservative answer. i am sore that you are also aware of the fact that it is a migration path that would lead to the possible extinction of the animals muhahaha!! spoken like a true leftist without a clue! have you been there i have been there anwr and specifically the 1002 area. and i spent 20 years living within a stones throw of the tran-alaska pipeline... and today i live on the north slope. first lets be clear you are full of shit. now lets talk facts about anwr instead of your fantasy. your type said the same thing about the alaskan pipeline. that isnt true. i was here before the oil was discovered and all during the planning and construction of the pipeline. nobody was saying the pipeline would cause extinction of anything. and tbone is wrong about development in anwr possibly causing extinction. nobody is saying it will cause extinction of any animals. it *would* cause serious reductions though and it might well cause the extinction of the gwichin culture in the process. guess what it is elevated and does not stop migration. thats true and insignificance. the problem is not with migrating animals but with the calving grounds of caribou. a migrating herd is not bothered by a road a pipeline or much of anything... until just before the cows are about to calve which they all do virtually at once over a period of about 1 week. pregnant cows and cows with calves are *extremely* skittish and will not cross roads or go near buildings or anything producing noise i.e. just about anything associated with oil production. we know that *positively* because we have 30 years of studies around the existing oil production facilities on the north slope. we also know that the difference between anwr and prudhoe bay milne point and kuparuk is *significant*. the central arctic herd has done well right in the midst of oil production! however it is a small herd 30000 animals maximum that calves in an area which averages 100 miles from the mountains to the coast. the simple facts are that 1 the caribou moved away from oil production for calving and no longer calve near any of the facilities; and 2 the central arctic herd had multiple calving locations available; and finally 3 the trans alaska pipeline split the herd in two for purposes of calving and those which were cut off from the more productive areas to the east of the pipeline have not done as well as the others. anwr and the porcupine herd is *significantly* different. the herd is *huge* at 130000 currently animals but they have exactly one very small area in which they nurture calves. the alaska department of fish and game and the us fish and wildlife service have been studying caribou on the north slope for 30 years and you cannot find a single biologist who has done significant field work here who will say that oil exploration is unlikely to do significant damage to the porcupine caribou herd. the area in anwr is a wasteland. no your mind is. ive discussed that ridiculous claim in another article and wont repeat it. very little migration traffic because of its distance from naturual resources the animals depend on. what kind of silliness is that supposed to be do you know *anything* about caribou the *absolute* *most* *depended* on resources are in the 1002 area of anwr. the relatively small area where they nurture their calves is significant in many ways. calves born outside that area have about half the survival rate as calves born inside that area. *all* calves regardless of where they are born are nurtured in the same area. it provides nutrition and protection from predators. plonking a dozen oil rigs right into the middle of that prime calving area is going to force the herd to nurture calves in areas where the survival rate will be *significantly* reduced. your claims are those echod by leftist propagandists who sit in washington and have little first hand knowledge. bullshit. said claims come from guys with phds in caribou biology who have spend 30 years studying them. try doing a web search on ken whitten and/or ray cameron. whitten headed up the usfws caribou studies of the porcupine caribou herd and cameron headed up the adfg studies of the central arctic caribou herd. the only sit in washington that either of them has ever done was to testify to congress that oil production should not be allowed in anwr. they showed pictures of anwr with lush forests streams etc. to try to buy support against drilling. streams yes forests no. youre full of bullshit. what a bunch of lunacy. the area in anwr in question is a wasteland. there are no lush forests and streams. dang leftist propaganda and the people that buy into it. there are no forests but it *is* lush with vegetation fabulously beautiful streams and rivers and more wildlife than youll fi

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote the construction of the pipeline did not reduce herd counts. look it up before you go guessing. read below for more info on this. construction of oil infrastructure on the north slope at prudhoe bay and nearby fields milne point and kuparuk being the best examples because before and after studies were possible has *clearly* demonstrated a detrimental effect on caribou herds. the degree to which those effects did *not* cause a reduction in numbers is directly related to the availability of alternate areas for caribou and the very small size of the central arctic caribou herd at the initial stages of development. caribou no longer calve near the infrastructure built at prudhoe and the other locations. they simply moved which was easy because the brooks range is 100 to 150 miles distant the herd is small and there is no significant difference for caribou between the locations where oil infrastructure was built and alternate sites. in fact the trans-alaska pipeline split the early spring pre-calving movements of the herd and studies have *clearly* demonstrated the difference between the herd to the east that to the west. none of those mitigating factors are available for caribou in the anwr area. the herd is many times larger and the area is many times small. there are *no* alternate areas. here is another question do you really think that a single pipeline suspended off of the ground will have any where near the long term environmental impact of a drilling sight complete with garages pumps crew quarters generator housings radio towers and all that is required to support it how do you intend to elevate all of that what animals make that area their home answer..zero. the place is a vast wasteland. geez you buy into the leftist it is *lush*. it is a botanist delight! http//arcticcircle.uconn.edu/anwr/anwrveg.html biologists spend their entire lives delighted with studying just small parts of the vast biology of the land you say is a vast wasteland. propaganda crap big time. where such facilities are planned is not in the migration paths of any animals. there are muskox bears moose caribou dozens of species of fish and 150+ species of birds that migrate through that area. http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/wildlife.html and how do you know this do you live there or visit it frequently. as a matter of fact. yes and thanks for asking. any more stupid questions apparently you were mistaken about just where you visited what you describe is not like the north slope of alaska at all! where you perhaps at the south pole on mountain in tibet or sleeping at the switch when you dreamt up all of this bull puckey and your first hand knowlege is comming form where desert boy sigh...i have 1st hand knowledge clueless boy. you have first hand knowledge of what you are not describing the north slope. i live here year round. ive been on the ground from the canadian border in the east to cape lisburn in the west. ive seen it in summer fall winter and spring. your claims are fabrications. rofl...visit alaska sometime and learn the facts clueless boy. advice you should try yourself! anwr does contain some spectacular pristine areas rich in wildlife. the boundry follows the mountain ridgelines north to the coastal plains at camden bay. however long before reaching the coast the mountains give way to a vast area void of almost all vegetation and wildlife. this vast area void of almost all vegetation and wildlife is one of the most lush areas of alaska. the tundra is a literal carpet of vegetation which is exactly why there are so many animals there. http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/habitat.html the area in question is along the northern coast east of prudhoe where the pipeline begins. the mountains are to the south. because of this migration is very limited. where are animals coming and going to the caribou come over and around the mountains. the polar bears come from the ocean the grizzly bears from the mountains the birds come from as far away as the south pole! your statement is ignorant to the point of being utterly absurd. the ecology of the area as you point out is not fragile at all. it is mostly frozen wasteland. it is *fragile*. nobody in their right mind claims otherwise. tracks from vehicles commonly remain easy to see for 20 years. here read this and learn something about the area before babbling so much http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwro/arctic/issues1.html bull. they created anwr because it contains about 18 million acres of pristine wilderness. when the boundries were drawn up they simply continued the line down to the coast. the result was it encompassed another 1 million acres of wasteland nobody on either side cared about at the time. now that they found oil in it both sides care. abject ignorance! the presen

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote the above statement is ignorant and glaringly false. if people want to argue about anwr the least they could do is learn something about it rather than fabricate fantasies about what it is or is not. see http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/wildlife.html which among other things says the arctic national wildlife refuge is home to some of the most diverse and spectacular wildlife in the arctic. the refuges rich pageant of wildlife includes 36 fish species 36 land mammals nine marine mammals and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species. sigh....anwr consists of 19 million acres mostly mountainous. none of your pretty propaganda pictures are of the 1.5 million acre north coast region of anwr. of the 1.5 million acre region oil production would use about 2000 acres. i never once said that anwr is a wasteland. i said the region of planned oil production is. .

From : redneck tookover hell

and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. amazing how someone can claim to have been all those places and still be so ignorant politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : miles

tbone wrote please milesh we are talking about off shore drilling rigs here. if one of them fails or has a severe accident hundreds of thousands of raw crude can be pumped into the ocean with no easy way to stop it or clean it up. even when they did have an easy way such as with the valdees they did nothing and were unprepared due to nothing more than not wanting to invest the money. do you really think that they would do any more if one of these rigs failed. please tboner you were talking about the exxon valdez that went aground not an off shore rig. tankers like the valdez carry foreign oil to our shores and sometimes leak. you want the oil its got to get here somehow. tankers have leaked far more than any offshore rigs. good for that but like i said a pipe line is a different animal than a drilling site. lol the drilling/processing site takes up a very very small portion of land. there are no animals at the anwr site nor is it in any migration path. youll buy anything that suggests that some critter might be harmed regardless of any evidence to support it. please show me hard facts that show the alaskan pipelines harm to any animals. hard evidence shows the exact opposite. herd counts have risen. dang leftists keep using emotions rather than facts. well if my city was and i doubt it it happened way before my time and there wasnt anything that i could do about it. if it is truly not in the migration path of any animals then what is stopping them what is stopping them is people like you who buy into the leftist crap that says some critter maybe harmed. your type said the same thing about the alaska pipeline before its construction. your leftist emotions allow you to believe what you want absent of facts. herd counts are not higher since the pipeline. perhaps if you actually answered it did you live there which i doubt since they normally dont build houses on national reserves or have you visited and if so when where and how often. oh geez. you find it odd that someone could know more about an area than yourself who bases their opinions on emotions and propaganda absent of facts i have family in remote areas of alaska. they are bush pilots who fly across most of the state. it may strike you as odd but i do visit my family quite often. i bet the real reason that people are fighting so hard is due to typical corporate greed and political corruption. ill bet your leftists types are fighting against it because they believe something to be true that isnt. you cant prove that current alaskan oil production has harmed any migration paths or otherwise effected animals in a negative way. it hasnt. the herd counts have risen. that doesnt seem to stop your type from trying again with a smaller sized project. if they do begin drilling there and find that this is really just the edge of what looks like a vast oil field and the main part appears to be in the lush protected areas that they will begin drilling there and destroying that as well. lol...pure speculation on your part. stop all drilling and exploration in wasteland areas because they might find it in more environmentally rich areas. good grief. it is funny that you rightist winners mention everything except conservation. bull. whats funny is that the people who whine the most are the people who have the least knowledge. take for instance the leftists who whine about offroading. while i agree there are a few hotrodders who dont give a damn the vast majority of offroaders do care. look at groups such as tread lightly. they sponser numerous outings where they clean restore and rebuild areas damaged mostly from weather. they leave the area in better shape than when they arrived. groups like this do far more restoration and cleanup work than the so called conservative leftist groups who do little except whine about what they do not know. my type as you like to call them have seen enough examples of corporate greed and political corruption to know if you give them an inch they will try to take it all and once started it is damn hard to stop them. except most times your type cant prove their own claims. instead you take the few extreme cases and attempt to use them to show problems where they do not exist. take the alaskan pipeline for instance. you cant prove any harm to animals but instead ignore the facts that show the opposite. .

From : redneck tookover hell

the fact that im far better informed about the whole business of anwr than you is probably the reason you dont want to you are showing your ignorance again floyd why not stop all your spinning and just admit youre a shill for the enviro wackos and be done with it politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

but once again your argument holds no water. you must really be familiar with water you try to bring that into most of your spinning. is that because you need it in that mudhole you spin yourself into lardass politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

heres a website with information from real scientists http//pushback.com/ not surprisingly guys like the boner and floyd hate it politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote tbone wrote please milesh we are talking about off shore drilling rigs here. if one of them fails or has a severe accident hundreds of thousands of raw crude can be pumped into the ocean with no easy way to stop it or clean it up. even when they did have an easy way such as with the valdees they did nothing and were unprepared due to nothing more than not wanting to invest the money. do you really think that they would do any more if one of these rigs failed. please tboner you were talking about the exxon valdez that went aground not an off shore rig. tankers like the valdez carry foreign oil to our shores and sometimes leak. you want the oil its got to get here somehow. tankers have leaked far more than any offshore rigs. there are offshore rigs in the arctic ocean right now northstar and the governor has said hes going to auction offshore areas near anwr this fall. there are two problems. one is that the anwr offshore areas are right in the bowhead whale migration route. second is that if there is a spill we have *no* way to clean up oil if there is ice in the water. good for that but like i said a pipe line is a different animal than a drilling site. lol the drilling/processing site takes up a very very small portion of land. there are no animals at the anwr site nor is it in any migration path. why do you continue to post such crap there *are* animals on the coastal plain of anwr and only a complete idiot would suggest that there are none. it is well known to be the end point for the migration of *hundreds* of different animals. youll buy anything that suggests that some critter might be harmed regardless of any evidence to support it. please show me hard facts that show the alaskan pipelines harm to any animals. hard evidence shows the exact opposite. herd counts have risen. dang leftists keep using emotions rather than facts. hard evidence doesnt support what you say! an example we like to give is that on average if we decreased calf survival by 5% the herd wouldnt grow or recover from declines like its in now said caribou biologist ken whitten who was a junior author on the report. the point being it wouldnt take much whitten said. it doesnt have to be a catastrophic change in calf survival to have an effect on the herd. http//www.truthout.org/docs02/04.01g.artic.risk.htm here is an in depth statement from ken whitten in sworn testimony to congress on july 11 2001. http//www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic//whitten.pdf here are other urls of interest http//www.inforain.org/maparchive/caribou.htm http//www.defenders.org/releases/pr2001/sciletter.pdf unfortunately the alaska department of fish and game nor the us fish and wildlife service have put the research papers themselves on the internet. here are the actual research papers for the central arctic herd and its interaction with oil production cameron r.d. and k.r. whitten. 1979. seasonal movements and sexual segregation of caribou determined by aerial survey. j. wildl. manag. 43626-633. cameron r.d. k.r. whitten w.t. smith and d.d. roby. 1979. caribou distribution and group composition associated with construction of the trans-alaska pipeline. can. field- natur. 93155-162. cameron r.d. 1983. issue caribou and petroleum development in arctic alaska. arctic 36227-231. smith w.t. and r.d. cameron. 1985. reactions of large groups of caribou to a pipeline corridor on the arctic coastal plain of alaska. arctic. 3853-57. dau j.r. and r.d. cameron. 1986. effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving. rangifer special issue no. 195-101. fancy s.g. and k.r. whitten. 1991. selection of calving sites by porcupine herd caribou. can. j. zool. 691736-1743. cameron r.d. d.j. reed j.r. dau and w.t. smith. 1992. redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field development on the arctic slope of alaska. arctic. 45338-342. cameron r.d. 1995. distribution and productivity of the central arctic herd in relation to petroleum development case history studies with a nutritional perspective. fed. aid in wildl. resp. final rept. ak. dept. fish and game. juneau. 35pp. nelleman c. and r.d. cameron. 1996. terrain preferences of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development. arctic 4923-28. nellemann c. and r.d. cameron. 1998. cumulative impacts of an evolving oilfield complex on calving caribou. can. j. zool. 761425-1430. perhaps if you actually answered it did you live there which i doubt since they normally dont build houses on national reserves or have you visited and if so when where and how often. oh geez. you find it odd that someone could know more about an area than yourself who bases their opinions on emotions and propaganda absent of facts i have family in remote areas of alaska. they are bush pilots who fl

From : tbone

sorry to hear that but what exactly is a mlb.tv btw happy easter same to you! it was a great day other than the fact the mlb.tv took a crap and i couldnt watch the red sox beat toronto in extra innings --mike sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote see http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/wildlife.html which among other things says the arctic national wildlife refuge is home to some of the most diverse and spectacular wildlife in the arctic. the refuges rich pageant of wildlife includes 36 fish species 36 land mammals nine marine mammals and more than 160 migratory and resident bird species. sigh....anwr consists of 19 million acres mostly mountainous. none of your pretty propaganda pictures are of the 1.5 million acre north coast region of anwr. bullshit. ive been there ive seen it. and i live on the north slope and know *exactly* what it looks like. if you will actually *look* at the url above... youll find that it has only 4 small images right at the top and *all* of them are from the coastal plain of anwr. you snipped the second url i guess hoping that nobody would actually go look at it to verify http//www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/battle.htm there is a slide show... area of image picture number anwr non-coastal plain 3 4 5 6 8 anwr coastal plain 1 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 33 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 48 non-anwr 41 42 43 unidentifiable 7 11 22 28 34 35 36 37 49 50 maps 2 12 that is 30 out of the 50 images that *are* from the coastal plain of anwr. what you clearly havent figured out yet is that the coastal plain of anwr is *very* photogenic! far more so than the southern portion of the refuge! of the 1.5 million acre region oil production would use about 2000 acres. that is not true. the footprint would be 2000 acres. that is the ground touched by actual buildings and pipeline supports. it is the acreage *taxable* by the north slope borough! and it has *nothing* to do with how much land is used or affected. for example it does not include roads dumps airports or gravel pits. the actual area affected will be 1.5 million acres! i never once said that anwr is a wasteland. i said the region of planned oil production is. and im saying the region of planned oil production is *not* any wasteland. it is a botanists paradise! biologists love it! and you lie about it in every post. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote there are two problems. one is that the anwr offshore areas are right in the bowhead whale migration route. there are offshore rigs off the coast of california right in the migration path of several species of whales. they do not bother them at all. not in the least. why do you continue to post such crap there *are* animals on the coastal plain of anwr and only a complete idiot would suggest that there are none. it is well known to be the end point for the migration of *hundreds* of different animals. from the studies i have seen there are few animals that make the area in question for development home. there are some that migrate through parts of the area. however the area where they want to construct buildings etc. is a very small area right on the coast. i have not seen any studies that show herd rely on these few acres for migration nor living. were not talking about the entire anwr coastal region. only a small sliver along the coast where they want to develop. you sir are lying through your teeth. your observations as quoted here are simply fabrications based on the emotions and propaganda absent of facts that you accuse tbone of using. rofl...the studies you show arent backed up with facts and yet you claim them as such they are pure speculation. if they were true then existing developments would have had a negative impact. yet they have not. you cant back up *any* of it with cites or references to real facts. and as you can see from the above set of cites ill be very happy to *inundate* you with good reference material! rofl..define good. they are abest of any facts based on actual related occurances in the region. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote please milesh we are talking about off shore drilling rigs here. if one of them fails or has a severe accident hundreds of thousands of raw crude can be pumped into the ocean with no easy way to stop it or clean it up. even when they did have an easy way such as with the valdees they did nothing and were unprepared due to nothing more than not wanting to invest the money. do you really think that they would do any more if one of these rigs failed. please tboner you were talking about the exxon valdez that went aground not an off shore rig. tankers like the valdez carry foreign oil to our shores and sometimes leak. you want the oil its got to get here somehow. tankers have leaked far more than any offshore rigs. resorting to name calling already that doesnt say much for your argument. tankers carry a fixed amont of oil and can be guided around storms can you the same for off shore drilling riggs. i bet most of the ones that were stopped were deap water riggs where the risk of failure is extreem and the ability to contain it is zero. good for that but like i said a pipe line is a different animal than a drilling site. lol the drilling/processing site takes up a very very small portion of land. bullshit. there are no animals at the anwr site nor is it in any migration path. youll buy anything that suggests that some critter might be harmed regardless of any evidence to support it. please show me hard facts that show the alaskan pipelines harm to any animals. hard evidence shows the exact opposite. herd counts have risen. dang leftists keep using emotions rather than facts. i think that i will go with what floyd says since he lives there. well if my city was and i doubt it it happened way before my time and there wasnt anything that i could do about it. if it is truly not in the migration path of any animals then what is stopping them what is stopping them is people like you who buy into the leftist crap that says some critter maybe harmed. you have yet to show any proof to counter it while floyd has shown much to support it. your type said the same thing about the alaska pipeline before its construction. your leftist emotions allow you to believe what you want absent of facts. herd counts are not higher since the pipeline. floyd already answered this one and he knows far more about it than i do. perhaps if you actually answered it did you live there which i doubt since they normally dont build houses on national reserves or have you visited and if so when where and how often. oh geez. you find it odd that someone could know more about an area than yourself who bases their opinions on emotions and propaganda absent of facts i simply wanted to know how you know so much about it nothing more. i really dont know all that much about the area myself but from what floyd is saying neither do you. i have family in remote areas of alaska. they are bush pilots who fly across most of the state. it may strike you as odd but i do visit my family quite often. remote areas means little in such a huge state. unless they live in the area itself and actually care about what is happening there they probably dont know all that much about it either and if they have the same rightist viewpoint that you do i doubt that they could give a rats ass. i bet the real reason that people are fighting so hard is due to typical corporate greed and political corruption. ill bet your leftists types are fighting against it because they believe something to be true that isnt. you cant prove that current alaskan oil production has harmed any migration paths or otherwise effected animals in a negative way. it hasnt. the herd counts have risen. that doesnt seem to stop your type from trying again with a smaller sized project. when comparing what you have to say to what floyd has to say my vote has to go with floyd because he is backing up what he says with fact not rightist bs. the fact is a manned drilling sight is nothing like an elevated pipe line and trying to use them in a direct comparrison is just ignorant. if they do begin drilling there and find that this is really just the edge of what looks like a vast oil field and the main part appears to be in the lush protected areas that they will begin drilling there and destroying that as well. lol...pure speculation on your part. stop all drilling and exploration in wasteland areas because they might find it in more environmentally rich areas. good grief. lol it has happened time and time again. people that actually think learn by example. floyd has shot down all of your arguments but it really doesnt matter as anwr is not the real issue anyway. the real issue is comming up with a altermate energy source and doing what we can to preserve what we already have until that time comes if ever. it is funn

From : redneck tookover hell

biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. hell be digging and spinning in the mud in this thread before long also politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

why you show us that and more every time you post something redfag you mean like you do lardass you trolls must be on alert to show up so fast your mudholes getting pretty deep over in the tranny thread lardass maybe you need some of that water you keep bringing up trying to spin your lardass politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : tbone

hahahahahaha we dont hate it we laugh at it and the idiots like you that buy into it. hell even its name and mission statement show it for what it is just a leftist propaganda machine. the article on nuclear power plants vs. coal is a real trip and a perfect example of right wing half truths and scare tactics. i am pro-nuclear energy and find the article to be full of shit. they fail to mention the facts that a nuclear power plant is far more dangerous to the surrounding area than a coal burning one and fail to mention what to do with the expired fuel that they create but are quick to point out the minute amount of radiation a coal burner emits. like i said just half truths and scare tactics that work surprisingly well on the not to bright like yourself there red. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving heres a website with information from real scientists http//pushback.com/ not surprisingly guys like the boner and floyd hate it politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote you snipped the second url i guess hoping that nobody would actually go look at it to verify http//www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/battle.htm what a bunch of crap. you want pictures take a look at anwrs own website. look at pics 44 thru 53. that is the anwr coastal plain area. that is what the area looks like where planned oil development is. good grief. http//www.anwr.org/photo.htm .

From : milesh

tbone wrote tankers carry a fixed amont of oil and can be guided around storms can you the same for off shore drilling riggs. youre the one that brought up tankers such as the exxon valdez not me. tankers bring the oil both foreign and domestic. how many offshore rigs have spilled onto us soil how many tankers guess which one causes the most damage guess which one makes little difference where the oil comes from i think that i will go with what floyd says since he lives there. and hes full of it when he posts pictures from a leftist tree hugger sight rather than show pics of the actual area in question as i did. those pretty scenic pics you see all over are to play on your emotions and they work. you have yet to show any proof to counter it while floyd has shown much to support it. no he hasnt. he showed some speculative crap. he has not shown how herds have been reduced as a result of oil development in alaska. herds have increased in numbers. floyd already answered this one and he knows far more about it than i do. rofl...youll buy anything from anyone that agrees with your emotional based speculative guesses. i simply wanted to know how you know so much about it nothing more. i really dont know all that much about the area myself but from what floyd is saying neither do you. why because floyds opinions agree with yours lol...thats all it takes huh i showed some real pics of the wasteland you and floyd think is pristine. lemme guess which one you think is more accurate of whats really there....floyds pics right remote areas means little in such a huge state. true to an extent. many that live outside of anchorage have a great saying...if you are in anchorage youre just a short drive from alaska. unless they live in the area itself and actually care about what is happening there most people in alaska outside anchorage are nature lovers contrary to your misguided beliefs. when comparing what you have to say to what floyd has to say my vote has to go with floyd because he is backing up what he says with fact he has facts more like leftist biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. now which one of these equates to take steps to conserve our current supplies oh yea neither. get rid of your truck then. dont give me the crap about not driving it much. get rid of it! do you own any cds get rid of them as well as anything that is petroleum based. i doubt youll do that but youll whine about others and pat yourself on the back for conserving. see what i mean. floyd disagrees with you here as well and just because an animal population recovered doesnt mean that there was no harm done. the numbers are greater now than prior to the pipelines construction. youre whining about a few that may have died during its construction gads!! that means they shouldnt do improvements to rivers damaged by floods then. during the construction projects on the black river here in az 1000s of trout were killed. but they rebounded in greater numbers than before. .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote there are two problems. one is that the anwr offshore areas are right in the bowhead whale migration route. there are offshore rigs off the coast of california right in the migration path of several species of whales. they do not bother them at all. not in the least. you seem to have a very loose grip on truth. the fact is that bowhead gray and humpback whales are all affected significantly by noise. whether that has a negative impact off the coast of california i do not know and i bet you dont either. the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. why do you continue to post such crap there *are* animals on the coastal plain of anwr and only a complete idiot would suggest that there are none. it is well known to be the end point for the migration of *hundreds* of different animals. from the studies i have seen there are few animals that make the area in question for development home. that is simply not true. it is a wildlife refuge for a *very* good reason. as noted there are *hundreds* of animals that migrate into the coastal plain of anwr. it is *teaming* with life! and that is year round too! foxes wolves wolverines rodents polar bears muskox some birds and some caribou are there year round. there are some that migrate through parts of the area. parts of the area however the area where they want to construct buildings etc. is a very small area right on the coast. you are making up stories that are *not* supported by facts. below is a url for one map showing potential drilling locations. i have not seen any studies that show herd rely on these few acres for migration nor living. then you probably should actually *look* at the studies! there isnt any part of the western half of the 1002 area that the caribou do not use. if you look at a map of the 1002 area the current thinking is that the western half is where most of the oil is. right at the narrowest point... from there to just east of that point is where the initial exploration would probably take place. and that just happens to be *the* area often refered to as the prime calving area. here is a map tracking one caribou in 1987 http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/pchmove87.html here is a page that indexes several other pages each describing where the herd is at a given time of the year http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/caribouyear.html here is a hypothetical oil production scheme. however this was based on the 1987 usgs survey not on the 1998 data now available. the two are significantly different so this is probably not a likely variation. this is a huge page filled with a *lot* of very good information. the map referenced is about 1/3rd of the way down the page. http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwro/arctic/issues1.html the difference between the 1987 and 1998 usgs reports would probably cause initial exploration to be shifted westward from that shown on that particular map. were not talking about the entire anwr coastal region. only a small sliver along the coast where they want to develop. that is total bullshit. where *do* you get such ideas have you even looked at the usgs survey information have you seen what the usfws has posted in addition to the url above here is another one you need to read before fabricating http//pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm you sir are lying through your teeth. your observations as quoted here are simply fabrications based on the emotions and propaganda absent of facts that you accuse tbone of using. rofl...the studies you show arent backed up with facts and yet you claim them as such they are pure speculation. if they were true then existing developments would have had a negative impact. yet they have not. oh the 30 years of studies done by the alaska department of fish and game and the us fish and wildlife service are not backed up by facts you are an idiot. those are *the* studies that have generated all of the facts now known. look at the usfws web pages above. look *anywhere* that you can find information about caribou on the north slope. what you will find is that they *all* cite exactly the same set of studies that ive cited! just in case you havent caught on those studies are the *only* source of facts. those that i listed plus a great many more by the same people are the reports of 30 years of research done by caribou biologists on the north slope. the ones that i cited were those done primarily by dr. ray cameron in regard to impacts of the pipeline and other infrastructure. cameron for 20+ years was the head biologist for the

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. look at anwr.org for more info. the coastal plain area of anwr is 1.5 million acres. planned development is for 2000 acres. now you bring up the inupiats they support the planned anwr development. theyre not against it at all!! where do you dig this crap up .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you snipped the second url i guess hoping that nobody would actually go look at it to verify http//www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/battle.htm i notice you dont deny that those pictures *are* exactly what i said they are! what a bunch of crap. you want pictures take a look at anwrs own website. look at pics 44 thru 53. that is the anwr coastal plain area. that is what the area looks like where planned oil development is. good grief. speaking of *crap*!!! look at anwrs own website are you that naive that is the web site for arctic power a lobbying organization pad for with oil money. it is also the most deceptive least reliable source of information possible on anwr. youll notice too that since congress is no longer considering a bill to drill in anwr arctic power has lost almost all of its funding and www.anwr.org has not been updated in months. if you want anwrs own website http//www.r7.fws.gov/nwro/arctic/issues1.html which is again filled with fabulous images of the coastal plain of anwr. http//www.anwr.org/photo.htm anyone can take ugly pictures! and boy that is some of the worst photography ive seen lately. of course image 55 is also of the coastal plain of anwr... didnt you notice that what they did with the exception of that one image is use a wide angle lens and point it at basically distant objects that makes for a fairly awful image lacking in any detail. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote anyone can take ugly pictures! and boy that is some of the worst photography ive seen lately. of course image 55 is also of the coastal plain of anwr... anyone can take pretty pictures of an area that isnt where oil production is planned. the pictures of the planned development site is just as i showed not the pics you showed. ever visit beautiful downtown kaktovik and vicinity .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote anyone can take ugly pictures! and boy that is some of the worst photography ive seen lately. of course image 55 is also of the coastal plain of anwr... anyone can take pretty pictures of an area that isnt where oil production is planned. the pictures of the planned development site is just as i showed not the pics you showed. ever visit beautiful downtown kaktovik and vicinity however those pictures *are* where the oil production is planned. all you showed was some really lousy photography. and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

oh boy the resident homo troll strikes again lol -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. hell be digging and spinning in the mud in this thread before long also politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. lol...your wildlife website is just full of nothing but facts right all accurate right couldnt possibly be distorted to support your warped leftist ideas and play on emotions right ya sure. good grief. .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote tbone wrote tankers carry a fixed amont of oil and can be guided around storms can you the same for off shore drilling riggs. youre the one that brought up tankers such as the exxon valdez not me. tankers bring the oil both foreign and domestic. how many offshore rigs have spilled onto us soil how many tankers guess which one causes the most damage guess which one makes little difference where the oil comes from i think that i will go with what floyd says since he lives there. and hes full of it when he posts pictures from a leftist tree hugger sight rather than show pics of the actual area in question as i did. those pretty scenic pics you see all over are to play on your emotions and they work. are you denying that the pictures i cited *are* pictures of the coastal plain of anwr those are pics of the actual area in question. as they show it *is* a beautiful place! you have yet to show any proof to counter it while floyd has shown much to support it. no he hasnt. he showed some speculative crap. he has not 30 years of caribou studies by the alaska department of fish and game is hardly speculative crap. do you need a few more quotes from the biologists shown how herds have been reduced as a result of oil development in alaska. herds have increased in numbers. caribou herds go through cycles. the prudhoe bay development started when the central arctic herd was at a minimum. it is still a relatively small herd compared to others and it makes use of a *huge* area which just happens to also include prudhoe bay... but is not in any way restricted to the area where oil development is taking place. some of the cah calve in anwr! that is to say your insistence that the growth of the central arctic herd means that prudhoe bay development was not detrimental is not logical and not based on known facts. and there *are* known facts! we have 30 years worth of studies. in the case of prudhoe bay itself we do not have any before studies so it is hard to do anything but speculate. however before milne point and kuparuk were developed there were studies done. and the studies continued during and after development. there were also before studies for alpine and currently there are after studies in progress that will tell us how the area around nuiqsut has been affected preliminary indications are that it is seriously affected the subsistence hunters from nuiqsut. whatever we have before and after studies for milne point and kuparuk. they *clearly* demonstrate that oil infrastructure has a negative impact on caribou reproduction. that is not speculation that is the *measured* effect. floyd already answered this one and he knows far more about it than i do. rofl...youll buy anything from anyone that agrees with your emotional based speculative guesses. you are the one using emotions rather than scientific studies. considering of the importance of the porcupine caribou herd to indigenous people in united states and canada and the high likelihood that petroleum leasing and development would cause long-term harm to those caribou 21 arctic caribou biologists from the us and canada signed a letter to former president clinton urging permanent protection of the porcupine herd calving grounds from development. over 500 prominent north american scientists signed a letter to president bush urging protection of the arctic refuge coastal plain to safeguard caribou and other natural resource values. protection of the coastal plain has also been endorsed by the alaska chapter of the wildlife society the american society of mammalogists and the cooper ornithological union. copies of the letters and resolutions are attached. i urge congress to heed the advice of these eminent wildlife biologists and ecologists and not allow petroleum development on the arctic refuge coastal plain. dr. ken whitten testimony to congress july 11 2001 dr whitten cited the following literature in his testimony to congress before the house committee on resources cameron r.d. 1995. distribution and productivity of the central arctic herd in relation to petroleum development case history studies with a nutritional perspective. fed. aid in wildl. resp. final rept. ak. dept. fish and game. juneau. 35pp. cameron r.d. and k.r. whitten. 1979. seasonal movements and sexual segregation of caribou determined by aerial survey. j. wildl. manag. 43626-633. cameron r.d. k.r. whitten w.t. smith and d.d. roby. 1979. caribou distribution and group composition associated with construction of the trans-alaska pipeline. can. field- natur. 93155-162. cameron r.d. d.j. reed j.r. dau and w.t. smith. 1992. redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field development on the arctic slope of alaska. arctic. 45338-342. dau j.r. and r.d. cameron. 1986. effects of a road system o

From : john e jakuhing

what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. the airline industry was deregulated and now consumers can get cheap flights and the airlines are going broke. hey i suppose its just the price of pure capitalism .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. look at anwr.org for more info. that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. you talk about propaganda that site is *loaded* with it. just look at the first page which is filled with errors of fact. look at the quote from the main page on the right. rep. richard pombo has the figure for economically recoverable oil of by times 2. then look at the lead story about jobs. that one proved to be a phony study which was off by a factor of about 40. nice site... if you dont care about accurate information! the coastal plain area of anwr is 1.5 million acres. planned development is for 2000 acres. that once again is simply *not* true. the planned development is going to affect the entire 1.5 million acres. the 2000 acre figure is what the north slope borough is going to levy property taxes on. it consists *only* of building structures touching the ground for example only the support structures for pipelines are counted not the area under the pipe. it does *not* include roads airports garbage dump or gravel pits. which is to say it is in no way a measure of what will be affected. the whole of the prudhoe bay complex has a footprint of only 10000 acres. look at what it covers! *1000 square miles!* and there are over 1200 miles of pipeline within the prudhoe bay complex. that is more than 1 and 1/2 times the entire trans-alaska pipeline. and there are over 500 miles of roads. your continued claims that only 2000 acres will be affected are naive and ignorant. now you bring up the inupiats they support the planned anwr development. theyre not against it at all!! where do you dig this crap up youd best re-check that one. first the inupiat people have *never* supported offshore drilling. they have fought it tooth and nail. they *have* supported drilling anwr simply because the people in kaktovik are not dependent on the caribou but on the bowhead whale. governor murkowski just annoyed them to no end by proposing offshore drilling around kaktovik. the gwichin people who are dependent on the caribou are of course absolutely against drilling in anwr. but lately the inupiat have been having second thoughts too. theyve seen what happened around nuiqsut as the alpine field has been developed and as the pressure to explore more in the npr-a has increased. instead of being consulted and having their concerns heard all of the previous plans to protect inupiat subsistence seem to be getting pushed aside by the state and by the oil companies. in fact george ahmaogak north slope borough mayor has openly threatened the state with removal of support for anwr if things dont change! and i dont see a thing changing in the right direction yet... you dont seem to be so well informed. maybe you should visit alaska someday eh -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

floyd l. davidson wrote the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. look at anwr.org for more info. the coastal plain area of anwr is 1.5 million acres. planned development is for 2000 acres. now you bring up the inupiats they support the planned anwr development. theyre not against it at all!! where do you dig this crap up sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links and references that say it is full of shit. it seems that you are the one that is desperatly clinging to anything that supports your rightist argument even as few as they are. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. amazing how someone can claim to have been all those places and still be so ignorant if i *was* ignorant youd probably agree with me... the fact that im far better informed about the whole business of anwr than you is probably the reason you dont want to discuss facts and instead just post lame snipes like that one eh or are you saying that since you dont have a clue you arent ignorant -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote are you denying that the pictures i cited *are* pictures of the coastal plain of anwr those are pics of the actual area in question. no they are not. they do not show the area where buildings are planned. i do not see any pics on your leftist website that show where the processing center is planned. the few pretty pics show where the coastal region meets the mountainous region. thats inland!! are you denying that the images ive cited are in fact what ive said they are yes. they are not the area of planned development. the pics i showed are. because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. what and youre from there while roads are scarce in alaska you most certainly can drive to many parts. where does highway 3 in canada lead alaska perhaps because of work my family moves around alaska. sometimes by road sometimes by plane or boat. thats true. which is why we arent so hot on drilling anwr just to make the state and the oil companies rich. bull. alaskans greatly approved the pipeline and most approve of anwr including the native eskimos that live in the region. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. then show us some of your home pictures of kaktovik and vicinicty along the coast where development is planned. instead you show some pics of inland areas bording the mountain regions. good grief. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links rofl...worldwildlife.org rofl. .

From : tbone

why you show us that and more every time you post something redfag -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. amazing how someone can claim to have been all those places and still be so ignorant politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : tbone

funny how an obvious conservative web site that plays on peoples fears is nothing but accurate even though he proved inaccuracies on the first page but anything that disagrees with that is nothing more than leftist bs trying to play on peoples emotions. that really is a case of pot kettle black now isnt it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links rofl...worldwildlife.org rofl. .

From : milesh

funny how an obvious liberal web site that plays on peoples fears is nothing but accurate even though several inaccuracies were shown. you have shown nothing to support your claims. you keep referring back to good ol floyd as your personal expert who shows us obvious liberal websites such as worldwildlife.org to which you buy it all up. tbone wrote funny how an obvious conservative web site that plays on peoples fears is nothing but accurate even though he proved inaccuracies on the first page but anything that disagrees with that is nothing more than leftist bs trying to play on peoples emotions. that really is a case of pot kettle black now isnt it. .

From : tbone

are you really this stupid how many fossil fuel plants are terrorist targets how many fossil fuel plants have the possibility of a meltdown -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving they fail to mention the facts that a nuclear power plant is far more dangerous to the surrounding area than a coal burning one how do you figure that .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tankers carry a fixed amont of oil and can be guided around storms can you the same for off shore drilling riggs. youre the one that brought up tankers such as the exxon valdez not me. thats rightbut not as a direct comparrison to an off shore drilling rig only to prove a point on how an oil company reasts to am accident or disaster. tankers bring the oil both foreign and domestic. how many offshore rigs have spilled onto us soil who knows do you think that they are going to advertize it if it can be hidden it will be just like what created all of the toxic superfund sites. i dont recall any of those companies advertizing that they were intentionally dumping poison into the ground water. what makes you think that the oil companies are any different. how many tankers guess which one causes the most damage guess which one makes little difference where the oil comes from once again assumption that can neither be proven or disproven. i think that i will go with what floyd says since he lives there. and hes full of it when he posts pictures from a leftist tree hugger sight rather than show pics of the actual area in question as i did. your pictures are just as much bullshit and any other. it is nothing more than perspective and until you stand on that ground you have no clue. those pretty scenic pics you see all over are to play on your emotions and they work. and those pictures of desolation that you are using are trying to do just the opposit and they also work on you anyway. you have yet to show any proof to counter it while floyd has shown much to support it. no he hasnt. he showed some speculative crap. really not by what i have seen. he has not shown how herds have been reduced as a result of oil development in alaska. herds have increased in numbers. this means nothing. what was the rate of growth prior to the pipeline floyd already answered this one and he knows far more about it than i do. rofl...youll buy anything from anyone that agrees with your emotional based speculative guesses. and you are no different in that. i simply wanted to know how you know so much about it nothing more. i really dont know all that much about the area myself but from what floyd is saying neither do you. why because floyds opinions agree with yours how about the fact that he actually lives there. he has also listed multiple references to back up his claims. all that you have done so far is to produce one conservative site that is obviously funded by the oil companies. gee that would have no influence on the way that they slant the truth now would it. lol...thats all it takes huh i showed some real pics of the wasteland you and floyd think is pristine. one quick question what makes yours the real ones and any others bs lemme guess which one you think is more accurate of whats really there....floyds pics right i cant say since i havent been there and neither have you. floyd claims to have been so for that i will give more credit to him. also preventing drilling there does nothing for me and possibly raises my fuel bills just like everyone elses so what is the point of lying about it. drilling there will make some people very rich and that is a far greater motivation to lie than to protect some animals. are you really so blinded not to see even that remote areas means little in such a huge state. true to an extent. many that live outside of anchorage have a great saying...if you are in anchorage youre just a short drive from alaska. like i thought they are nowhere near it. now are they as conservative as you are unless they live in the area itself and actually care about what is happening there most people in alaska outside anchorage are nature lovers contrary to your misguided beliefs. lol like many their love of nature depends on their beliefs. it is easy to justify things when it suits you. when comparing what you have to say to what floyd has to say my vote has to go with floyd because he is backing up what he says with fact he has facts more like leftist biased speculative propaganda. which is your definition of everything that doesnt agree with you. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything if that were true then we would all be agreeing with you. after all it is the easier way rather than being responsible for the planet and how it is treated. you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. what facts have you provided you keep making claims that heards have increased around a pipeline a very different entitybut have nothing to state the rate of growth prior to its existance. in all honesty the rate of growth could have been cut in half or even by 99% and still be a positive number and that sounds like signifcant damage to me. when yopu show me n

From : tbone

the only one in the closet here is you. you only seem to appear and act this way when your boyfriend code named the machine dumps you. i see it is happening more often now. is it your age or are you the one that is becoming a lardass as for being a troll perhaps you should look up the definition and then compare it to your own posts lol. although with your lack of wit i can see why you cant do much more than this. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving oh boy the resident homo troll strikes again lol you coming out ot the closet with your buddy politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : john e jakuhing

if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. sniffle sniffle. class warfare. i dont think the person is the least bit jealous of the gluttonous ways some of us live. i certainly couldnt give a shit how much you use if we had an unlimited supply of oil and its overusage didnt cause an environmental hazard down the road. if we could extract an endless supply of clean energy you could use as much as youd like and i wouldnt get jealous and that includes the dumptruck i mean suv youd take to work and play. heck id probably own one myself if it wasnt such as safety hazard. .

From : john e jakuhing

muhahaha!! spoken like a true leftist without a clue! have you been there your type said the same thing about the alaskan pipeline. guess what it is elevated and does not stop migration. the area in anwr is a wasteland. very little migration traffic because of its distance from naturual resources the animals depend on. your claims are those echod by leftist propagandists who sit in washington and have little first hand knowledge. they showed pictures of anwr with lush forests streams etc. to try to buy support against drilling. what a bunch of lunacy. the area in anwr in question is a wasteland. there are no lush forests and streams. dang leftist propaganda and the people that buy into it. the vice provost for cal tech who wrote out of gas goodstein as well as many other prominent geologists agree that anwr isnt worth even considering because its such a small drop in the bucket. if you disagree with these minds i suppose youre nothing more than right-winged book burning religious zealot and deserve your fate of an empty tank in your suv. .

From : redneck tookover hell

the only one in the closet here is you. you only seem to appear and act this way when your boyfriend code named the machine dumps you. i so whats your excuse lardass or is it just being a troll i see youve been having a tough couple weeks eh lardass got your fat ass thumped in the himi thread then the trans thread and now in the gasoline thread. you must really enjoy spinning in that mudhole lardass politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

more damage has been done worldwide over the past century from coal burning plants than nuclear plants. tell me how clean burning coal is. also talk to a coal miner about how great his health is. tbone wrote they fail to mention the facts that a nuclear power plant is far more dangerous to the surrounding area than a coal burning one and fail to mention what to do with the expired fuel that they create but are quick to point out the minute amount of radiation a coal burner emits. .

From : milesh

john e. jaku-hing wrote the vice provost for cal tech who wrote out of gas goodstein as well as many other prominent geologists agree that anwr isnt worth even considering because its such a small drop in the bucket. if you disagree with these minds i suppose youre nothing more than right-winged book burning religious zealot and deserve your fate of an empty tank in your suv. the amount of oil in anwr is not really known. but i agree anwr in itself is not going to make a huge difference in foreign dependancy. but allowing exploration to find us oil both on land and offshore can put a dent in it. this isnt about anwr. its about the need to find what we have now so we can tap it when we need it. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote who knows do you think that they are going to advertize it in otherwords you have no clue and thus base your claims on pure speculation. once again assumption that can neither be proven or disproven. on the contrary. its easy to look up data on damage from oil spills. most is from tankers not offshore rigs. there have been no offshore oil spills in us waters since 1994. there have been 17 tanker spills during that time period. look it up. and those pictures of desolation that you are using are trying to do just the opposit and they also work on you anyway. the area where development is planned is as the pictures described not of the mountainous regions that border the coastal plains as you showed. the coastal region is only 1.5 million acres. look at those pics i gave. while you may not like the wide shots they show the vastness of the wasteland. your pics show only a few acres here and there and mostly along the area that borders the more pristine areas. like i thought they are nowhere near it. now are they as conservative as you are lol..you missed the point. my family lives nowheres near anchorage and despise that city. as do most that live most anywhere else in alaska. if that were true then we would all be agreeing with you. after all it is the easier way rather than being responsible for the planet and how it is treated. being responsible or emotional i love the outdoors. spend as much time as i can there. i hate to see my favorate areas destroyed just as much as you. the difference is in having knowledge of nature and not basing actions on emotional based propaganda mostly from people who are city dwellers. lame arguments like this either show just how weak your point is or how dumb you really are. by what logic should i give up everything just because i am concerned about the environment. you are only concerned with the environment in areas that do not effect you personally. thats the mentality of the drill in others backyard. its all the same planet we live on. if it damages the enviroment in the usa it also does in the middle east mexico or canada where most of our oil comes from currently. i have the truck because i need it no you dont. you want it for what it can do that benifits you. and the other car because i like it and it gets almost twice the mileage as the truck. how about getting a car that gets considerably better than your nissan people can conserve without putting themselves out completely. and people such as yourself can make lame attempts to suggest they are great conservationists when in reality the opposite is the truth. .

From : tbone

what part did you have trouble reading i said that im pro nuclear but i do understand the danger that goes with them. how many fossil fuel plants dirty as they may be are required to have city wide evacuation plans put in place before they can be fueled -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving more damage has been done worldwide over the past century from coal burning plants than nuclear plants. tell me how clean burning coal is. also talk to a coal miner about how great his health is. tbone wrote they fail to mention the facts that a nuclear power plant is far more dangerous to the surrounding area than a coal burning one and fail to mention what to do with the expired fuel that they create but are quick to point out the minute amount of radiation a coal burner emits. .

From : tbone

the only one in the closet here is you. you only seem to appear and act this way when your boyfriend code named the machine dumps you. i so whats your excuse lardass for what or is it just being a troll now that would be you by definition. i see youve been having a tough couple weeks eh lardass tuff na entertaining. it is good to see some life form in this rather dead group. got your fat ass thumped in the himi thread then the trans thread and now in the gasoline thread. only in your tiny right wing littke mind. you must really enjoy spinning in that mudhole lardass yawn. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : milesh

how many worst case scenario evacuations have occured around a us nuclear plant since their existance 3 mile island is as close as it gets and was not a city wide evacuation. tbone wrote what part did you have trouble reading i said that im pro nuclear but i do understand the danger that goes with them. how many fossil fuel plants dirty as they may be are required to have city wide evacuation plans put in place before they can be fueled .

From : tbone

like i asked before why is it always find more and never try and use a little less with the conservative mindset -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving john e. jaku-hing wrote the vice provost for cal tech who wrote out of gas goodstein as well as many other prominent geologists agree that anwr isnt worth even considering because its such a small drop in the bucket. if you disagree with these minds i suppose youre nothing more than right-winged book burning religious zealot and deserve your fate of an empty tank in your suv. the amount of oil in anwr is not really known. but i agree anwr in itself is not going to make a huge difference in foreign dependancy. but allowing exploration to find us oil both on land and offshore can put a dent in it. this isnt about anwr. its about the need to find what we have now so we can tap it when we need it. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote like i asked before why is it always find more and never try and use a little less with the conservative mindset why is it always stop any existing production that you can prevent any new production and prevent any exploration you seem to see only two pole opposites and nothing in the middle. i suggest we allow exploration and find what we have as well as conserve. im just not blind to the reality of needing oil today. .

From : redneck tookover hell

its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. you failed the test because you didnt understand what i said. your ignorance is showing again floyd most of us understand you very well politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

its an alaska joke. strange none of the alaskans i know tell that joke comprende mi hijo yep translation you are an idiot troll floyd. politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : paul jensen

please milesh we are talking about off shore drilling rigs here. when did you change the subject the valdez was a tanker not a drilling rig. do you know what the difference is anwr is not off shore. .

From : paul jensen

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. and your information comes from where .

From : paul jensen

sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links and references that say it is full of shit. and the agenda of these sites would be what .

From : paul jensen

they fail to mention the facts that a nuclear power plant is far more dangerous to the surrounding area than a coal burning one how do you figure that .

From : paul jensen

biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! .

From : paul jensen

because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. who the hell told you that a good friend of mine drove a motorhome from wisconsin to alaska. 25 years ago! are all of your *facts* this accurate .

From : paul jensen

i have been there anwr and specifically the 1002 area. and i spent 20 years living within a stones throw of the tran-alaska pipeline... and today i live on the north slope. you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! .

From : miles

paul jensen wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. and your information comes from where floyds info comes from worldwildlife.org. the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr imho. .

From : miles

paul jensen wrote because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. who the hell told you that a good friend of mine drove a motorhome from wisconsin to alaska. 25 years ago! are all of your *facts* this accurate lol...floyd lives there so we need to tell those that have driven to alaska they were really still in canada. its all marketing ya know fancy alaska signs and all on those canada highways. .

From : transurgeon

biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! damn i wish i hadnt spent so much time kicking the boners ass on the transmission thread why didnt somebody tell me there was another place to whoop on him .

From : tbone

i said that one of them possibly did. as usual you see what you want to see regardless of what is actually there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! .

From : tbone

once again you talk out of your ass with not so much as an idea of what was said or why. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. who the hell told you that a good friend of mine drove a motorhome from wisconsin to alaska. 25 years ago! are all of your *facts* this accurate .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote are you denying that the pictures i cited *are* pictures of the coastal plain of anwr those are pics of the actual area in question. no they are not. they do not show the area where buildings are they are of *exactly* where the oil exploration is planned. note that ive shown you where to find out what kind of development is likely and where it would be located. your claims that no real picture of the 1002 area actually shows where there will be buildings is a ploy that simply denies any buildings at all! youre just fabricating the fictional place where the buildings will be! planned. i do not see any pics on your leftist website that show where the processing center is planned. well just tell us all exactly where that is since it *isnt* known yet it would just a little difficult. the few pretty pics show where the coastal region meets the mountainous region. thats inland!! you do realize it is only 15 miles from camden bay to the foothills at the point where the usgs says the oil is most likely at several of the pretty pics were of the actual ocean beach too! and others showed the entire inland area taken from a roof top in kaktovik looking south. your whole scenario is swine bathwater. are you denying that the images ive cited are in fact what ive said they are yes. they are not the area of planned development. the pics i showed are. the pics you showed are of *nothing in particular*. a picture of a small portion of a lake bed or of a snow drift simply is not a place where development is planned. to be blunt youve cited several phony pictures! because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. what and youre from there while roads are scarce in alaska you most certainly can drive to many parts. where does highway 3 in canada lead alaska perhaps because of work my family moves around alaska. sometimes by road sometimes by plane or boat. guess you havent spent enough time in alaska to understand the inside jokes. the above statement was an extention of the one which you clipped that said that alaska is a short drive from anchorage. understand if you can drive to it it isnt alaska... or at least not the real alaska that many of us live in. thats true. which is why we arent so hot on drilling anwr just to make the state and the oil companies rich. bull. alaskans greatly approved the pipeline and most approve of anwr including the native eskimos that live in the region. oh we all approve of the pipeline. those who approve of anwr are the ones who will get the money. the native people who depend on the caribou are 100% against it. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. then show us some of your home pictures of kaktovik and vicinicty along the coast where development is planned. instead you show some pics of inland areas bording the mountain regions. good grief. ive shown you several pictures taken from kaktovik. perhaps the *most* famous picture of anwr was in fact taken from a roof top in kaktovik by ken whitten the caribou biologist nearly 30 years ago now. i believe this url is that image though it is not identified as such. be warned this is a 3306x2174 pixel image. you might want to save it to a file an adjust the size with a program other than you web browser for best results. http//www.federationofwesternoutdoorclubs.org/newart/arcticplainritz.jpg note that prior to 1998 it was assumed that most oil development would be in the area of that picture and extending to the east off the left hand side of the image. today it is assumed that most of it will be extending to the west of the right hand side. that image has inspired *many* others and has been used itself by many people. the images below are all either cropped versions of that or were taken with the intent to imitate the effect of the well known image above. these are almost identical images but they are different http//www.peer.org/anwr/frontrange.jpg http//arcticcircle.uconn.edu/anwr/images/anwrpcmb1.jpg http//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/feature/images/fthdr20010801.3.jpg http//www.tc.umn.edu/els/refuge.gif http//www.unm.edu//photos/april%2023%20photos/alaska.jpg http//www.organica.com//images/articbook.gif this one is probably taken from an airplane rather than in kaktovik but the intent is to get the same effect http//www.alaskacoalition.org/photos/lottacaribou.jpg now somebody tell me again that im not showing images of where the oil development is supposed to take place! what part of the 1002 area is left out of that image! what part of that image is not just breath taking knockem dead beautiful beyond words -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : mgg

mlb.tv is an internet service that allows you to watch almost any baseball game live via a 350kb/s stream. it aint high def but it sure beats nothing g. im red sox fan transplanted to the west coast so its my only option to watch my favorite baseball team. --mike sorry to hear that but what exactly is a mlb.tv btw happy easter same to you! it was a great day other than the fact the mlb.tv took a crap and i couldnt watch the red sox beat toronto in extra innings --mike sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : redneck tookover hell

when did you change the subject when boner started slipping into that mudhole when did you change the subject the valdez was a tanker not a drilling rig. do you know what the difference is anwr is not off shore. hey those are just minor things. boners against whatever if you told him we are going to drill for oil on the moon hed be against it cause its offshore politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. lol...your wildlife website is just full of nothing but facts ive been citing the web site of the department of the interiors us fish and wildlife service and usgs web sites for facts. they are *not* paid to lobby on the issue. right all accurate right couldnt possibly be distorted to support your warped leftist ideas and play on emotions right well since their boss is gail norton who was appointed by george w. bush it doesnt really seem likely that they are a bunch of warped leftist folks eh ya sure. good grief. you are naive beyond belief. why do you think i dont cite things like the sierra club web site or trusties for alaska id be leaving myself wide open to the same problem you have credibility. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : redneck tookover hell

i said that one of them possibly did. as usual you see what you want to see regardless of what is actually there. you must be talking about yourself againas usual boner. politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : tbone

no you wish that you were able to do but as usual you just ran away. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving biased speculative propaganda. see how easy it is for your type to buy anything you buy something some guys says on a ng that agrees with your opinions void of any facts. the boner got his fat ass kicked in the transmission thread so now hes out trolling in another thread. he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! damn i wish i hadnt spent so much time kicking the boners ass on the transmission thread why didnt somebody tell me there was another place to whoop on him .

From : tbone

gee what would the agenda of a site funded by the oil companies be hmm i wonder -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links and references that say it is full of shit. and the agenda of these sites would be what .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. rofl. theres anchorage and then theres alaska. much of which you can drive to. heck you can even drive to ketchikan sort of. .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote i have been there anwr and specifically the 1002 area. and i spent 20 years living within a stones throw of the tran-alaska pipeline... and today i live on the north slope. you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. who the hell told you that a good friend of mine drove a motorhome from wisconsin to alaska. 25 years ago! are all of your *facts* this accurate hee hee. thats what your friend thought he did. we have a road network in the areas near alaska which we use to contain a couple million visitors a year. that way they dont poop in the real alaska. btw did you actually *read* the context that the above statement was made in its an alaska joke. you see half of this state doesnt figure that los anchorage is part of alaska. and a significant percentage doesnt think *any* part of the highway system is either. comprende mi hijo -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote paul jensen wrote because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. who the hell told you that a good friend of mine drove a motorhome from wisconsin to alaska. 25 years ago! are all of your *facts* this accurate lol...floyd lives there so we need to tell those that have driven to alaska they were really still in canada. its all marketing ya know fancy alaska signs and all on those canada highways. its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. you failed the test because you didnt understand what i said. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. and your point you can drive to alaska lots of it. dalton highway goes all the way to deadhorse. there are towns here in arizona that you cant drive to. but i can drive to arizona. .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. and your information comes from where the us department of the interior. both the us fish and wildlife which manages anwr and the us geological survey usgs web sites are the one that ive been citing and quoting for factual information. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

gee milesh all of those rocks on that desolate area look remarkably like animals. it is a good thing that the thousands of them that i see there are not really migrating herds or was that clip of the ocean just trick photography to make my heart bleed. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote and yes ive been to kaktovik. and just about any other place on the north slope you can think of. then show us some of your home pictures of kaktovik and vicinicty along the coast where development is planned. instead you show some pics of inland areas bording the mountain regions. good grief. ive shown you several pictures taken from kaktovik. perhaps the *most* famous picture of anwr was in fact taken from a roof top in kaktovik by ken whitten the caribou biologist nearly 30 years ago now. i believe this url is that image though it is not identified as such. be warned this is a 3306x2174 pixel image. you might want to save it to a file an adjust the size with a program other than you web browser for best results. http//www.federationofwesternoutdoorclubs.org/newart/arcticplainritz.jpg note that prior to 1998 it was assumed that most oil development would be in the area of that picture and extending to the east off the left hand side of the image. today it is assumed that most of it will be extending to the west of the right hand side. that image has inspired *many* others and has been used itself by many people. the images below are all either cropped versions of that or were taken with the intent to imitate the effect of the well known image above. these are almost identical images but they are different http//www.peer.org/anwr/frontrange.jpg http//arcticcircle.uconn.edu/anwr/images/anwrpcmb1.jpg http//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/feature/images/fthdr20010801.3.jpg http//www.tc.umn.edu/els/refuge.gif http//www.unm.edu//photos/april%2023%20photos/alaska.jpg http//www.organica.com//images/articbook.gif this one is probably taken from an airplane rather than in kaktovik but the intent is to get the same effect http//www.alaskacoalition.org/photos/lottacaribou.jpg now somebody tell me again that im not showing images of where the oil development is supposed to take place! what part of the 1002 area is left out of that image! what part of that image is not just breath taking knockem dead beautiful beyond words -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote paul jensen wrote that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. and your information comes from where floyds info comes from worldwildlife.org. the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr imho. ive suggested that the slide show of images on that site is a very good representation. that is because i can personally identify the location for most of the images. the arctic power site anwr.org can be demonstrated to be deceptive. just read the articles! just look at the stupid pictures from that site that have been suggested as typical of the 1002 area in anwr! you should note that ive also cited several other sites and for facts and the best representation of what the 1002 area is ive referenced the us fish and wildlife service web page. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote tbone wrote sorry milesh but once again your argument holds no water. all you can do is stick to that single right wing oil company funded site when floyd has given a huge numberof links rofl...worldwildlife.org rofl. are you claiming the images at the url cited are *not* what ive said they are once again here was the information that i posted http//www.worldwildlife.org/arctic-refuge/battle.htm there is a slide show... area of image picture number anwr non-coastal plain 3 4 5 6 8 anwr coastal plain 1 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 33 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 48 non-anwr 41 42 43 unidentifiable 7 11 22 28 34 35 36 37 49 50 maps 2 12 which of the 30 or so images of the coastal plain are you claiming to be misrepresentations -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. and your point you can drive to alaska lots of it. dalton highway goes all the way to deadhorse. there are towns here in arizona that you cant drive to. but i can drive to arizona. my goodness you are *really* dense. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. rofl. theres anchorage and then theres alaska. much of which you can drive to. heck you can even drive to ketchikan sort of. you cant. and you cant drive to alaska either. dummy. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

is that a free service you might consider a satellite hookup with their sports package no i dont sell them. then you may be able to get the sports casts that you want to see and in high def as well. i myself do not watch many sports shows i get too pissed off when my team loses or is losing but a friend of mine really likes it. it aint free but few things worth having are. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving mlb.tv is an internet service that allows you to watch almost any baseball game live via a 350kb/s stream. it aint high def but it sure beats nothing g. im red sox fan transplanted to the west coast so its my only option to watch my favorite baseball team. --mike sorry to hear that but what exactly is a mlb.tv btw happy easter same to you! it was a great day other than the fact the mlb.tv took a crap and i couldnt watch the red sox beat toronto in extra innings --mike sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. and your point you can drive to alaska lots of it. dalton highway goes all the way to deadhorse. there are towns here in arizona that you cant drive to. but i can drive to arizona. name them there are no towns in az that you couldnt drive to just a lot of places that you wouldnt want to drive to. phoenix tucson ... ;- lol actually tucson isnt so bad but phoenix did suck. i had to spend a week there one day. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i would be completely for it and offer to help fund it if i knew that you would be going. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving when did you change the subject when boner started slipping into that mudhole when did you change the subject the valdez was a tanker not a drilling rig. do you know what the difference is anwr is not off shore. hey those are just minor things. boners against whatever if you told him we are going to drill for oil on the moon hed be against it cause its offshore politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote why do you think i dont cite things like the sierra club web site or trusties for alaska id be leaving myself wide open to the same problem you have credibility. why did you cite the worldwildlife website then .

From : john e jakuhing

tbone wrote like i asked before why is it always find more and never try and use a little less with the conservative mindset why is it always stop any existing production that you can prevent any new production and prevent any exploration you seem to see only two pole opposites and nothing in the middle. i suggest we allow exploration and find what we have as well as conserve. im just not blind to the reality of needing oil today. this is probably the most idealistic thought ive heard summed up. problem is most people exist in one or the other bubble. one side that dissuades any notion of worldwide peak production and the other side that wants to cease drilling altogether. its a good vs. evil struggle where both sides believe their the power of good and the other side is...well...evil. .

From : tbone

floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. and your point you can drive to alaska lots of it. dalton highway goes all the way to deadhorse. there are towns here in arizona that you cant drive to. but i can drive to arizona. name them -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i find it funny that the one who does nothing but troll and child like posts is the biggest accuser of everyone else doing it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving its an alaska joke. strange none of the alaskans i know tell that joke comprende mi hijo yep translation you are an idiot troll floyd. politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote why do you think i dont cite things like the sierra club web site or trusties for alaska id be leaving myself wide open to the same problem you have credibility. why did you cite the worldwildlife website then i didnt dummy. i suggested that the *picture* slide show there was an excellent set if images of anwr and provided *my* commentary on which ones were from where. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote you live there and you dont know you can drive there lol lol!!!! try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. and your point you can drive to alaska lots of it. dalton highway goes all the way to deadhorse. there are towns here in arizona that you cant drive to. but i can drive to arizona. name them there are no towns in az that you couldnt drive to just a lot of places that you wouldnt want to drive to. phoenix tucson ... ;- -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : paul jensen

and your information comes from where the us department of the interior. both the us fish and wildlife which manages anwr and the us geological survey usgs web sites are the one that ive been citing and quoting for factual information. you were citing a website with a leftist political agenda called worldwildlife.org. .

From : redneck tookover hell

but phoenix did suck. i had to spend a week there one day. you couldnt make bail politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

my goodness you are *really* dense. fits you well floyd politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote there are no towns in az that you couldnt drive to just a lot of places that you wouldnt want to drive to. rofl...if you have the right vehicle you can drive to almost anywhere. heck you can drive to the north pole if you so desire. .

From : floyd l davidson

tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote there are no towns in az that you couldnt drive to just a lot of places that you wouldnt want to drive to. phoenix tucson ... ;- lol actually tucson isnt so bad but phoenix did suck. i had to spend a week there one day. wellll... tucson wasnt too bad once upon a time. they refused to let go of the small town concept for long after it wasnt. they had horse hitching posts downtown and the city cleaned up if you left your horse hitched all day. i spent my teenage years living in tucson. but that was a long time back... phoenix always wanted to be a big city though... ;- -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

tbone wrote lol actually tucson isnt so bad but phoenix did suck. i had to spend a week there one day. well i was in nc once. had to spend a week there. it sucked. .

From : redneck tookover hell

i would be completely for it and offer to help fund it if i knew that you would be going. i hope you have more money than brains the project aint going very far otherwise politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote it isnt even safe to try driving an airplane to the north pole. driving rofl. maybe thats their problem! .

From : tbone

where in nc -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote lol actually tucson isnt so bad but phoenix did suck. i had to spend a week there one day. well i was in nc once. had to spend a week there. it sucked. .

From : milesh

raleigh then drove down to cherry point. had work at the base there. tbone wrote where in nc .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote rofl...if you have the right vehicle you can drive to almost anywhere. heck you can drive to the north pole if you so desire. well why dont you just try it! rid the world of a pest... maybe you should research some of these things you say *before* you say them. http//explorers.org/expeditions/archivefiles/biplane/ it isnt even safe to try driving an airplane to the north pole. they never did get the an-2 out either and it is either permanently frozen into the icepack or eventually sank. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : redneck tookover hell

it isnt even safe to try driving an airplane to the north pole. its not safe driving a lot of places why would you try driving an airplane or is that another one of your alaska jokes or maybe you should have been along with some of the people who did drive airplanes dog teams snowmachines whatever to the pole politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : tbone

just because they havent yet doesnt mean that they cant. it has happened in other areas and we are far from immune to it. there is a big difference between being against something and understanding the dangers that go with it. maybe someday you will grow up and understand that. tell ya what why dont we build them all in arizona after all. a good part of it is just waste land anyway. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving how many worst case scenario evacuations have occured around a us nuclear plant since their existance 3 mile island is as close as it gets and was not a city wide evacuation. tbone wrote what part did you have trouble reading i said that im pro nuclear but i do understand the danger that goes with them. how many fossil fuel plants dirty as they may be are required to have city wide evacuation plans put in place before they can be fueled .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote it isnt even safe to try driving an airplane to the north pole. driving rofl. maybe thats their problem! you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. we actually talk to the guys who drive the plane... for good reasons too. i am for example not the slightest bit concerned about flying. pilots on the other hand scare the *shit* out of me! as an example i wont mention names but one of the pilots involved in that stunt with the an-2 sinking at the north pole was a co-worker of mine for 30 years. i wouldnt get in an airplane and taxi across the runway with him! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : redneck tookover hell

just because they havent yet doesnt mean that they cant. yep and if assholes could fly your house would be an airport politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : redneck tookover hell

you really are green behind the ears arent you! must be more of floyds alaska humor politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote just because they havent yet doesnt mean that they cant. it has happened in other areas and we are far from immune to it. there is a big difference between being against something and understanding the dangers that go with it. maybe someday you will grow up and understand that. tell ya what why dont we build them all in arizona after all. a good part of it is just waste land anyway. i do hope you realize what happened at cherynobal and how the us plants differ from it. as for your last statement the worlds largest nuke plant is in arizona. .

From : milesh

redneck tookover hell wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! must be more of floyds alaska humor maybe floyds but not that of any other alaskan. my bros been flying airplanes in alaska for a few decades. i dont think he ever tried to drive one. closest to that is landing on remote roads for gas. one of his planes uses 89 octane and because of a lack of airstrips its common to set it down on a road and taxi up to a gas station. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote just because they havent yet doesnt mean that they cant. it has happened in other areas and we are far from immune to it. there is a big difference between being against something and understanding the dangers that go with it. maybe someday you will grow up and understand that. tell ya what why dont we build them all in arizona after all. a good part of it is just waste land anyway. i do hope you realize what happened at cherynobal and how the us plants differ from it. of course i do but three mile island shows that we are not immune to it either. we got lucky that time but the danger still exists. one catastrophic failure of the cooling system and the same thing will happen here and whether it is caused by component failure accident or terrorist attack the result will be similar. is it likely to happen probably not but is it possible of course it is. like i said i am pro nuclear power but they are somewhat dangerous and then there is that issue about spent fuel that you quickly deleted. we are already having trouble storing and disposing of it and that is with the few plants that we already have. once they solve that problem then it might be easier to get more of them built. as for your last statement the worlds largest nuke plant is in arizona. lol and why do you think that is -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote redneck tookover hell wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! must be more of floyds alaska humor maybe floyds but not that of any other alaskan. my bros been flying airplanes in alaska for a few decades. i dont think he ever tried to drive one. closest to that is landing on remote roads for gas. one of his planes uses 89 octane and because of a lack of airstrips its common to set it down on a road and taxi up to a gas station. somebody has been filling you with tall tales and is laughing their ass off at you. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

tbone wrote of course i do but three mile island shows that we are not immune to it either. we got lucky that time but the danger still exists. one catastrophic failure of the cooling system and the same thing will happen here that tells me you do not understand the difference in how russia built cherynobal vs. usa plants. take a look at russias containment structure vs. the usas. ill save you some time. cherynobal had no such structure. to contain the leak after the accident russia built a structure over it. had that structure been in place to begin with it is highly unlikely much radiation would have been leaked. .

From : paul jensen

its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. you failed the test because you didnt understand what i said. so why dont you tell me just what part of this i didnt understand because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. .

From : paul jensen

try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. .

From : sascheffey

for me its common in the air force to call a pilot a driver. many pilots also use the term. .

From : tbone

oh really i guess all those who died in russia were just faking it huh asshole. how many times to i have to tell idiots like you that i am pro nuclear energy but i understand that there are dangers involved with it and if you dont then you are just stupid. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving are you really this stupid how many fossil fuel plants are terrorist targets how many fossil fuel plants have the possibility of a meltdown how much pollution does fossil fuel plants produce you moron how many people have been harmed by nuclear plants maybe zero. once again you like to paint some horrific possibility that never happened as fact. .

From : paul jensen

he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! here is your exact quote then i guess that you live in a special area. there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo stations. that doesnt sound like maybe one station does it do you always lie like this .

From : mgg

is that a free service unfortunately no its $80/season for access to most games played each day. cant see the damn bird where im at so im stuck with cable. --mike is that a free service you might consider a satellite hookup with their sports package no i dont sell them. then you may be able to get the sports casts that you want to see and in high def as well. i myself do not watch many sports shows i get too pissed off when my team loses or is losing but a friend of mine really likes it. it aint free but few things worth having are. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving mlb.tv is an internet service that allows you to watch almost any baseball game live via a 350kb/s stream. it aint high def but it sure beats nothing g. im red sox fan transplanted to the west coast so its my only option to watch my favorite baseball team. --mike sorry to hear that but what exactly is a mlb.tv btw happy easter same to you! it was a great day other than the fact the mlb.tv took a crap and i couldnt watch the red sox beat toronto in extra innings --mike sure why not btw happy easter. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving wait....i thought you said this argument was over can i jump in some more then ;- --mike if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote its actually a way of sorting out whos been here long enough to understand and who hasnt. you failed the test because you didnt understand what i said. so why dont you tell me just what part of this i didnt understand because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. apparently you dont understand *any* of it! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : nosey

floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. im an aircraft mechanic. im around pilots every day. they dont call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where you are. .

From : floyd l davidson

nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. im an aircraft mechanic. im around pilots every day. they dont call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where you are. gently take yourself over to google and do a search on either airplane driver or airplane drivers. put them in quotes so that is searches for the phrase. youll enjoy some of the subtle humor involved and perhaps learn something you can put to use at work. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! here is your exact quote then i guess that you live in a special area. there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo stations. that doesnt sound like maybe one station does it do you always lie like this i noticed that you didnt include where i said that maybe one of them may have a small ratty store and sells cigarettes and beer bit i was not sure. do you always edit the truth like that -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. oh man...thats just hysterical! .

From : azwiley1

like anything in this group ever changes miles. floyd l. davidson wrote youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. oh man...thats just hysterical! .

From : tbone

are you a complete moron of course it had a containment structure. it was breached during the meltdown. if you think that the containment structures around our plants would have faired much better you are just fooling yourself. the real difference between them is in the cooling systems and while ours are superior they are not fool proof. ill ask again if our containment systems are so fool proof and there is no risk why do they require a full and comprehensive evacuation plan for such a large area. you shouldnt need to evacuate much more than the plant. then lets not forget that the cooling system itself could rupture and spew massive clouds of radioactive steam for miles. btw i noticed for the second time that you just deleted the problem with waste from those plants why -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote of course i do but three mile island shows that we are not immune to it either. we got lucky that time but the danger still exists. one catastrophic failure of the cooling system and the same thing will happen here that tells me you do not understand the difference in how russia built cherynobal vs. usa plants. take a look at russias containment structure vs. the usas. ill save you some time. cherynobal had no such structure. to contain the leak after the accident russia built a structure over it. had that structure been in place to begin with it is highly unlikely much radiation would have been leaked. .

From : nosey

floyd l. davidson wrote nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. im an aircraft mechanic. im around pilots every day. they dont call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where you are. gently take yourself over to google and do a search on either airplane driver or airplane drivers. put them in quotes so that is searches for the phrase. youll enjoy some of the subtle humor involved and perhaps learn something you can put to use at work. thanks for the tip. searching google for airplane driver i found this from http//www.skyroamers.com/about2.html can you fly all the visual maneuvers that are required for your level of certification with the flight instruments covered if not youre an airplane driver and youve been cheated. theres a big difference between a airplane driver and an airplane pilot. i guess i never heard anyone in my squadron call themselves drivers because they are pilots. ;^ .

From : floyd l davidson

nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote gently take yourself over to google and do a search on either airplane driver or airplane drivers. put them in quotes so that is searches for the phrase. youll enjoy some of the subtle humor involved and perhaps learn something you can put to use at work. thanks for the tip. searching google for airplane driver i found this from http//www.skyroamers.com/about2.html can you fly all the visual maneuvers that are required for your level of certification with the flight instruments covered if not youre an airplane driver and youve been cheated. theres a big difference between a airplane driver and an airplane pilot. i guess i never heard anyone in my squadron call themselves drivers because they are pilots. ;^ so you didnt read any of the 999 other references heres another one thatll give you a better idea and never ever forget that historically the most derogatory term extant for a pilot is to be called an airplane driver. it says to the world that such a person is incapable of truly flying an airplane only of robotically operating the machinery sloppily herding it from one place to another without any lan or panache whatsoever. are you catching on to the subtle meaning of the term ill give you a hint though... you wont find many low time pilots calling themselves drivers. the ones who do are usually nearer to retirement than not and are competent beyond question or measure. pilots who ferry an airplane from here to there to there day in and day out every day... and are bored stiff with the routine are driving airplanes. hence im hardly amazed that navy pilots dont use the term and non-fighter usaf pilots do. or that you wont hear it used by private pilots or low time pilots or corporate pilots. lots of airline jet jockeys and guys flying general aviation milk runs are likely to use it with regularity. which makes it pretty commonly heard in alaska and anyone who claims they are familiar with alaska aviation and hasnt heard it is exaggerating the familiarity. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : mgg

they dont call themselves drivers. no offense but i know a few airline pilots and one in particular a close friend now says after his retirement i used to drive 747-400s for northwest. incidentally he was the first pilot to fly non-stop from new york to tokyo...mel ott named after the baseball player *and* related to him. look him up. its simply a slang term that many not all pilots use. kinda like my hemi flies! well we all know that it doesnt g. its actually *much* more common in the military. --mike floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. im an aircraft mechanic. im around pilots every day. they dont call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where you are. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote youre a liar. if youve never heard pilots refer to themselves as airplane drivers then youve just never been around pilots. oh man...thats just hysterical! oh i though it was too! but its still a true fact as weve seen demonstrated here by the ensuing discussion. or did you miss that -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote thats mostly luck but also some small measure of knowing when to hold up and wait. ive known *dozens* of people that have died in airplane wrecks. being a bush pilot in alaska is some of the toughest flying around. alot of pilots dont have what it takes and do indeed make stupid mistakes. the better ones will set it down if weather gets bad find a cove and tie up the plane for the night. btw dont try to convince anyone that is your families sic house. it clearly is a rarely used summer cabin/camp of some kind. no permanent tiedown no muddy path the water and an old boat that is falling apart. it isnt a place where people live its a place they visit probably for two weeks out of a year... rofl...you sure love to speculate!! many people do make their home in remote areas away from any city. thats exactly why my family moved to alaska. .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote somebody has been filling you with tall tales and is laughing their ass off at you. lol...for someone who lives in alaska you sure dont know much about alaskan bush pilots. heres one looking looking out near my families house. i think i know my family better than you! and theyre all pilots. http//mileshuff.irv2.com/images/fidalgo.jpg .

From : miles

nosey wrote im an aircraft mechanic. im around pilots every day. they dont call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where you are. its not an alaskan thing at all. its a floyd thing. .

From : azwiley1

i dont know miles i think he might know your family much better then you. lol floyd l. davidson wrote somebody has been filling you with tall tales and is laughing their ass off at you. lol...for someone who lives in alaska you sure dont know much about alaskan bush pilots. heres one looking looking out near my families house. i think i know my family better than you! and theyre all pilots. http//mileshuff.irv2.com/images/fidalgo.jpg .

From : miles

tbone wrote are you a complete moron of course it had a containment structure. it was breached during the meltdown. muhaha! you have no clue do you oh man this is just hysterical. you really need to understand the difference in construction between cherynobal and usa reactors. this is turned out to be one funny evening! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote are you a complete moron of course it had a containment structure. it was breached during the meltdown. muhaha! you have no clue do you oh man this is just hysterical. you really need to understand the difference in construction between cherynobal and usa reactors. this is turned out to be one funny evening! it seems that it is you who doesnt have a clue. without containment how did they start or even fuel the reactor without dying from radiation poisoning i see that once again you just delete what you cannot answer something that is getting all to common with you anymore. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote somebody has been filling you with tall tales and is laughing their ass off at you. lol...for someone who lives in alaska you sure dont know much about alaskan bush pilots. that might be true... but its clear that i know a *lot* more about them than you do! but while you may see that as a big deal from my perspective it isnt. im retired now but i used to get paid to travel all over northern alaska. sometimes in chartered planes sometimes taking the mail plane. i am proud of one thing and that is ive never been in a crash. thats mostly luck but also some small measure of knowing when to hold up and wait. ive known *dozens* of people that have died in airplane wrecks. heres one looking looking out near my families house. i think i know my family better than you! and theyre all pilots. http//mileshuff.irv2.com/images/fidalgo.jpg you figure that picture qualifies someone as a bush pilot btw dont try to convince anyone that is your families sic house. it clearly is a rarely used summer cabin/camp of some kind. no permanent tiedown no muddy path the water and an old boat that is falling apart. it isnt a place where people live its a place they visit probably for two weeks out of a year... -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote thats mostly luck but also some small measure of knowing when to hold up and wait. ive known *dozens* of people that have died in airplane wrecks. being a bush pilot in alaska is some of the toughest flying around. alot of pilots dont have what it takes and do indeed make stupid mistakes. the better ones will set it down if weather gets bad find a cove and tie up the plane for the night. you dont have a clue as to what you are talking about. go talk big to some kid who lives down the road from you but shitcan that crap when you are talking to alaskans eh the better ones dont start the engine dont fly and dont have to set it down. they go have another cup of coffee and make up stories for gullible visitors like you. btw dont try to convince anyone that is your families sic house. it clearly is a rarely used summer cabin/camp of some kind. no permanent tiedown no muddy path the water and an old boat that is falling apart. it isnt a place where people live its a place they visit probably for two weeks out of a year... rofl...you sure love to speculate!! many people do make their home in remote areas away from any city. thats exactly why my family moved to alaska. its not speculation. look at the picture! its not a picture of a place where somebody lives full time. thered be a muddy trail to the landing theyd have some pretty sturdy structures for dealing with stablizing that plane not to mention getting in and out of it at least a couple logs or something. as it is right now the only thing they can do if a big wind whips up is fly the plane out of there. your problem is its this family that lives here not you. they might well be some pretty savvy folks but it isnt rubbing off on you thats for sure! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidsonukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote the better ones dont start the engine dont fly and dont have to set it down. they go have another cup of coffee and make up stories for gullible visitors like you. spoken from a pilot eh you just keep cracking me up with your clueless talk about pilots..er drivers. its not speculation. look at the picture! its not a picture of a place where somebody lives full time. ya it is. but keep right on speculating with all that knowledge you have on alaska pilots. you should go work for them so you can tell them the winds and visibility conditions 300 miles away where no weather station exists. oh ya just use weather.com! .

From : jackson

amazing. how old are you my 10 year old would be embarrased for you after reading your post. you have no argument. another brain-washed right-wing-nut. paul jensen wrote and your information comes from where the us department of the interior. both the us fish and wildlife which manages anwr and the us geological survey usgs web sites are the one that ive been citing and quoting for factual information. you were citing a website with a leftist political agenda called worldwildlife.org. .

From : milesh

jackson wrote be easy on the idiot floyd he obviously only listens to rush and the self-proclaimed fair and balanced network. nah rush is an entertainer a lousy one at best. everyone knows the fair and balanced is on cnn and msnbc. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... lol...youre the one that keeps blabbering on about the north slope. i never brought that area up! resort to name calling when ya havent a clue! besides storm scopes tell alot more than a storm. ever hear of clear weather turbulance good pilots dont have that happen these days. youve been reading too many books from 30-50 years ago. rofl...spoken from a clueless expert on alaskan bush flying. so name me one flight route in alaska were anyone is going to fly 300 miles without a weather report. you just do not get it do you youre under the dislussional logic that a weather report can tell whether a route will be vfr ifr calm windy turbulant or what. it cant! it can only give information that may predict the likelyhood of such. weather in mountain passes can change from clear to socked in in minutes. how many airports in alaska lack towers or weather stations how many are unicom or unattended how many lack the luxury of atis reports you dont get around alaska much now do you with your twisted knowledge it would appear that alaskan pilots only fly to airports and only fly in vfr conditions. good grief. .

From : nosey

hey wiley not to get off the topic of dodge trucks or gas prices but what do you recommend as in-expensive replacement head unit and speakers for a 94 probe .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote besides just how many bush pilots of the type who fly too far into bad weather and have to set down and wait are ifr rated i dont know of any bush pilot companies that hire non-ifr rated pilots. would not be a good thing. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote the better ones dont start the engine dont fly and dont have to set it down. they go have another cup of coffee and make up stories for gullible visitors like you. spoken from a pilot eh you just keep cracking me up with your clueless talk about pilots..er drivers. never been flying much have you! idiots that fly into unknown conditions and end up setting down to wait it out are *exactly* the kind of people you dont want to even taxi across the runway with! theyll get you killed. its not speculation. look at the picture! its not a picture of a place where somebody lives full time. ya it is. but keep right on speculating with all that knowledge you have on alaska pilots. you should go work for them so you can tell them the winds and visibility conditions 300 miles away where no weather station exists. oh ya just use weather.com! and just exactly where in alaska are you going to find a place 300 miles away from a weather station. you probably should spend some time poking around on the noaa web sites. heres one to start with itll give you an idea what is available. http//weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/pabr.html then try this one as another example keeping mind that the north slope is more sparcely covered than any other part of the state http//pafc.arh.noaa.gov/pubfcst.phpfcst=fpak51pafg heres a more general index site http//iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/textversion/state/ak.html all of the above are bookmarked in my web browser actually the first two are also used in a program i wrote that dumps weather reports in a more readable format which i use rather than the web browser. heres one that i dont usually look at but it will serve your purpose well http//iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/us/aviation.html find a place in alaska that is 300 miles distant from weather information. heck just try finding a place 100 miles away! speaking of cracking em up! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote never been flying much have you! idiots that fly into unknown conditions and end up setting down to wait it out are *exactly* the kind of people you dont want to even taxi across the runway with! theyll get you killed. and you live in alaska muhaha! its very often in alaska the conditions for a given area are unknown. oh ya the faa puts up weather stations and these neat little cameras on every peak every 20 miles so pilots can see how foggy etc it is. good grief how ignorant you are!! and just exactly where in alaska are you going to find a place 300 miles away from a weather station. you probably should spend some time poking around on the noaa web sites. heres one to start with itll give you an idea what is available. good thing you do not fly er. drive yourself. no weather reports are going to tell you what the winds and visibility are for a remote area a mountain pass etc. good grief im glad youre not a pilot. youre actually attempting to say that some websites can tell you current flying conditions anywhere you want to go. thats hysterical. find a place in alaska that is 300 miles distant from weather information. heck just try finding a place 100 miles away! a weather station shows conditions where it is. it cant tell me what the winds aloft are in a specific area. why do pilots rely heavily on pilot reports with your ignorance there would be no need for planes to have onboard equipment to detect turbulance rain etc. they just need to visit a few websites before flight and all they need is right there! good grief!! .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote never been flying much have you! idiots that fly into unknown conditions and end up setting down to wait it out are *exactly* the kind of people you dont want to even taxi across the runway with! theyll get you killed. and you live in alaska muhaha! its very often in alaska the conditions for a given area are unknown. really where have you been for the last 20-30 years ive been maintaining communications systems... the ones the faa used to remote almost all of the flight service stations in alaska and to connect to all the awos automatic weather observation system sites. i used to have a lot of fun teasing pilots that we really shouldnt go to wherever it was i was headed because i hear the nav aides arent working! theyd get a good laugh out of that because while it was partially true it wasnt going to start working until i went and fixed the satellite earth station. oh ya the faa puts up weather stations and these neat little cameras on every peak every 20 miles so pilots can see how foggy etc it is. good grief how ignorant you are!! youve been there and put hands on it... *literally* no then whos the ignorant one and just exactly where in alaska are you going to find a place 300 miles away from a weather station. you probably should spend some time poking around on the noaa web sites. heres one to start with itll give you an idea what is available. good thing you do not fly er. drive yourself. no weather reports are going to tell you what the winds and visibility are for a remote area a mountain pass etc. good grief im glad youre not a pilot. youre actually attempting to say that some websites can tell you current flying conditions anywhere you want to go. thats hysterical. that may be what you read but thats not what i wrote. i cant do much for your inability to comprehend. find a place in alaska that is 300 miles distant from weather information. heck just try finding a place 100 miles away! a weather station shows conditions where it is. it cant tell that isnt the half of it. between additional pilot reports and computer modeling if you do actually look at those noaa sites youll find it *does* give you a really good idea of exactly where you *dont* want to fly on any given day. me what the winds aloft are in a specific area. why do pilots rely heavily on pilot reports so you do know that there *are* reports for places in between. with your ignorance there would be no need for planes to have onboard equipment to detect turbulance rain etc. and just how many airplanes are equipped with that equipment dangdest thing none of the navajos beach 99s and others that are commonly flying mail runs on the north slope seem to use that kind of equipment. are you telling me every bush pilot with a 206 on floats does and you call me ignorant! they just need to visit a few websites before flight and all they need is right there! good grief!! nobody has suggested that. what was suggested is that the previous statements can *clearly* be proven wrong just by visiting those particular web sites. nobody is suggesting that suffices for a complete weather briefing prior to flying. im just amazed at the foolishness you people that have spent a few days in alaska think youve learned while here. youre all a real bunch of sourdough bush pilots! next thing youll be telling me all about eskimos... and their totem poles or bazillion words for snow. or another good one thats been seen before in groups about vehicles... youll all be telling me about how to cold start vehicles. have you been farther out of anchorage than driving up the road to the matsu valley! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : jackson

be easy on the idiot floyd he obviously only listens to rush and the self-proclaimed fair and balanced network. floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. look at anwr.org for more info. that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. you talk about propaganda that site is *loaded* with it. just look at the first page which is filled with errors of fact. look at the quote from the main page on the right. rep. richard pombo has the figure for economically recoverable oil of by times 2. then look at the lead story about jobs. that one proved to be a phony study which was off by a factor of about 40. nice site... if you dont care about accurate information! the coastal plain area of anwr is 1.5 million acres. planned development is for 2000 acres. that once again is simply *not* true. the planned development is going to affect the entire 1.5 million acres. the 2000 acre figure is what the north slope borough is going to levy property taxes on. it consists *only* of building structures touching the ground for example only the support structures for pipelines are counted not the area under the pipe. it does *not* include roads airports garbage dump or gravel pits. which is to say it is in no way a measure of what will be affected. the whole of the prudhoe bay complex has a footprint of only 10000 acres. look at what it covers! *1000 square miles!* and there are over 1200 miles of pipeline within the prudhoe bay complex. that is more than 1 and 1/2 times the entire trans-alaska pipeline. and there are over 500 miles of roads. your continued claims that only 2000 acres will be affected are naive and ignorant. now you bring up the inupiats they support the planned anwr development. theyre not against it at all!! where do you dig this crap up youd best re-check that one. first the inupiat people have *never* supported offshore drilling. they have fought it tooth and nail. they *have* supported drilling anwr simply because the people in kaktovik are not dependent on the caribou but on the bowhead whale. governor murkowski just annoyed them to no end by proposing offshore drilling around kaktovik. the gwichin people who are dependent on the caribou are of course absolutely against drilling in anwr. but lately the inupiat have been having second thoughts too. theyve seen what happened around nuiqsut as the alpine field has been developed and as the pressure to explore more in the npr-a has increased. instead of being consulted and having their concerns heard all of the previous plans to protect inupiat subsistence seem to be getting pushed aside by the state and by the oil companies. in fact george ahmaogak north slope borough mayor has openly threatened the state with removal of support for anwr if things dont change! and i dont see a thing changing in the right direction yet... you dont seem to be so well informed. maybe you should visit alaska someday eh -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

tbone wrote it should be right behind that list of town in arizona that you cant drive to. lol...i can tell you havent been to az much. there are many cattle ranch towns accessible only by horse possibly a good 4x4. sprucewoods fish creek blueton to name a few. but keep up your whines theyre very entertaining. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote that isnt the half of it. between additional pilot reports and computer modeling if you do actually look at those noaa sites youll find it *does* give you a really good idea of exactly where you *dont* want to fly on any given day. true it can tell you a bad area or give a prediction. it does not tell you that a given route will be good flying conditions. so you do know that there *are* reports for places in between. often very spotty especially in parts of alaska where airplane traffic is very light and reports are several hours old or non-existant. and just how many airplanes are equipped with that equipment dangdest thing none of the navajos beach 99s and others that are commonly flying mail runs on the north slope seem to use that kind of equipment. then they got some really bad deals on their planes! a navajo will most always have a storm scope of some sort. look again. are you telling me every bush pilot with a 206 on floats does and you call me ignorant! many smaller planes may not although some do. they pull the reports you mentioned and make a plan for the best route based on them or the decision not to go. however they still may need to set it down if conditions are worse than reported. contrary to your beliefs that does happen. the seasoned pilots will set down. its the newbies that often attempt to punch through and end up going down. they just need to visit a few websites before flight and all they need is right there! good grief!! nobody has suggested that. what was suggested is that the previous statements can *clearly* be proven wrong just by visiting those particular web sites. nobody is suggesting that suffices for a complete weather briefing prior to flying. lol...you suggested that some websites pilot reports or other weather forcasts can tell you if a given route is safe for a given day. that is simply flat out wrong. weather forcasts and other reports are very helpfull indeed. but they cant guarantee a thing. weather conditions can deteriorate rapidly opposite that of forcasts. what do your alaskan pilots do only fly in perfect predictable vfr conditions if its ifr only the stupid ones fly good grief. im just amazed at the foolishness you people that have spent a few days in alaska think youve learned while here. im just amazed at the foolishness people such as yourself display that attempt to discuss flying without a clue! .

From : floyd l davidson

jackson fl420@yahoo.com wrote be easy on the idiot floyd he obviously only listens to rush and the self-proclaimed fair and balanced network. youve got him pegged exactly! i noticed there wasnt much of a response to the article you responded to. seems when faced with facts the ditto-heads dont have much backbone. floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote the offshore rigs in the arctic ocean are an *entirely* different matter. we *do* know that bowhead whales are bothered by the noise and will move farther offshore to avoid it. we also know that has a *very* significant negative effect impact on subsistence whale hunting by inupiat eskimo crews. look at anwr.org for more info. that is the most deceptive least accurate source of information possible on anwr. they are paid lobbiest for the oil industry whose *job* it is to distort. you talk about propaganda that site is *loaded* with it. just look at the first page which is filled with errors of fact. look at the quote from the main page on the right. rep. richard pombo has the figure for economically recoverable oil of by times 2. then look at the lead story about jobs. that one proved to be a phony study which was off by a factor of about 40. nice site... if you dont care about accurate information! the coastal plain area of anwr is 1.5 million acres. planned development is for 2000 acres. that once again is simply *not* true. the planned development is going to affect the entire 1.5 million acres. the 2000 acre figure is what the north slope borough is going to levy property taxes on. it consists *only* of building structures touching the ground for example only the support structures for pipelines are counted not the area under the pipe. it does *not* include roads airports garbage dump or gravel pits. which is to say it is in no way a measure of what will be affected. the whole of the prudhoe bay complex has a footprint of only 10000 acres. look at what it covers! *1000 square miles!* and there are over 1200 miles of pipeline within the prudhoe bay complex. that is more than 1 and 1/2 times the entire trans-alaska pipeline. and there are over 500 miles of roads. your continued claims that only 2000 acres will be affected are naive and ignorant. now you bring up the inupiats they support the planned anwr development. theyre not against it at all!! where do you dig this crap up youd best re-check that one. first the inupiat people have *never* supported offshore drilling. they have fought it tooth and nail. they *have* supported drilling anwr simply because the people in kaktovik are not dependent on the caribou but on the bowhead whale. governor murkowski just annoyed them to no end by proposing offshore drilling around kaktovik. the gwichin people who are dependent on the caribou are of course absolutely against drilling in anwr. but lately the inupiat have been having second thoughts too. theyve seen what happened around nuiqsut as the alpine field has been developed and as the pressure to explore more in the npr-a has increased. instead of being consulted and having their concerns heard all of the previous plans to protect inupiat subsistence seem to be getting pushed aside by the state and by the oil companies. in fact george ahmaogak north slope borough mayor has openly threatened the state with removal of support for anwr if things dont change! and i dont see a thing changing in the right direction yet... you dont seem to be so well informed. maybe you should visit alaska someday eh -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... heres some more info that dispells your local expert flying knowledge. http//www.alaska.faa.gov/flytoak/arctic.htm there are very few weather reporting stations in the arctic that provide current weather data. barrow with its close proximity to the ocean encounters frequent summer fog conditions which prevent vfr flight. deadhorse with its close proximity to the arctic ocean encounters frequent fog conditions preventing vfr flight. severe blizzards occur frequently with visibility restricted by blowing snow ya north slope area is always nice and clear and calm. lol...youre the expert. .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote and just how many airplanes are equipped with that equipment dangdest thing none of the navajos beach 99s and others that are commonly flying mail runs on the north slope seem to use that kind of equipment. then they got some really bad deals on their planes! a navajo will most always have a storm scope of some sort. look again. it *highly* depends on the area where the plane is being used. here on the north slope very few have it. are you telling me every bush pilot with a 206 on floats does and you call me ignorant! many smaller planes may not although some do. they pull the some do eh have you actually ever been in an airplane in alaska just what kind of airplane do you think is going to be setting down on a lake or gravel bar to wait for good weather all these wonderfully equipped navajos that sounds like a wait until search & rescue shows up with a chopper to pick you up! navajos dont land on gravel bars period. they dont do well on frozen lakes either for that matter! care to take a guess how many planes there are available for charter on the north slope equipped with skis reports you mentioned and make a plan for the best route based on them or the decision not to go. however they still may need to set it down if conditions are worse than reported. contrary to your beliefs that does happen. the seasoned pilots will set down. its the newbies that often attempt to punch through and end up going down. newbies and pilots with a short expected lifespan are the one that end up setting a plane down as described in remote areas as opposed to just flying to the nearest airport and camping there. ive known a couple pilots that have set planes down on frozen lakes for example. do that *one* time just *once* and ill never get into a plane with that pilot again. i rate that right along with people showing up with willow branches or leaves caught in the landing gear. both are good indications that the pilot doesnt have good judgement. lol...you suggested that some websites pilot reports or other weather forcasts can tell you if a given route is safe for a that isnt what i said. i said the web sites proved that there is no such thing as flying 300 miles to a destination where the weather is unknown. thats bullshit. given day. that is simply flat out wrong. weather forcasts and other reports are very helpfull indeed. but they cant guarantee a thing. weather conditions can deteriorate rapidly opposite that of forcasts. what do your alaskan pilots do only fly in perfect predictable vfr conditions if its ifr only the stupid ones fly good grief. well at least you are admitting you dont know diddly about flying in alaska. im just amazed at the foolishness you people that have spent a few days in alaska think youve learned while here. im just amazed at the foolishness people such as yourself display that attempt to discuss flying without a clue! and you know all about alaska! musta been a good book eh or did rush explain that to you too -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote just what kind of airplane do you think is going to be setting down on a lake or gravel bar to wait for good weather all these wonderfully equipped navajos what the heck is your point so on the north slope they fly a bunch of ill equipped planes. navajos are not bush pilot planes. theyre used down here for air evac and all of them ive flown in have storm scopes. just about anything bigger than a c152 have them. newbies and pilots with a short expected lifespan are the one that end up setting a plane down as described in remote areas as opposed to just flying to the nearest airport and camping there. rofl @ nearest airport. have you flown along the south coast and mountain regions between denali and the south thats the problem. the newbies will try to make it to an airport when weather turns bad. the seasoned bush pilots will set it down. ive known a couple pilots that have set planes down on frozen lakes for example. do that *one* time just *once* and ill never get into a plane with that pilot again. i rate that right along with people showing up with willow branches or leaves caught in the landing gear. so youre a fair weather airport only flier. bush flying is big business in alaska. many areas depend on the skills of pilots you say are stupid. you are aware that the airport for some towns is a river. it takes a skilled pilot to know when its safe and when its not. that isnt what i said. i said the web sites proved that there is no such thing as flying 300 miles to a destination where the weather is unknown. thats bullshit. your above statement is bull. a weather station cant tell you what the weather is like even 50 miles away. sure it can make a prediction at the current moment. it might tell you the likelyhood for rain winds fog etc. but it wont tell you what the conditions actually are. it wont tell you if the visibility is 100 feet or 10 miles for a mountain pass 50 miles away. a pilot report might say a pass is clear. 15 minutes later its fogged in. well at least you are admitting you dont know diddly about flying in alaska. on the contrary. it appears you know little of bush flying in alaska and the sudden weather conditions they face nor the areas they fly in and out of. airports lol. .

From : mgg

ever hear of clear weather turbulance a stormscope does *not* detect cat. i just checked with a guy that used to sell the things. --mike floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... lol...youre the one that keeps blabbering on about the north slope. i never brought that area up! resort to name calling when ya havent a clue! besides storm scopes tell alot more than a storm. ever hear of clear weather turbulance good pilots dont have that happen these days. youve been reading too many books from 30-50 years ago. rofl...spoken from a clueless expert on alaskan bush flying. so name me one flight route in alaska were anyone is going to fly 300 miles without a weather report. you just do not get it do you youre under the dislussional logic that a weather report can tell whether a route will be vfr ifr calm windy turbulant or what. it cant! it can only give information that may predict the likelyhood of such. weather in mountain passes can chang

From : paul jensen

be easy on the idiot floyd he obviously only listens to rush and the self-proclaimed fair and balanced network. at least they pay their bills. .

From : paul jensen

amazing. how old are you my 10 year old would be embarrased for you after reading your post. you have no argument. another brain-washed right-wing-nut. does your 10-year-old realize one can drive to alaska or is he as stupid as floyd .

From : transurgeon

be easy on the idiot floyd he obviously only listens to rush and the self-proclaimed fair and balanced network. at least they pay their bills. hahahaha damned near died laughing when i read that story .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote just what kind of airplane do you think is going to be setting down on a lake or gravel bar to wait for good weather all these wonderfully equipped navajos what the heck is your point so on the north slope they fly a bunch of ill equipped planes. navajos are not bush pilot planes. theyre used down here for air evac and all of them ive flown in have storm scopes. just about anything bigger than a c152 have them. lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... newbies and pilots with a short expected lifespan are the one that end up setting a plane down as described in remote areas as opposed to just flying to the nearest airport and camping there. rofl @ nearest airport. have you flown along the south coast and mountain regions between denali and the south thats the problem. the newbies will try to make it to an airport when weather turns bad. the seasoned bush pilots will set it down. good pilots dont have that happen these days. youve been reading too many books from 30-50 years ago. ive known a couple pilots that have set planes down on frozen lakes for example. do that *one* time just *once* and ill never get into a plane with that pilot again. i rate that right along with people showing up with willow branches or leaves caught in the landing gear. so youre a fair weather airport only flier. bush flying is big business in alaska. many areas depend on the skills of pilots you say are stupid. you are aware that the airport for some towns is a river. it takes a skilled pilot to know when its safe and when its not. so name a few towns that dont have a runway eh little diomede and chuathbaluk are the only two i can think of off hand. are there others that isnt what i said. i said the web sites proved that there is no such thing as flying 300 miles to a destination where the weather is unknown. thats bullshit. your above statement is bull. a weather station cant tell you what the weather is like even 50 miles away. sure it can make a prediction at the current moment. it might tell you the likelyhood for rain winds fog etc. but it wont tell you what the conditions actually are. it wont tell you if the visibility is 100 feet or 10 miles for a mountain pass 50 miles away. a pilot report might say a pass is clear. 15 minutes later its fogged in. so name me one flight route in alaska were anyone is going to fly 300 miles without a weather report. thats just bullshit. well at least you are admitting you dont know diddly about flying in alaska. on the contrary. it appears you know little of bush flying in alaska and the sudden weather conditions they face nor the areas they fly in and out of. airports lol. we could have a useful discussion if youd ever spent any time in bush alaska... instead of repeating what youve read in those neat books written 30-40 years ago. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

tbone wrote if a good 4x4 can do it then i guess that you can drive to it after all. care to try again rofl..you just love to argue doncha there are towns in az that have no roads to them. primary access is by plane or horse. keep arguing though its entertaining as others have noted with your rambles. .

From : paul jensen

oh really i guess all those who died in russia were just faking it huh asshole. how many times to i have to tell idiots like you that i am pro nuclear energy but i understand that there are dangers involved with it and if you dont then you are just stupid. ever talk to a coal miner with black lung jackass .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... lol...youre the one that keeps blabbering on about the north slope. i never brought that area up! resort to name calling when ya havent a clue! besides storm scopes tell alot more than a storm. ever hear of clear weather turbulance so on the north slope they fly a bunch of ill equipped planes. -- milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com with hoof in mouth puts you in a rather unfavorable light there twit. did you actually expect that comment to go unchallenged yet you snipped it from above to obscure what my response related to. so name me one flight route in alaska were anyone is going to fly 300 miles without a weather report. you just do not get it do you youre under the dislussional logic that a weather report can tell whether a route will be vfr ifr calm windy turbulant or what. it cant! it can only give information that may predict the likelyhood of such. weather in mountain passes can change from clear to socked in in minutes. keep trying. when you get to alaska and actually find out what living here is like youll be embarrassed. how many airports in alaska lack towers or weather stations how many are unicom or unattended how many lack the luxury of atis reports you dont get around alaska much now do you wrong questions all the way around. very few have *any* of that /except/ the weather stations. there are weather stations at virtually all village airports in alaska. you do know what an awos is which i mentioned earlier right and where the dont have an awos they do have a weather observer with a few odd exceptions atqasuk 60 miles south of barrow is one... because there is no significant difference between atqasuk weather and barrow weather. with your twisted knowledge it would appear that alaskan pilots only fly to airports and only fly in vfr conditions. good grief. poor boy. if that is what you get out of what ive said its one more clear indication that you just really should come to alaska for a visit before you mouth off about what its like here. oh what happened to that list of towns that dont have a runway -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote lordy what a twit. what would they use a storm scope for on the north slope did you know that weve heard thunder in barrow twice in the past 25 years those big thunder clouds every ten years or so really do scare the pilots... heres some more info that dispells your local expert flying knowledge. http//www.alaska.faa.gov/flytoak/arctic.htm there are very few weather reporting stations in the arctic that provide current weather data. barrow with its close proximity to the ocean encounters frequent summer fog conditions which prevent vfr flight. deadhorse with its close proximity to the arctic ocean encounters frequent fog conditions preventing vfr flight. severe blizzards occur frequently with visibility restricted by blowing snow ya north slope area is always nice and clear and calm. lol...youre the expert. who said a thing about nice and clear and calm the point was what exactly are they going to use a onboard storm locator for im sorry you dont have enough experience with arctic conditions to understand what they are saying in the above quite accurate comments. in fact *every* village with the exception of atqasuk has an awos. in addition there are weather stations at deadhorse umiat and cape lisburn. clear and calm is a rare occurance but a storm that is going to show up on a storm locator is also a rare occurance. thick fog and/or blowing snow are much more likely and a storm locator just really doesnt provide useful information. besides just how many bush pilots of the type who fly too far into bad weather and have to set down and wait are ifr rated i think i asked before... how many planes on skis do you figure there are available for charter on the north slope it happens that i do know the exact number... and my bet is you cant even guess close. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote oh what happened to that list of towns that dont have a runway it should be right behind that list of town in arizona that you cant drive to. hes not going to answer that so i might as well spill the beans. first off in alaska we only refer to something as a town if it is relatively large by our standards. bush towns are places like barrow 4600 people and bethel dillingham nome kotzebue etc. a city would be something larger a place with traffic lights etc. like juneau fairbanks or anchorage and a village would be something with less than perhaps 2000 people. any place with fewer than about 25 people is a camp or something like that. there simply are *no* towns in alaska without a runway most have two or three. none not one. there arent many villages without a runway either. as i noted i can only think of two chuathbaluk and little diomede. heck theres hardly a camp with more than 10 people that doesnt have a runway in this state! every place with more than 25 people also has at least one satellite earth station and everything that brings with it too. what the hell does he think we spent all that oil money on in the 80s - -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote puts you in a rather unfavorable light there twit. did you actually expect that comment to go unchallenged yet you snipped it from above to obscure what my response related to. lol...and you brought up the north slope in the first place when discussing flying in alaska. ya the north slope is all of alaska. geez you keep spinning and squirming round and round. keep trying. when you get to alaska and actually find out what living here is like youll be embarrassed. try actually getting around in alaska fly lots of bush routes in the south and find out what its really like. youll be emabarrased! wrong questions all the way around. very few have *any* of that /except/ the weather stations. there are weather stations at virtually all village airports in alaska. lol...you really dont get around much do you you keep talking about airports. is a small unmanned dirt strip an airport to you is a river an airport to you how about a lake you really have no knowledge of alaskan bush flying do you oh what happened to that list of towns that dont have a runway runway or airport also depends on how you define town vs. say a river based development. hydaburg i suppose would be considered a town and is served almost entirely by boat or floatplane. .

From : milesh

nosey wrote hey wiley not to get off the topic of dodge trucks or gas prices but what do you recommend as in-expensive replacement head unit and speakers for a 94 probe nosey does the probe have a standard chrysler double din radio does the replacement have to be double din i found the selection to be severely lacking for such for my ram and thus went with a standard single din head unit and bezel. for me i really like alpine head units and they do have some rather inexpensive now. .

From : nosey

milesh wrote nosey wrote hey wiley not to get off the topic of dodge trucks or gas prices but what do you recommend as in-expensive replacement head unit and speakers for a 94 probe nosey does the probe have a standard chrysler double din radio does the replacement have to be double din i found the selection to be severely lacking for such for my ram and thus went with a standard single din head unit and bezel. for me i really like alpine head units and they do have some rather inexpensive now. it is a din mounted radio but im not sure if its the same as standard chrysler. i dont really care how the new one gets mounted as long as its held securely in the factory dash hole without any cutting or trimming. .

From : nosey

nosey wrote gee could it be tom and kate what do i win close. its tom and katie. just for kicks ask them if they know their plane crashed on march 8 1984. crap. nevermind. someone already asked this. my server isnt keeping up very well. .

From : miles

mgg wrote ever hear of clear weather turbulance a stormscope does *not* detect cat. i just checked with a guy that used to sell the things. depends on the stormscope. the ones i have used most certainly do. they do not detect rain. they detect electrical discharges. a storm causes that but so does severe turbulance and thus the stormscope shows it up. its strange to see the scope light up a big area on the screen and the skies are clear but it is very real. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote it should be right behind that list of town in arizona that you cant drive to. lol...i can tell you havent been to az much. there are many cattle ranch towns accessible only by horse possibly a good 4x4. sprucewoods fish creek blueton to name a few. but keep up your whines theyre very entertaining. if a good 4x4 can do it then i guess that you can drive to it after all. care to try again -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote if a good 4x4 can do it then i guess that you can drive to it after all. care to try again rofl..you just love to argue doncha there are towns in az that have no roads to them. primary access is by plane or horse. keep arguing though its entertaining as others have noted with your rambles. me lol. that is definitely case of pot kettle black. i am still waiting for the names of these towns and i am not arguing just curious. you might also want to include what your definition of a town is. there is no need for me to argue your conversation with floyd is entertaining enough. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : paul jensen

because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. apparently you dont understand *any* of it! i understand that one can drive to alaska and you said you cant drive to alaska. so i understand that you are clueless. perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you use them although quite frankly it looked like you use a third-grade level sentence. .

From : paul jensen

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. .

From : paul jensen

he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! here is your exact quote then i guess that you live in a special area. there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo stations. that doesnt sound like maybe one station does it do you always lie like this i noticed that you didnt include where i said that maybe one of them may have a small ratty store and sells cigarettes and beer bit i was not sure. do you always edit the truth like that ummm...just quoting you buddy. i understand what there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas means. i guess you dont. there mustnt be a complete brain between you and floyd combined! .

From : floyd l davidsonorganization

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote besides just how many bush pilots of the type who fly too far into bad weather and have to set down and wait are ifr rated i dont know of any bush pilot companies that hire non-ifr rated pilots. would not be a good thing. i dont know of any bush pilot companies period. however the charter services that i do know about will *fire* someone for doing what you claim is common. when it does happen its almost always a private pilot who is *not* ifr rated. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote puts you in a rather unfavorable light there twit. did you actually expect that comment to go unchallenged yet you snipped it from above to obscure what my response related to. lol...and you brought up the north slope in the first place when discussing flying in alaska. ya the north slope is all of alaska. geez you keep spinning and squirming round and round. you seem to want to disclaim the 99% of alaska that youve never seen on any of your half a dozen short visits. i hate to tell you but the north slope *is* part of alaska. we dont limit the discussion of alaska to the little part youve managed to visit... keep trying. when you get to alaska and actually find out what living here is like youll be embarrassed. try actually getting around in alaska fly lots of bush routes in the south and find out what its really like. youll be emabarrased! so not only the north slope isnt alaska but *the south* is! and in your one or two visits youve learn all about it eh when youve been to a hundred villages or so over more than half of this state come back and well talk about what its really like. wrong questions all the way around. very few have *any* of that /except/ the weather stations. there are weather stations at virtually all village airports in alaska. lol...you really dont get around much do you you keep talking about airports. is a small unmanned dirt strip an airport to you is a river an airport to you how about a lake you really have no knowledge of alaskan bush flying do you enough to recognize an armchair phoney from outside whos never really been much of anywhere in alaska! oh what happened to that list of towns that dont have a runway runway or airport also depends on how you define town vs. say a river based development. hydaburg i suppose would be considered a town and is served almost entirely by boat or floatplane. wow you actually came up with one place! of course it is a village not a town. there are fewer than 400 people living there. they have road access to other villages where the state ferry system docks and they have a state maintained seaplane base. now we know of /three/ small villages not towns in the whole state of alaska that dont have a runway. so where are all these *towns* people are flying to and necessarily using the river as the airport -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote tbone wrote it should be right behind that list of town in arizona that you cant drive to. lol...i can tell you havent been to az much. there are many cattle ranch towns accessible only by horse possibly a good 4x4. sprucewoods fish creek blueton to name a few. but keep up your whines theyre very entertaining. cattle ranch towns oh my. how many permanent residents live in the these towns sounds like youre talking about a dude ranch with a remote camp used for overnight excursions. a quick google turned up zilch. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote tbone wrote if a good 4x4 can do it then i guess that you can drive to it after all. care to try again rofl..you just love to argue doncha there are towns in az that have no roads to them. primary access is by plane or horse. keep arguing though its entertaining as others have noted with your rambles. well then *name one*! dont try passing off some dude ranchs out back camp as a town. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote there simply are *no* towns in alaska without a runway most have two or three. none not one. rofl!! by your definition of town. you make up arguments to suit your needs! this is hysterical. my definition just happens to be the common vernacular in alaska. *nobody* here would call hydaburg a town as opposed to a village. if you had ever been here you might have known that. regardless we still have so far found all of three villages that dont have a runway chuathbaluk 102 hydaburg 370 little diomede 129 opps make that only two. it seems theyve built a 1500 foot runway at chuathbaluk since i was last there 1979. and really only one since hydaburg has a state maintained seaplane port. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

oh really i guess all those who died in russia were just faking it huh asshole. how many times to i have to tell idiots like you that i am pro nuclear energy but i understand that there are dangers involved with it and if you dont then you are just stupid. ever talk to a coal miner with black lung jackass what does this have to do with the discussion is this another desperate spin on your part because you were dead wrong about nobody being hurt of killed by a nuclear power plant. but since you mentioned it how did these poor workers get this way. perhaps by greedy coal mime owners who would rather buy that fifth home somewhere rather than spend some of those profits on their workers welfare and working conditions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote 7 paragraphs of rambling snipped wow one line from me gets 7 paragraphs of rambling back. rofl .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote but who wanted to talk about flying 300 miles without being able to get a weather report. never said you couldnt get a weather report. thats a bit different than knowing for certain if conditions in a specific area are clear or not. but go on a head and keep spinning! great fun. .

From : mgg

depends on the stormscope. the ones i have used most certainly do. they do not detect rain. they detect electrical discharges. a storm causes that but so does severe turbulence and thus the stormscope shows it up. its strange to see the scope light up a big area on the screen and the skies are clear but it is very real. im sorry during this whole thread you said members of your family were pilots. now you are as well anyway you are correct in stating that turbulence can cause electrical activity. however it does not light-up the scope as you say like an electrical discharge from lightning would. after all thats what the scope was designed for...lightning. convective wind shear and turbulence *can* be detected with a stormscope but it is difficult and you need to be trained to interpret correctly what you are viewing...most pilots arent. if it were as clear-cut as you say modern airliner captains would put on the fasten seatbelt sign before turbulence is encountered and not after. the only true and accurate warning they have is from a report from a plane in front of them. miles you aint lookin good in this thread. you best quit and lick your wounds before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. oh one other thing in that photo of your familys home can you please let me know the first name of the owners of that plane hint there are 2 owners *i* know the first and last names but well leave last names out of the group. if you can it *may* lead to a tad more credibility to what you write here. --mike mgg wrote ever hear of clear weather turbulance a stormscope does *not* detect cat. i just checked with a guy that used to sell the things. depends on the stormscope. the ones i have used most certainly do. they do not detect rain. they detect electrical discharges. a storm causes that but so does severe turbulance and thus the stormscope shows it up. its strange to see the scope light up a big area on the screen and the skies are clear but it is very real. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote mgg wrote ever hear of clear weather turbulance a stormscope does *not* detect cat. i just checked with a guy that used to sell the things. depends on the stormscope. the ones i have used most certainly do. they do not detect rain. they detect electrical discharges. a storm causes that but so does severe turbulance and thus the stormscope shows it up. its strange to see the scope light up a big area on the screen and the skies are clear but it is very real. the primary purpose of a stormscope is to spot thunder storm activity. the suggestion that an aircraft lacking a stormscope on the north slope of alaska is ill equipped is hilarious given the 2 in 25 year rate for thunder storms around barrow which is typical of the entire north slope. what this discussion has demonstrated once again is that arm chair pilots whove never been to alaska should not try to define alaska flying conditions at all and most of all not try to pass themselves off as bush pilot grade observers. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

he also got his ass kicked when he said he knows of stations that sell *nothing* but gas so therefore there must be a good markup on gas for the retailer. then the next day oh yeah they also sell beer soda and smokes. no profit in those items right lol! here is your exact quote then i guess that you live in a special area. there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo stations. that doesnt sound like maybe one station does it do you always lie like this i noticed that you didnt include where i said that maybe one of them may have a small ratty store and sells cigarettes and beer bit i was not sure. do you always edit the truth like that ummm...just quoting you buddy. i understand what there are many stations by me that sell nothing but gas means. i guess you dont. there mustnt be a complete brain between you and floyd combined! apparently you dont. many doesnt mean all and if you think it does i suggest that you go back to school and complete the third grade. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. time for you to *wake up* because youre dreaming. come visit youll catch on. or you will if you actually visit the real alaska. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. apparently you dont understand *any* of it! i understand that one can drive to alaska and you said you cant drive to alaska. so i understand that you are clueless. perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you use them although quite frankly it looked like you use a third-grade level sentence. grow up kid. and visit alaska. youll learn a lot. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote amazing. how old are you my 10 year old would be embarrased for you after reading your post. you have no argument. another brain-washed right-wing-nut. does your 10-year-old realize one can drive to alaska or is he as stupid as floyd do you know what the word context means -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote we dont limit the discussion of alaska to the little part youve managed to visit... nah you just limit it to the north slope. .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote the suggestion that an aircraft lacking a stormscope on the north slope of alaska is ill equipped is hilarious given the 2 in 25 year rate for thunder storms around barrow which is typical of the entire north slope. lol...there ya go again. you keep bringing up the north slope not me. you! .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote i wonder if he knows who crashed it in 1984 wasting time looking up tail numbers lol...you guys crack me up. such puppets. .

From : miles

azwiley1 wrote my god i think this groups age level has hit rock bottom! but i guess it is nice to see that things are still normal around here. lol...these two think theyre hot stuff cuz they can look up airplane tail numbers on the publicly available faa database. but ya its on par with alot of the sillyness here. its all fun! .

From : floyd l davidson

mgg mike@pacbell.net wrote oh one other thing in that photo of your familys home can you please let me know the first name of the owners of that plane hint there are 2 owners *i* know the first and last names but well leave last names out of the group. if you can it *may* lead to a tad more credibility to what you write here. --mike i wonder if he knows who crashed it in 1984 -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : azwiley1

my god i think this groups age level has hit rock bottom! but i guess it is nice to see that things are still normal around here. mgg mike@pacbell.net wrote oh one other thing in that photo of your familys home can you please let me know the first name of the owners of that plane hint there are 2 owners *i* know the first and last names but well leave last names out of the group. if you can it *may* lead to a tad more credibility to what you write here. --mike i wonder if he knows who crashed it in 1984 -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : mgg

ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! --mike paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. .

From : floyd l davidson

mgg mike@pacbell.net wrote ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! --mike its just one of those little litmus tests. people that havent been to alaska at all might not catch on though given the context i laid out with half a brain just about anyone should have been able to understand. btw dont say juneau isnt alaska! thatll get you a target for a rock throwing contest. stick with los anchorage for sure and fairbanks when you really want to needle them. just tell em fairbanks is closer and the airplane ticket to alaska from there costs less... and the you cant drive to there is just an expansion on that! poor paul jensen even with the context hasnt been able to sort it out. probably just city kid anyway so it makes no difference. hey mike whats your friend doing in bethel thats more or less home base for most of my immediate family. paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote i dont know of any bush pilot companies period. however the charter services that i do know about will *fire* someone for doing what you claim is common. when it does happen its almost always a private pilot who is *not* ifr rated. keep guessing what you do not know about. ask a bush pilot about what he must carry with him in the plane at all times and why. you might learn something. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote we dont limit the discussion of alaska to the little part youve managed to visit... nah you just limit it to the north slope. when did i do that why do you continue to make up things are you always that dishonest seems ive mentioned places that are not on the north slope though i suppose you dont recognize the names and are unaware of what it meant. chuathbaluk for example is in southwestern alaska. i spent a lot of years living in that part of alaska. but unfortunately for you the north slope is *very* representative of what was originally claimed! that *remote* business with no close by weather observations is a scenario youll find hard to locate in any other part of alaska. matter of fact while it is impossible in the lower-48 to find any location more than 30 miles from a road the *most* remote place in alaska defined as farthest from any established village is south of barrow on the colville river along the north side of the brooks range. hence the criteria that i didnt set up is what makes use of the north slope an ideal example for discussion. your unfamiliarity with alaska just is *not* getting you any brownie points here mate. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

mgg wrote im sorry during this whole thread you said members of your family were pilots. now you are as well never said i was a pilot. but having a family that are pilots does lend one to fly quite often as well as learn how to use the avionics. anyway you are correct in stating that turbulence can cause electrical activity. however it does not light-up the scope as you say like an electrical discharge from lightning would. bull after all thats what the scope was designed for...lightning. convective wind shear and turbulence *can* be detected with a stormscope yes wind shear and turbulence causes electromagnetic discharges that stormscopes can pickup. i suppose some scopes are better than others. oh one other thing in that photo of your familys home can you please let me know the first name of the owners of that plane hint there are 2 owners *i* know the first and last names but well leave last names out of the group. if you can it *may* lead to a tad more credibility to what you write here. gee could it be tom and kate what do i win .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote i dont know of any bush pilot companies period. however the charter services that i do know about will *fire* someone for doing what you claim is common. when it does happen its almost always a private pilot who is *not* ifr rated. keep guessing what you do not know about. ask a bush pilot about what he must carry with him in the plane at all times and why. you might learn something. a gun. to shoot idiots like you in a survival situation to prevent you from endangering everyone else. i suppose you now claim to be an expert on arctic survival too eh ok bright boy... explain the best way to go fishing with a pistol. oh i bet wed all get some real laughs if youll just tell us all about that big pistol you probably think is for bear protection too! but then again have you ever spent any time in a tent in alaska summer or winter ill bet if youve been in the boonies it was a guided tour with a fellow who cooked your meals and told you where to poop... youre an arm chair greenhorn wannabe chichacko from outside. like i said air taxis will *fire* pilots for stupid stunts like that. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote the suggestion that an aircraft lacking a stormscope on the north slope of alaska is ill equipped is hilarious given the 2 in 25 year rate for thunder storms around barrow which is typical of the entire north slope. lol...there ya go again. you keep bringing up the north slope not me. you! oh who was it said a plane without it on the north slope would be ill equipped. and why are you so afraid to talk about the north slope. how about we talk about northwestern alaska how about we talk about southwestern alaska how about we talk about the interior the yukon river the kuskokwim river im fine with all of those places too chump. but who wanted to talk about flying 300 miles without being able to get a weather report. who wanted to talk about remote alaska. who wanted to talk about bush pilots. well the north slope fits *all* of that better than anywhere. such a pity that your exposure to alaska has been so limited... -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote 7 paragraphs of rambling snipped wow one line from me gets 7 paragraphs of rambling back. rofl seems you dont have a word in rebuttal because you just got slam dunked again. i guess its beginning to be obvious even to you that you dont have the background to fabricate enough bullshit to get past my troll-o-meter. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

scott ruby scott.ruby@acsalaska.net wrote floyd l. davidson wrote milesh wrote runway or airport also depends on how you define town vs. say a river based development. hydaburg i suppose would be considered a town and is served almost entirely by boat or floatplane. wow you actually came up with one place! of course it is a village not a town. there are fewer than 400 people living there. they have road access to other villages where the state ferry system docks and they have a state maintained seaplane base. now we know of /three/ small villages not towns in the whole state of alaska that dont have a runway. hydaburg is both a city and a village. second class city incorporated under now now scott. hydaburg is incorporated as a city in legal terms but *nobody* is going to refer to it as a city in the sense that juneau and anchorage is referred to. its a village. lots of places are incorporated under the first or second class city statutes. that doesnt mean anyone calls them cities in typical common language. municipal statutes at least for now but they are trying thier hardest to run it into the ground. village because it is mostly native and the predominant form of functional govenment is the tribal council. town is not a term used in alaska it has no legal definition. much like county. but we arent talking about legal definitions. were talking about vernacular. everyone refers to barrow for example as a town. that is as opposed to as a city or as a village. there are several places commonly referred to as villages that are not native villages too. circle tokatna red devil at other times in history manley and probably man others. basically any place with more than roughly 25 people that is not connected via the road system is a village unless it grows to be town sized which seems to be about 2000 or so. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : nosey

floyd l. davidson wrote paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote because let me tell you a secret you cant drive to alaska. apparently you dont understand *any* of it! i understand that one can drive to alaska and you said you cant drive to alaska. so i understand that you are clueless. perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you use them although quite frankly it looked like you use a third-grade level sentence. grow up kid. and visit alaska. youll learn a lot. ive never been to alaska before but ill be flying to eielson afb in fairbanks in august. i just have to know why cant people drive to alaska. i dont want to be shocked when i get there. are there no roads in alaska are the borders closed .

From : scott ruby

floyd l. davidson i was wondering if tokatna has a runway. used to be there was one at tatalina afs but i dont know whats going on there since maybe 20 years ago. takotna still has the temporary strip built 25 years ago or so where they plowed off the top of the hill immediately north of town. makes it really intesting with a swirling wind. but even more interesting was when i had to sit in a 205 on the runway until someone came up because the bears were prowling around. like a shut down 205 was going to stop a bear! scott .

From : scott ruby

floyd l. davidson lots of places are incorporated under the first or second class city statutes. that doesnt mean anyone calls them cities in typical common language. but we arent talking about legal definitions. were talking about vernacular. everyone refers to barrow for example as a town. that is as opposed to as a city or as a village. well that varies with the crowd you run with. the crowd i run with the uses do make a difference so even in common language the legal meanings are used. but even when im out travelling i dont hear town used. there are several places commonly referred to as villages that are not native villages too. circle tokatna red devil at other times in history manley and probably man others. true a lot of places that are not native villages are called villages. hey red devil is still kicking! they are in the process of getting a couple of million in a water/sewer system......if they can quit fighting long enough to decide who will run it into the ground once its built. scott .

From : mgg

dude quit being such a putz. sure you seem to know *something* about aircraft and avionics but the people i know make you look like a pre-schooler. you really are looking more and more like an idiot every time you reply here. just give it up. i begged my stormscope pal to jump in here but he has better things to do and i couldnt argue with that g. actually keep going. its fun watching people that know far more about the subjects in this thread than you pummel you into the earth! rofl! you really do look foolish. --mike mgg wrote im sorry during this whole thread you said members of your family were pilots. now you are as well never said i was a pilot. but having a family that are pilots does lend one to fly quite often as well as learn how to use the avionics. anyway you are correct in stating that turbulence can cause electrical activity. however it does not light-up the scope as you say like an electrical discharge from lightning would. bull after all thats what the scope was designed for...lightning. convective wind shear and turbulence *can* be detected with a stormscope yes wind shear and turbulence causes electromagnetic discharges that stormscopes can pickup. i suppose some scopes are better than others. oh one other thing in that photo of your familys home can you please let me know the first name of the owners of that plane hint there are 2 owners *i* know the first and last names but well leave last names out of the group. if you can it *may* lead to a tad more credibility to what you write here. gee could it be tom and kate what do i win .

From : scott ruby

floyd l. davidson wrote milesh wrote runway or airport also depends on how you define town vs. say a river based development. hydaburg i suppose would be considered a town and is served almost entirely by boat or floatplane. wow you actually came up with one place! of course it is a village not a town. there are fewer than 400 people living there. they have road access to other villages where the state ferry system docks and they have a state maintained seaplane base. now we know of /three/ small villages not towns in the whole state of alaska that dont have a runway. hydaburg is both a city and a village. second class city incorporated under municipal statutes at least for now but they are trying thier hardest to run it into the ground. village because it is mostly native and the predominant form of functional govenment is the tribal council. town is not a term used in alaska it has no legal definition. much like county. scott .

From : floyd l davidson

scott ruby scott.ruby@acsalaska.net wrote floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote so name a few towns that dont have a runway eh little diomede and chuathbaluk are the only two i can think of off hand. are there others chuathbaluk has one hell they are getting ready to abandon it and build a new one! telidas may have gone into such disrepair that it is no longer active. shishmaref wont have one in a few more storms. probably a bunch in se but who needs a runway when you have a bay. yeah i found out chuathbaluk has one now. they didnt used to when i lived down the river a piece. i was wondering if tokatna has a runway. used to be there was one at tatalina afs but i dont know whats going on there since maybe 20 years ago. shishmaref used to have *two* runways! i havent been there since the new one was built. but shishmaref wont exists in a few more storms much less have a runway. that used to be a *really* nice place though they had the worst habit of gutting animals right on the beach in front of town all winter long which made for a real mess come breakup time. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : transurgeon

that was snipped to spare others of senseless babbling whats the matter gary did i hurt your little feelings by proving that it is you the great transbutcher that really doesnt have a clue on how the simplest part of the hydraulics actually work. you proved nothing as everyone has seen why did you snip the rest of the post did it hit too close to home .

From : mgg

hey mike whats your friend doing in bethel thats more or less home base for most of my immediate family given how this thread has gone you aint gonna believe this....hes an air traffic controller at the tower there. he works alot of bush pilots that dont have stormscopes . i know its hard to believe since no towns in ak seem to have an airport but he swears hes working at one g. if you have alot of folk there ask if they know stacy c. he has a way of making himself known and bethel aint exactly huge g. did ya ever eat at the expressway drivethru hes written to me about sounds interesting to say the least g. --mike mgg mike@pacbell.net wrote ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! --mike its just one of those little litmus tests. people that havent been to alaska at all might not catch on though given the context i laid out with half a brain just about anyone should have been able to understand. btw dont say juneau isnt alaska! thatll get you a target for a rock throwing contest. stick with los anchorage for sure and fairbanks when you really want to needle them. just tell em fairbanks is closer and the airplane ticket to alaska from there costs less... and the you cant drive to there is just an expansion on that! poor paul jensen even with the context hasnt been able to sort it out. probably just city kid anyway so it makes no difference. hey mike whats your friend doing in bethel thats more or less home base for most of my immediate family. paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote try driving to barrow nitwit. or point hope. or kaktovik. you said alaska moron. youre kind slow but you should be just beginning to see the light about now. what i said was indeed alaska now think for a second and redefine your silly ideas about what alaska is or isnt. those of us who live in alaska may actually know where it is... ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

floyd l. davidson wrote seems you dont have a word in rebuttal because you just got slam dunked again. i guess its beginning to be obvious even to you that you dont have the background to fabricate enough bullshit to get past my troll-o-meter. rofl....hook line and sinker. such the argumentative puppet. .

From : mgg

allright...i was betting that he didnt even have the smarts to look up a tail number...i lose. man that hurt! --mike miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote gee could it be tom and kate what do i win you actually do know who owns the plane! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : mgg

miles bud youre doing great! keep it up...im loving it. i was thinking about asking about springs for my 03 2500 ram in this truck ng but this is by far more fun. --mike floyd l. davidson wrote but who wanted to talk about flying 300 miles without being able to get a weather report. never said you couldnt get a weather report. thats a bit different than knowing for certain if conditions in a specific area are clear or not. but go on a head and keep spinning! great fun. .

From : mgg

floyd please dont *completely* slam him each time he barfs on his keyboard. he might go away and this fun would be over! ;- --mike miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote 7 paragraphs of rambling snipped wow one line from me gets 7 paragraphs of rambling back. rofl seems you dont have a word in rebuttal because you just got slam dunked again. i guess its beginning to be obvious even to you that you dont have the background to fabricate enough bullshit to get past my troll-o-meter. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : miles

mgg wrote dude quit being such a putz. sure you seem to know *something* about aircraft and avionics but the people i know make you look like a pre-schooler. rofl...an air traffic controller expert. rofl. .

From : miles

mgg wrote miles bud youre doing great! keep it up...im loving it. i was thinking about asking about springs for my 03 2500 ram in this truck ng but this is by far more fun. it is fun isnt it!! dont ruin it by talking about dodge stuff. .

From : scott ruby

floyd l. davidson floyd@barrow.com wrote so name a few towns that dont have a runway eh little diomede and chuathbaluk are the only two i can think of off hand. are there others chuathbaluk has one hell they are getting ready to abandon it and build a new one! telidas may have gone into such disrepair that it is no longer active. shishmaref wont have one in a few more storms. probably a bunch in se but who needs a runway when you have a bay. scott .

From : mgg

rofl...an air traffic controller expert. rofl hmmm i dont get that one. writing gibberish does nothing to help your case. --mike mgg wrote dude quit being such a putz. sure you seem to know *something* about aircraft and avionics but the people i know make you look like a pre-schooler. rofl...an air traffic controller expert. rofl. .

From : milesh

mgg wrote rofl...an air traffic controller expert. rofl hmmm i dont get that one. writing gibberish does nothing to help your case. muhaha. youre too funny! having memory troubles are ya .

From : mgg

hi paul this is a forum of the written word and thats all we have to go by so those words are interpreted for what they mean. wow...you dont get out much do ya you obviously dont read books a forum of the written word either. the library would be a boring and empty place if everything had to have a literal meaning as you suggest a forum of the written word needs to be. are you really and truly this stupid or are you just playing devils advocate here. oops another figure of speech...sorry. what i *literally* mean to say is that are you really this stupid or are you just taking the opposite side to stir things up is that better --mike ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! this may be hard for to believe but this group goes beyond the borders of alaska and most of us arent interested in local dialect. this is a forum of the written word and thats all we have to go by so those words are interpreted for what they mean. his commentary is about as stupid as me saying i am from l.a. i live in florida but i live in l.a. i wouldnt expect anyone else here to understand that unless they lived here or have spent time here. i certainly wouldnt be calling someone else clueless for not knowing where l.a. is in florida. if you were ever air force or navy you may know what it means and where it is. and yes you can drive here. .

From : milesh

nosey wrote gee could it be tom and kate what do i win close. its tom and katie. just for kicks ask them if they know their plane crashed on march 8 1984. some ppl have way too much fun with public records! .

From : paul jensen

grow up kid. and visit alaska. youll learn a lot. lol! i grew up decades ago gray beard! if i ever go to alaska ill probably drive there! lol! .

From : paul jensen

ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! this may be hard for to believe but this group goes beyond the borders of alaska and most of us arent interested in local dialect. this is a forum of the written word and thats all we have to go by so those words are interpreted for what they mean. his commentary is about as stupid as me saying i am from l.a. i live in florida but i live in l.a. i wouldnt expect anyone else here to understand that unless they lived here or have spent time here. i certainly wouldnt be calling someone else clueless for not knowing where l.a. is in florida. if you were ever air force or navy you may know what it means and where it is. and yes you can drive here. .

From : paul jensen

apparently you dont. many doesnt mean all and if you think it does i suggest that you go back to school and complete the third grade. well there are many is damn sure not the same thing as maybe one. .

From : tbone

apparently you dont. many doesnt mean all and if you think it does i suggest that you go back to school and complete the third grade. well there are many is damn sure not the same thing as maybe one. are you really this stupid i said and ill say it again because it is clear that you dont follow threads well. i know of many that sell only gas. there are about three of them just down the road but although on second thought one of them may actually have a small store that sells ciggs soda and possibly beer. i dont know for sure because i never went in there or use that station. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote grow up kid. and visit alaska. youll learn a lot. lol! i grew up decades ago gray beard! if i ever go to alaska ill probably drive there! lol! in the mean time kid you probably shouldnt tell people what it is or what its like. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : transurgeon

having proven beyond all doubt that he doesnt have a fucking clue about transmission pressure regulators and being determined to humiliate himself further t-boner the mathematics whiz penned this little epistle which is a masterpiece of well maybe i didnt say exactly that in message apparently you dont. many doesnt mean all and if you think it does i suggest that you go back to school and complete the third grade. well there are many is damn sure not the same thing as maybe one. are you really this stupid i said and ill say it again because it is clear that you dont follow threads well. i know of many that sell only gas. there are about three of them just down the road but although on second thought one of them may actually have a small store that sells ciggs soda and possibly beer. i dont know for sure because i never went in there or use that station. is there are many the same as maybe one does the one sell only gas or is it himself farting does he know of many of them in the biblical sense does one of them sell ciggs soda and possibly beer or not will he go in this evening and check it out or will he remain blissfully ignorant are they just down the road or are they a small piece down the road or maybe just down yonder tune in tomorrow as fat-ass spins his large butt some more on the continuing saga as the lard-butt spins !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 .

From : floyd l davidson

paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote mgg mike@pacbell.net wrote ummmm....its a state with clearly defined borders. and one *can* drive there. time for you to go back to third grade. man you guys just dont get what hes saying...very clearly i might add. yes any 1st grader knows you can drive to alaska but natives dont consider anchorage and juneau alaska. they consider the remote areas inaccesible to average tourists as alaska...simple as that. thats all he means...get it yet to real alaskans its not cities its the land and the sea and thats how you live. one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! this may be hard for to believe but this group goes beyond the borders of alaska and most of us arent interested in local dialect. this is a forum of the written word and thats all we have to go by so those words are interpreted for what they mean. most people pay attention to context as they read. they dont take one sentence out of context and try to argue with it in the opposite meaning from what it had in context. it isnt as if it hasnt been explained to you several times now including in the initial context of the statement you are arguing about as well as in the quoted text above; yet here you are still insisting that the original statement out of context is wrong. you cant ignore context and retain any credibility. in the context originally given the statement *clearly* didnt mean what you are arguing against. whats your point we already realize you didnt read it right the first time. we already realize you are being stubborn and obstinate. we already realize you either havent checked to see what was actually said or just dont care. his commentary is about as stupid as me saying i am from l.a. i live in florida but i live in l.a. my original commentary happens to be an ongoing alaskan thingy that has been in continual use for about 30 years now. its pretty hard to live in alaska and go a whole day much less a whole week without hearing some reference to it! and often as not it is being used to grade someones awareness! the degree to which they 1 understand and 2 agree with the crack that is made is a measure of how aware they are of the political realities in alaska today. *you* nor anyone else were not expected to understand that without an explanation hence in the original article where the statement was made sufficient commentary called /context/ was given to clue in anyone with an open mind. guess where youve placed yourself on the grading curve for this one! i wouldnt expect anyone else here to understand that unless they lived here or have spent time here. i certainly wouldnt be calling someone else clueless for not knowing where l.a. is in florida. if you were ever air force or navy you may know what it means and where it is. and yes you can drive here. i have no idea what you are talking about. notice im not dumb enough to claim you are wrong. im just saying you havent given enough context for me to understand and that doesnt make you wrong. you have been handed enough context several times and you still have to mindless brass to say that what i said was wrong. strikes me as being kinda dumb... -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : scott ruby

mgg one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! well you could drive a plane there or a sno-go - scott .

From : mgg

well you could drive a plane there oh no...dont get em started with the plane driving thing! g --mike mgg one of my best friends is in bethel right now and to the locals there bethel *is* alaska and guess what...you cant drive there. do you get it now its a figure of friggin speach! well you could drive a plane there or a sno-go - scott .

From : tbone

that was snipped to spare others of senseless babbling whats the matter gary did i hurt your little feelings by proving that it is you the great transbutcher that really doesnt have a clue on how the simplest part of the hydraulics actually work. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : floyd l davidson

scott ruby scott.ruby@acsalaska.net wrote floyd l. davidson lots of places are incorporated under the first or second class city statutes. that doesnt mean anyone calls them cities in typical common language. but we arent talking about legal definitions. were talking about vernacular. everyone refers to barrow for example as a town. that is as opposed to as a city or as a village. well that varies with the crowd you run with. the crowd i run with the uses do make a difference so even in common language the legal meanings are used. but even when im out travelling i dont hear town used. it should be noted that you are in the business of dealing with municipal governments and the classification according to state law under which they are incorporated makes all the difference in the world to your crowd! to the rest of us average joes all we care about is bush/highway/big-city and if its in the bush is it too large to be called village then it becomes a town!. whats odd is that most highway towns are indeed called towns just about regardless of the size. only native villages are called a village if they are connected to the road system. also in support of your comment about villages being native are places like eagle where it has always been separated physically and eagle village is where the native people live. im sure there are a couple others like that but i cant think of them offhand. cantwell too maybe there are several places commonly referred to as villages that are not native villages too. circle tokatna red devil at other times in history manley and probably man others. true a lot of places that are not native villages are called villages. hey red devil is still kicking! they are in the process of getting a couple of million in a water/sewer system......if they can quit fighting long enough to decide who will run it into the ground once its built. heh heh. its just too danged nice a place to shrivel up and blow away in the political wind. ill tell you though when they shut the mine down it nearly did dry up. all that was left was bob vanderpools bar. and that kept things alive... but killed people up and down the river. it was really interesting to take a trip from anywhere far enough down river and go up past red devil. down past crooked creek there would be absolutely no litter in the river. it would be relatively rare to find anything littering the banks or floating in the river. but from crooked creek to red devil it began to be evident there was a bar up ahead. by the time you come around the corner to red devil there were beer cans floating all over the place! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : floyd l davidson

nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote ive never been to alaska before but ill be flying to eielson afb in fairbanks in august. i just have to know why cant people drive to alaska. i dont want to be shocked when i get there. are there no roads in alaska are the borders closed when you get to eielson... before you land take a look around. with a bit of luck it will be a clear day august is a nice time to visit and youll be able to see for miles. also with a bit of luck youll have to circle around and get to see something farther to the west. whatever... look for roads. youll see a couple to the north one to the east and two to the south. theres a lot of alaska in between those roads! and theres just a *huge* chunk of alaska to the west where there arent any roads. but when your wheels hit the pavement on eielson... youve just landed in america. for fun stick around until it gets cold and snows. that could even happen in late august and would provide you with the *perfect* example! if it gets down to 31 degrees f and snows... youll see several people walking around eielson dressed in full arctic gear with the hood zipped up mukluks and the works. they definitely stay warm even at that bitter cold temperature... ;- thats not alaska though. but you *are* close enough to see a few effects. for example in august if you drive around on eielson or go downtown to fairbanks watch how people make turns. if they pull up to a corner with their brake lights on and then the /instant/ they begin to turn the brake lights go *out* thats an alaskan! if the brake lights stay on i dont care how long theyve lived in fairbanks if by august they have reverted to driving like they would in california they arent really there yet! otoh by january *everybody* has learned to get their foot off the brake before turning the steering wheel. but when it becomes so ingrained that they still do it that way in august theyve become habituated and while you are driving in america they are driving in alaska. but you cant drive to where they are. how much time will you have while youre there and how much adventure do you want during that time and whats your basic idea of adventure -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : tbone

that was snipped to spare others of senseless babbling whats the matter gary did i hurt your little feelings by proving that it is you the great transbutcher that really doesnt have a clue on how the simplest part of the hydraulics actually work. you proved nothing as everyone has seen if it makes you feel better to think that go ahead. while im sure that some of your friends will agree the fact that you bailed out and ran away proves you wrong. why did you snip the rest of the post because it was just more of your typical desperate distortions that served no purpose and you whould be one of the last ones to talk about someone snipping posts. did it hit too close to home lol only in your distorted little mind. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : nosey

when you get to eielson... before you land take a look around. with a bit of luck it will be a clear day august is a nice time to visit and youll be able to see for miles. also with a bit of luck youll have to circle around and get to see something farther to the west. whatever... look for roads. youll see a couple to the north one to the east and two to the south. theres a lot of alaska in between those roads! and theres just a *huge* chunk of alaska to the west where there arent any roads. but when your wheels hit the pavement on eielson... youve just landed in america. for fun stick around until it gets cold and snows. that could even happen in late august and would provide you with the *perfect* example! if it gets down to 31 degrees f and snows... youll see several people walking around eielson dressed in full arctic gear with the hood zipped up mukluks and the works. they definitely stay warm even at that bitter cold temperature... ;- you can bet ill be watching out the window. thats not alaska though. but you *are* close enough to see a few effects. for example in august if you drive around on eielson or go downtown to fairbanks watch how people make turns. if they pull up to a corner with their brake lights on and then the /instant/ they begin to tur

From : floyd l davidson

nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote really there yet! otoh by january *everybody* has learned to get their foot off the brake before turning the steering wheel. but when it becomes so ingrained that they still do it that way in august theyve become habituated and while you are driving in america they are driving in alaska. but you cant drive to where they are. thats not a driving practice isolated to alaska. i drive like that myself. i learned to drive in pennsylvania. you drive like that in *august* in pennsylvania i doubt it. people in fairbanks drive literally on ice from september through april and it usually takes a few years before a person gets into the habit so thoroughly that they never ever brake in a corner again by reflex as opposed to by thoughtful intent. damnedest thing about that happens too. it is obvious that come fall and the first snow people are going to have fender benders as they re-learn how to drive on ice. happens every year and there are dozens of them the first day of snow then only few on the second snow... and dozens more on the 3rd or 4th snow because so many people got over confident. but the odd thing and this is much more of disaster happens in the spring. comes may and all the ice and snow are gone and people whove been *very* careful about driving on ice suddenly get the idea they have unlimited traction. this does not manifest itself with fender benders. instead out by eielson afb and on down the road from there it results on high speed roll overs as people try to pass or even just going around gentle bends as they seem to think they can whip the steering wheel and get instant responsiveness now that there is no ice. as you are no doubt aware cars that roll over at 60-80 mph tend to make a real mess out of the folks inside... how much time will you have while youre there and how much adventure do you want during that time and whats your basic idea of adventure ill be there for about 2 weeks but ill be working while im there. i wow thats a *lot* of time! suppose there is limited hours of darkness in august so i should have some on august 1 there will be 18 hours of sunlight and civil twilight lasts starts at 217 am and ends at 1137 pm. thats quite a bit of daylight to play with particularly if you are an early riser. its dark for 3 hours... by august 16th it will be down to 16 hours 21 minutes of actual sunlight with twilight starting at 337 am and ending at 1013 pm. it never gets darker than nautical twilight either so dark is kinda relative too. on august 31st it is only 14 hours 39 minutes of sunlight with twilight starting 435 am and ends at 907 pm. but by that date there are about 5 hours of astronomical twilight which means its damned well dark enough for anything other than star gazing. the other change that takes place along with the hours of daylight is a transition from summer to fall. there are thunder storms in july and it may sprinkle a little every few days or be basically clear for a week or so at a time. september is the rainy season and it drizzles. august is just a transition between the two and its really hard to predict what the weather will be like even two days in advance. you could hit a lot of drizzle/rain or a lot of really nice fall days. there have been years when the first hard frost in fairbanks came on the 18th of august so it is possible to see a little chill in the air by the end of august too. its also possible to see temps higher than 90 in the first couple weeks of august! thats pretty much the way the interior region of alaska is with some wide swings of extreme weather conditions. time after work to go sight seeing. my idea of adventure is traveling and seeing new things and experiencing different cultures. alaska idaho ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ bingo. you can really have some fun in alaska! the whole thing with this place is that it is one big adventure. people who like that love it here. people who dont hate it. there arent many in between. so if you like new challenges to every day tasks like having it be a challenge just trying to drive to work its fun in alaska. on the other hand if you like a really tight schedule that you can make in advance and fell secure in following this place will be annoying to no end. oregon and washington are the only states that i have not visited yet. im not too much of a thrill seeker. i dont sky-dive or go parasailing but i had a blast white water rafting on the snake river near jackson hole one potential for a thrill is to raft the nenana river in or near denali park. i dont know the details but its pretty wild. wyoming. i enjoy hiking swimming hunting fishing and playing or attending popular us sports other than basketball. high performance those would all be pretty hard to do in a two week visit. there might be some fish

From : nosey

really there yet! otoh by january *everybody* has learned to get their foot off the brake before turning the steering wheel. but when it becomes so ingrained that they still do it that way in august theyve become habituated and while you are driving in america they are driving in alaska. but you cant drive to where they are. thats not a driving practice isolated to alaska. i drive like that myself. i learned to drive in pennsylvania. you drive like that in *august* in pennsylvania i doubt it. doubt it if you want but i drive like that all the time. my father was a truck driver with millions of miles experience. he taught me how to drive. he taught me that in normal driving if you need to use your brakes for anything other than stopping you are driving wrong. now thats not saying that you shouldnt brake on declines or when approaching sudden blind turns but if you anticipate turns in the road and traffic patterns this can be done easily. with that advice and a bit of common sense i think its a good driving practice. i must have been an impressionable young driver. to this day i still lightly stomp my left foot on the floor after shifting a standard transmission according to my wife. when first learning to drive i had a tendency to leave my foot on the clutch pedal between shifts. dad made me stomp my foot on the floor after shifts so i would get out of the habit of riding the clutch. thanks for the sight-seeing tips. i dont think ill venture too far away from fairbanks but it sounds like there is plenty to do right there. plane trips are probably not a good idea since ill be in a duty status 24-7 while im there. i cant extend my stay there unless i take some leave and then i would have to pay for all expenses during that extended period and transportation back to texas. that would dent my bank account a bit too much. .

From : floyd l davidson

nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote really there yet! otoh by january *everybody* has learned to get their foot off the brake before turning the steering wheel. but when it becomes so ingrained that they still do it that way in august theyve become habituated and while you are driving in america they are driving in alaska. but you cant drive to where they are. thats not a driving practice isolated to alaska. i drive like that myself. i learned to drive in pennsylvania. you drive like that in *august* in pennsylvania i doubt it. doubt it if you want but i drive like that all the time. my father was a truck driver with millions of miles experience. he taught me how to drive. well if you do that that is just downright *impressive*! your dad must have been driving way back when when truck drivers were the guys you watched to learn how to do it. cant say id want to use the average truck driver as an example today though. thats an unfortunate result of deregulation. he taught me that in normal driving if you need to use your brakes for anything other than stopping you are driving wrong. now thats not saying that you shouldnt brake on declines or when approaching sudden blind turns but if you anticipate turns in the road and traffic patterns this can be done easily. with that advice and a bit of common sense i think its a good driving practice. i must have been an impressionable young driver. to this day i still lightly stomp my left foot on the floor after shifting a standard transmission according to my wife. impressonable sounds like you can really form some long lasting habits! obviously that can cut both ways but in the case of learning to drive thats pretty neat. when first learning to drive i had a tendency to leave my foot on the clutch pedal between shifts. dad made me stomp my foot on the floor after shifts so i would get out of the habit of riding the clutch. thanks for the sight-seeing tips. i dont think ill venture too far away from fairbanks but it sounds like there is plenty to do right there. plane trips are probably not a good idea since ill be in a duty status 24-7 while im there. i cant extend my stay there unless i take some leave and then i would have to pay for all expenses during that extended period and transportation back to texas. that would dent my bank account a bit too much. well shucks. before you were just going to be bored to death now youre going to have live with knowing what you could be doing but cant. heh heh. you still might be able to get out behind eielson and see a little bit of the country. at one time there were nike missle sites on all of the hills around the base and there was a road connectiong them. as late as about 1980 it was possible to drive in a loop of about 40 miles or so and there was an access off of either end of the base plus one that came out on the 33 mile bluffs about 10-11 miles down the road from eielson. but now there are just three separate roads heading back there and the connections between them have long since been washed out. parts of it have probably been developed since i was there though as it leads into the yukon training range. but you *dont* want to go that far... the one road that i mentioned off the side road right at the main gate leads to the chena river and if you go up into the hills it is possible if it is no longer fenced off to get to places where you can see all of fairbanks a huge portion of the chena river valley and a large section of the tanana river too. the best view of a big grizzly bear that ive ever had was back up there. i had my children with me and it was only perhaps 75 feet from the truck and stood up on its hind legs trying to figure out what we were. it took quite awhile before it got a whiff of us and took off like a freight train down the side of a hill. we also used to see a lot of moose up there. -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : redneck tookover hell

oh boy the resident homo troll strikes again lol you coming out ot the closet with your buddy politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote floyd l. davidson wrote you really are green behind the ears arent you! airplane drivers are something alaskans are more familiar with than you uninitiated dweebs. rofl. my family is one of several pilots. one of which is a pilot in alaska. they do not drive airplanes. good grief. .

From : paul jensen

are you really this stupid how many fossil fuel plants are terrorist targets how many fossil fuel plants have the possibility of a meltdown how much pollution does fossil fuel plants produce you moron how many people have been harmed by nuclear plants maybe zero. once again you like to paint some horrific possibility that never happened as fact. .

From : nosey

sascheffey wrote for me its common in the air force to call a pilot a driver. many pilots also use the term. im navy. i have not heard any of the pilots in my squadron call themselves drivers. maybe just a local thing where i am. .

From : milesh

floyd l. davidson wrote there simply are *no* towns in alaska without a runway most have two or three. none not one. rofl!! by your definition of town. you make up arguments to suit your needs! this is hysterical. .

From : floyd l davidson

miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote gee could it be tom and kate what do i win you actually do know who owns the plane! -- floyd l. davidson http//web.guy.com/floyddavidson ukpeagvik barrow alaska floyd@barrow.com .

From : nosey

gee could it be tom and kate what do i win close. its tom and katie. just for kicks ask them if they know their plane crashed on march 8 1984. .

From : fmb

rmorgan7@austin.rr.com ron m. wrote in saw a interview with a oil man from texas the other day and he stated that only when crude reaches $40 a barrel and stays there will it pay for him to start drilling again. im from west texas which at one time was pretty much the oil capitol of the universe. then saudi arabia came along. drive out there now and you see pumpjacks sitting dead rusting hundreds and hundreds of them because the price of oil doesnt cover the cost of pumping it any more. thats a very critical ratio. it costs $30 - $40 a barrel to drill and pump oil in west texas. in the middle east its so cheap you can practically scoop it out of the ground with a teaspoon. the west texas economy has been utterly devastated the last few decades because of this. i travelled in that area recently and small towns like crane big lake and sterling city are dying with boarded-up storefronts everywhere. its sad to watch. there are very very good decent people in those towns. the west texas oil industry itself has withered as well. if you wanted to drill a well out there tomorrow it would take at least 6 months to even get started because the support industry is all gone the roughnecks the suppliers oilfield equipment companies etc. theres just nothing left. whats happened to the american oil industry is really whats happened to many other industries production has shifted to foreign sources because of lower cost. why pay an american call center worker $25 an hour plus benefits when a guy in india will do it for $2 a day why spend $30-$40 a barrel to pump oil from west texas when you can pump it in the middle east for $8 a barrel its the same principle at work. and the resources are here theres enough oil under west texas to kiss the middle east bye-bye forever but its not going to happen. and all that oil is just sitting there. billions and billions of barrels of it. now of course if you want to get fabulously rich save the country and a bunch of other nice things crank your brain up to 10 and figure out a way to get that oil out of the ground cheaply. any ideas ron m. 5th generation native west texan good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. and what planet did you say you were from -- fmb only one b in fmb .

From : mgg

just let this thread die! --mike rmorgan7@austin.rr.com ron m. wrote in saw a interview with a oil man from texas the other day and he stated that only when crude reaches $40 a barrel and stays there will it pay for him to start drilling again. im from west texas which at one time was pretty much the oil capitol of the universe. then saudi arabia came along. drive out there now and you see pumpjacks sitting dead rusting hundreds and hundreds of them because the price of oil doesnt cover the cost of pumping it any more. thats a very critical ratio. it costs $30 - $40 a barrel to drill and pump oil in west texas. in the middle east its so cheap you can practically scoop it out of the ground with a teaspoon. the west texas economy has been utterly devastated the last few decades because of this. i travelled in that area recently and small towns like crane big lake and sterling city are dying with boarded-up storefronts everywhere. its sad to watch. there are very very good decent people in those towns. the west texas oil industry itself has withered as well. if you wanted to drill a well out there tomorrow it would take at least 6 months to even get started because the support industry is all gone the roughnecks the suppliers oilfield equipment companies etc. theres just nothing left. whats happened to the american oil industry is really whats happened to many other industries production has shifted to foreign sources because of lower cost. why pay an american call center worker $25 an hour plus benefits when a guy in india will do it for $2 a day why spend $30-$40 a barrel to pump oil from west texas when you can pump it in the middle east for $8 a barrel its the same principle at work. and the resources are here theres enough oil under west texas to kiss the middle east bye-bye forever but its not going to happen. and all that oil is just sitting there. billions and billions of barrels of it. now of course if you want to get fabulously rich save the country and a bunch of other nice things crank your brain up to 10 and figure out a way to get that oil out of the ground cheaply. any ideas ron m. 5th generation native west texan good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. and what planet did you say you were from -- fmb only one b in fmb .

From : mike simmons

rmorgan7@austin.rr.com ron m. wrote in saw a interview with a oil man from texas the other day and he stated that only when crude reaches $40 a barrel and stays there will it pay for him to start drilling again. im from west texas which at one time was pretty much the oil capitol of the universe. then saudi arabia came along. drive out there now and you see pumpjacks sitting dead rusting hundreds and hundreds of them because the price of oil doesnt cover the cost of pumping it any more. thats a very critical ratio. it costs $30 - $40 a barrel to drill and pump oil in west texas. in the middle east its so cheap you can practically scoop it out of the ground with a teaspoon. the west texas economy has been utterly devastated the last few decades because of this. i travelled in that area recently and small towns like crane big lake and sterling city are dying with boarded-up storefronts everywhere. its sad to watch. there are very very good decent people in those towns. the west texas oil industry itself has withered as well. if you wanted to drill a well out there tomorrow it would take at least 6 months to even get started because the support industry is all gone the roughnecks the suppliers oilfield equipment companies etc. theres just nothing left. whats happened to the american oil industry is really whats happened to many other industries production has shifted to foreign sources because of lower cost. why pay an american call center worker $25 an hour plus benefits when a guy in india will do it for $2 a day why spend $30-$40 a barrel to pump oil from west texas when you can pump it in the middle east for $8 a barrel its the same principle at work. and the resources are here theres enough oil under west texas to kiss the middle east bye-bye forever but its not going to happen. and all that oil is just sitting there. billions and billions of barrels of it. now of course if you want to get fabulously rich save the country and a bunch of other nice things crank your brain up to 10 and figure out a way to get that oil out of the ground cheaply. any ideas ron m. 5th generation native west texan good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. as the previous poster alluded to it is simply the laws of economics at work and left to themselves they work very well. mike .

From : iman nassoul

did anyone else notice that overnight every gas station you could find must have taken delivery of a taker full of higher priced gas wtf .

From : tbone

good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! really got proof i bet that these things would in fact happen but as long as big buisness continues to run the government we will never know. show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. as the previous poster alluded to it is simply the laws of economics at work and left to themselves they work very well. lol you are kidding right!!!! do you own a television or ever leave the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this country and its people -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : jerry

iman nassoul wrote did anyone else notice that overnight every gas station you could find must have taken delivery of a taker full of higher priced gas wtf didnt pay attention to gas price but did notice that diesel dropped 2 cents a gallon at the local flying-j station since about four days ago. jerry .

From : paul jensen

what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. the airline industry was deregulated and now consumers can get cheap flights and the airlines are going broke. .

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! really got proof i bet that these things would in fact happen but as long as big buisness continues to run the government we will never know. prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt know theyd gone missing how would that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. unfortunately that price would be so high that only business or wealthy people could commonly fly. forget the family flying off to disney world for a week vacation. way too much! current air fares can fluctuate wildly but youd never find a $150 or less! round trip fare to fl from new england under regulated airlines. why would they ever offer such a fare if the price is set by the government at $580 as the previous poster alluded to it is simply the laws of economics at work andleft to themselves they work very well. lol you are kidding right!!!! do you own a television or ever leave the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this country and its people well the soviet union had a policy of government dictating exactly how many cars or refrigerators were going to be built and at what price. that method of government control of economics didnt seem to work very well. the chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesnt work well either. dont take my word for it turn on the tv! smh .

From : roy

tbone wrote good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! really got proof i bet that these things would in fact happen but as long as big buisness continues to run the government we will never know. prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt know theyd gone missing how would that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. deregulation brought us the guy who owned continental airlines who by the time he was done ruining a couple of other airlines the faa ruled him incompetent and banned him from the industry. oh while he was ruining airlines he was also ruining jobs by the thousands. i think the name was lorenzo sp. roy .

From : tbone

tbone wrote good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! really got proof i bet that these things would in fact happen but as long as big buisness continues to run the government we will neverknow. prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. really then where are these record prices comming from. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. while this may be true the typical american also has many more expenses than they did 20 years ago which equates to less disposable income for necessities such as fuel. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt know theyd gone missing how would that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive i think that you missed the point. it was not suggested for the government to make gas prices fall as you put it. it was for the government to release technology and assist inventors in developing alternate technologies which if successful would reduce our demand on oil. currently there is no incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone does the oil companies make that disappear real quick. show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. lol with the exception of the few small point to point airlines just about all prices have gone way up. look at the price difference between buisness and coach classes or better yet look at the outragous price for a ticket if you need to fly somewhere at the last minute. unfortunately that price would be so high that only business or wealthy people could commonly fly. forget the family flying off to disney world for a week vacation. way too much! what plannet are you on what proof do you have to back this statement current air fares can fluctuate wildly but youd never find a $150 or less! round trip fare to fl from new england under regulated airlines. why would they ever offer such a fare if the price is set by the government at $580 funny but i never see these fairs offered during peak or the most desired times and why would a regulated airline not offer them regulation only sets the top price not all pricing. as the previous poster alluded to it is simply the laws of economics at work andleft to themselves they work very well. lol you are kidding right!!!! do you own a television or ever leave the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this country and its people well the soviet union had a policy of government dictating exactly how many cars or refrigerators were going to be built and at what price. that method of government control of economics didnt seem to work very well. it failed for the same reason that ours is currently failing greed and corruption. i never said that i wanted a communist or socialist government but the absolute greed of the american business man is completely out of hand. the chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesnt work well either. dont take my word for it turn on the tv! where did i or anyone else say that they wanted such a government but that does not mean that our system is perfect either. perhaps you should pick up a history book and read about the industrial revolution and the state of the economy then. do you see some similarities now then take a look at the late sixties and early seventies in regards to the auto industry and gas. they say that history not remembered is often repeated and we are dead on the same course now that we were then how sad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : stephen harding

roy wrote tbone wrote good oil industry commercial. what is needed is for the our oil industry and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels and power plant program using nasa and the patents held by the people and not given to the monopolies. if a serious government sponsored program without political corruption were started you would find petroleum products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear. while you may think that government intervention would in some way cause prices to drop and supply to increase nothing is further from the truth! really got proof i bet that these things would in fact happen but as long as big buisness continues to run the government we will never know. prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt

From : moonraker

that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. deregulation brought us the guy who owned continental airlines who by the time he was done ruining a couple of other airlines the faa ruled him incompetent and banned him from the industry. oh while he was ruining airlines he was also ruining jobs by the thousands. i think the name was lorenzo sp. yep a bad selfish type driven by a desire to self-enrich. but deregulation doesnt necessarily result in loss of an industry or employment. regulation can do that too! regulation forbid new carriers along with new employment into the industry. youre a railroad guy right how did regulation of passenger train lines help the industry it held off closure of unprofitable passenger route thus saving for a time the jobs of those working the line. yet it made the overall health of the railroad company poorer by increasing the amount of money it had to pay out for non-profiting activities like passenger rail. the end result was a hastening of the death of many railroad lines freight and passenger and the loss of those jobs too. times change. a company has to be adaptable to change. regulation limits that adaptability in response to market forces and i think ultimately causes more harm. btw since ive got you here... i heard on the radio several weeks ago that trains coming into rail yards will typically stop ahead of their final resting spot in order to back up a little ways. the purpose it was claimed was to unload the tension on the couplings so that when the engine starts up again it can gain momentum by pulling an initially small but then increasing number of cars behind it. if it didnt do this the weight of the train cars would be so great the engine would have much more difficulty getting moving. does this sound right seems logical but i always thought those diesel engines were simply monster power and torque producers that could handle the weight of the cars it pulled in one clump rather than needing a slight spacing advantage to slowly build up to its full pulling weight. smh . 222 280291 dvzbc.4310$ts4.1241@big3.bellsouth.net lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. of course drilling our own oil in the anwr would do a lot to remove the demand for middle-eastern oil. one thing ive never seen discussed is the fact that we are virtually funding the terrorist activities against our own selves by buying oil from the arabs. if we were to open the anwr and tell the towelheads to go peddle their oil in a more competitive market wed soon see the benefit in two areas. at the pump and in less money in the hands of those murderous muslims. .

From : roy

roy wrote how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. deregulation brought us the guy who owned continental airlines who by the time he was done ruining a couple of other airlines the faa ruled him incompetent and banned him from the industry. oh while he was ruining airlines he was also ruining jobs by the thousands. i think the name was lorenzo sp. yep a bad selfish type driven by a desire to self-enrich. but deregulation doesnt necessarily result in loss of an industry or employment. regulation can do that too! regulation forbid new carriers along with new employment into the industry. seems to me that there are less airlines and for that manner less railroads due to mergers youre a railroad guy right yup have 32 years into it. how did regulation of passenger train lines help the industry it held off closure of unprofitable passenger route thus saving for a time the jobs of those working the line. steve there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable that im aware of. yet it made the overall health of the railroad company poorer by increasing the amount of money it had to pay out for non-profiting activities like passenger rail. the end result was a hastening of the death of many railroad lines freight and passenger and the loss of those jobs too. heck for an example of how wonderful deregulation is look around here in ne. in 1986 there were 4 profitable railroads now there are one. tim mellon from that wonderful banking family did a wall street on them. to the point of iirc the state of ny became involved and took over the d&h and tossed mellon. times change. a company has to be adaptable to change. regulation limits that adaptability in response to market forces and i think ultimately causes more harm. btw since ive got you here... i heard on the radio several weeks ago that trains coming into rail yards will typically stop ahead of their final resting spot in order to back up a little ways. the purpose it was claimed was to unload the tension on the couplings so that when the engine starts up again it can gain momentum by pulling an initially small but then increasing number of cars behind it. if it didnt do this the weight of the train cars would be so great the engine would have much more difficulty getting moving. does this sound right seems logical but i always thought those diesel engines were simply monster power and torque producers that could handle the weight of the cars it pulled in one clump rather than needing a slight spacing advantage to slowly build up to its full pulling weight. first i heard of it then again i havent been involved in frieght since 1986 mellon. most engineers i know like to keep things stretched out. engineers pulling a standing train that is bunched have been known to break a few knuckles or drawbars. my brother in law is a engineer that works passenger but has a extensive frieght background ill ask him or one of the other frieght guysthere arent many left when i bump into them. you are correct a locomotive with enough traction power can get anything moving. if one cant simply put on another and so on. roy smh .

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote tbone wrote prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. really then where are these record prices comming from. a high benchmark price for a barrel of standard crude oil brought about by more competition in possessing that barrel of oil from places like china and india and probably soon indonesia malaysia s korea and the likes. the price would be even higher if opec i.e. saudi arabia didnt pump more oil to counter the upward trends. theyve just announced intent to reduce production in order to counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the northern hemisphere winter. it will be surprising if they really do but the idea is to keep oil prices stable. lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. while this may be true the typical american also has many more expenses than they did 20 years ago which equates to less disposable income for necessities such as fuel. everything costs more! including oil. im sure we spend more on gas outlays as a proportion of income than we did 20 years ago but we also drive cars suvs/lts that are not as fuel efficient as the typical car on the road then either despite the fact that individual *car* models are more fuel efficient. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt know theyd gone missing how would that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive i think that you missed the point. it was not suggested for the government to make gas prices fall as you put it. it was for the government to release technology and assist inventors in developing alternate technologies which if successful would reduce our demand on oil. currently there is no incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone does the oil companies make that disappear real quick. the government should do more to promote new energy technologies but it generally cant make a technology inexpensive. thats pretty much the job of private industry which arent going to go into the technology until there is more promise of economic benefit. electric cars ok for around town or short commuting work. hybrids work quite well but arent exactly breakthrough technology. fuel cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety and fuel volume range not to mention theyll also run at least initially on gasoline. so what then we dont have impulse or warp power yet and arent likely to have it for quite some time to come. a change over to alternative energy can be better encouraged by government but i really dont believe there can be some sort of government proclamation that will suddenly change the energy picture for the us. show me even one example of this idea being successful in history. what is your definition of success how about you show us even one example of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company. how about airlines without deregulation there would be more airlines charging about the same price. lol with the exception of the few small point to point airlines just about all prices have gone way up. look at the price difference between buisness and coach classes or better yet look at the outragous price for a ticket if you need to fly somewhere at the last minute. not so! if it wasnt for deregulation you would be paying that outrageous price for all your flights. the highly variable fares for air travel is a result of deregulation. there would be no cheap fares without it! unfortunately that price would be so high that only business or wealthy people could commonly fly. forget the family flying off to disney world for a week vacation. way too much! what plannet are you on what proof do you have to back this statement the heritage foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline deregulation. yes the heritage foundation tends toward conservative thinking but there is a lot of information economic and political in the very long article. from http//www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg1173.cfm quote * prices have declined steadily since deregulation. the best measure of trends in airline prices is the yield revenue generated per passenger mile that airlines receive. the inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar yield for airlines has fallen from 12.27 cents in 1978 to 7.92 cents in 1997. this means that airline ticket prices are almost 40 percent lower today than they were in 1978 when the airlines were deregulated. chart 2 illustrates the price decrease. these repo

From : roy

roy wrote how did regulation of passenger train lines help the industry it held off closure of unprofitable passenger route thus saving for a time the jobs of those working the line. steve there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable that im aware of. certainly not in the us or canada but europe and japan have fantastic passenger rail lines. i know europes especially is heavily subsidized but i think japans might be a money maker. also india i would think. low wages and lots of people with cars too expensive for most make for a good pool of train passengers...even eating and sleeping on top of the cars 5th class tickets! how much rain did you get out there the last few days about 5-6. we got about 4 inches and the ct river is about to burst its banks! finally seem to be done with it today. lucky that there wasnt a lot of snow on the ground. hell just think if this rain was snow! roy smh .

From : stephen harding

roy wrote how did regulation of passenger train lines help the industry it held off closure of unprofitable passenger route thus saving for a time the jobs of those working the line. steve there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable that im aware of. certainly not in the us or canada but europe and japan have fantastic passenger rail lines. i know europes especially is heavily subsidized but i think japans might be a money maker. also india i would think. low wages and lots of people with cars too expensive for most make for a good pool of train passengers...even eating and sleeping on top of the cars 5th class tickets! how much rain did you get out there the last few days we got about 4 inches and the ct river is about to burst its banks! finally seem to be done with it today. smh .

From : tbone

lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. of course drilling our own oil in the anwr would do a lot to remove the demand for middle-eastern oil. really and how do you know this perhaps you should work for the drilling companies since even they dont know how much oil is currently there. one thing ive never seen discussed is the fact that we are virtually funding the terrorist activities against our own selves by buying oil from the arabs. it must be nice to just group everyone from a specific nationality into one group that al do the same thing. what purpose would funding terrorists do for them if we were to open the anwr and tell the towelheads to go peddle their oil in a more competitive market wed soon see the benefit in two areas. at the pump and in less money in the hands of those murderous muslims. now you are just dreaming. even if the anwr had all of the oil that you seem to think it has it still would not help. the towelheads as you call them would simply reduce production to keep the prices up and conserve their resources while we expend ours due to typical american greed and stupidity. it sounds like you would be doing them a favor with no benefit to the average consumer. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote prices are quite stable. an organization called opec tends to want to keep it that way. really then where are these record prices comming from. a high benchmark price for a barrel of standard crude oil brought about by more competition in possessing that barrel of oil from places like china and india and probably soon indonesia malaysia s korea and the likes. competition for processing would reduce the cost of finished goods not raise them. if you are referring to demand for these goods then i would agree and that further boosts the point that we need to get started developing alternate sources of energy. the sad thing is that there just may not be any viable ones out there and we had better find that out now while we can still somewhat conserve what we already have. the price would be even higher if opec i.e. saudi arabia didnt pump more oil to counter the upward trends. theyve just announced intent to reduce production in order to counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the northern hemisphere winter. it will be surprising if they really do but the idea is to keep oil prices stable. lol oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to run air conditioners. but yes they do intend to cut back production but they are doing it to make more money from less oil and why because they can. lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. lol that increases their buying power. if the american dollar is weak that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more from us. in fact adjusted for inflation current gas prices arent really much more expensive ive actually read as much as 30% *below* gas from around 20 years ago. while this may be true the typical american also has many more expenses than they did 20 years ago which equates to less disposable income for necessities such as fuel. everything costs more! including oil. im sure we spend more on gas outlays as a proportion of income than we did 20 years ago but we also drive cars suvs/lts that are not as fuel efficient as the typical car on the road then either despite the fact that individual *car* models are more fuel efficient. on this we agree on and is what im talking about when i say american greed and stupidity. this is also what i was referring to when i was talking about the early 70s but we will get back to that later. if the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall and supplies reappear didnt know theyd gone missing how would that encourage alternative energy development whats the incentive i think that you missed the point. it was not suggested for the government to make gas prices fall as you put it. it was for the government to release technology and assist inventors in developing alternate technologies which if successful would reduce our demand on oil. currently there is no incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone does the oil companies make that disappear real quick. the government should do more to promote new energy technologies but it generally cant make a technology inexpensive. thats pretty much the job of private industry which arent going to go into the technology until there is more promise of economic benefit. and that is exactly what the op was talking about. the government can create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer technologies. if left to big buisness they will be squelched as quickly as possible. dont believe me how about the pc industry. m$ has made a buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing products will never be created because of it. btw did you ever hear of a man named tucker electric cars ok for around town or short commuting work. hybrids work quite well but arent exactly breakthrough technology. fuel cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety and fuel volume range not to mention theyll also run at least initially on gasoline. so what then we dont have impulse or warp power yet and arent likely to have it for quite some time to come. i think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. hybreds use gasoline but i dont believe that fuel cell vehicles do. but even if they did 60+ mpg beats the hell out of 15 doesnt it. the point is that currently their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it were attempted the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless the government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. there is that tucker thing again. a change over to alternative energy can be better e

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote the price would be even higher if opec i.e. saudi arabia didnt pump more oil to counter the upward trends. theyve just announced intent to reduce production in order to counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the northern hemisphere winter. it will be surprising if they really do but the idea is to keep oil prices stable. lol oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to run air conditioners. but yes they do intend to cut back production but they are doing it to make more money from less oil and why because they can. no. *gas* consumption increases in the summer not overall *oil* consumption. we run our heating systems all winter 24/7 because its *cold* out. we *have* to. air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power plants that run constantly the entire year. turning on the air conditioner doesnt typically involve adding generating capacity. we dont have much additional electric generating capacity since we havent been building new power plants for a decade or so. lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. lol that increases their buying power. if the american dollar is weak that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more from us. yes but the oil standard currency is dollars not dinars or euros or whatever. so the saudis are using dollars to buy their western products which doesnt buy as much with its low value. and that is exactly what the op was talking about. the government can create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer technologies. if left to big buisness they will be squelched as quickly as possible. dont believe me how about the pc industry. m$ has made a buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing products will never be created because of it. btw did you ever hear of a man named tucker not off the top of my head. there was a tucker automobile at one time iirc. electric cars ok for around town or short commuting work. hybrids work quite well but arent exactly breakthrough technology. fuel cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety and fuel volume range not to mention theyll also run at least initially on gasoline. so what then we dont have impulse or warp power yet and arent likely to have it for quite some time to come. i think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. hybreds use gasoline but i dont believe that fuel cell vehicles do. but even if they did 60+ mpg beats the hell out of 15 doesnt it. the point is that currently their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it were attempted the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless the government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. there is that tucker thing again. no im talking two different vehicle types. the hybrid as you say is combination gas and electric and the fuel cell running on hydrogen which will initially be supplied from gasoline since there are supply problems providing the pure h2 and the fact that h2 is rather dangerous stuff. think hindenburg disaster. not so! if it wasnt for deregulation you would be paying that outrageous price for all your flights. bullshit and you have no proof of that. if they did that they would go out of buisness. prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost immediately after the industry was deregulated. seems fairly good proof to me. the highly variable fares for air travel is a result of deregulation. there would be no cheap fares without it! that depends on what you mean by cheap. if you are referring to fairs in which the airline will lose money you are probably correct but what is the real purpose of such fairs anyway besides to kill the new competition. how about simply to capture business if another airline is inefficient at how it does business it either goes out of business or adapts to become more efficient and recapture or gain business. the heritage foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline deregulation. yes the heritage foundation tends toward conservative thinking but there is a lot of information economic and political in the very long article. lol the heritage foundation is about as right wing as you can get give me a break. the problem with them is most of their information is incomplete which is a typical far right tactic used to mislead people. but their sources of raw data and analysis are not necessarily so. harvard and george mason universities are not known as bastions of right wing conservativism. there are plenty of articles out on t

From : tbone

tbone wrote the price would be even higher if opec i.e. saudi arabia didnt pump more oil to counter the upward trends. theyve just announced intent to reduce production in order to counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the northern hemisphere winter. it will be surprising if they really do but the idea is to keep oil prices stable. lol oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to run air conditioners. but yes they do intend to cut back production but they are doing it to make more money from less oil and why because they can. no. *gas* consumption increases in the summer not overall *oil* consumption. and where do you think that gas comes from we run our heating systems all winter 24/7 because its *cold* out. we *have* to. are you saying that all home heating comes from oil furnaces is so then i think that you are in for a suprise. all of my houses have been heated by gas. air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power plants that run constantly the entire year. turning on the air conditioner doesnt typically involve adding generating capacity. we dont have much additional electric generating capacity since we havent been building new power plants for a decade or so. do you really think that load has no effect on the amount of fuel a power plant uses sorry to burst your bubble here but it does. the more load placed on a generator the harder it is to turn and the more steam that is required to turn it in a steam driven turbine that is. th only way to get that is to burn more fuel and many of our power plants are oil fired. lastly the saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their oil dollars. problem is the dollar is cheap right now so it takes more of them to buy the toys. a stonger dollar would result in a lower barrel of oil price. lol that increases their buying power. if the american dollar is weak that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more from us. yes but the oil standard currency is dollars not dinars or euros or whatever. so the saudis are using dollars to buy their western products which doesnt buy as much with its low value. lets get real here dude. and that is exactly what the op was talking about. the government can create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer technologies. if left to big buisness they will be squelched as quickly as possible. dont believe me how about the pc industry. m$ has made a buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing products will never be created because of it. btw did you ever hear of a man named tucker not off the top of my head. there was a tucker automobile at one time iirc. bingo and what happened to the tucker automobile and why electric cars ok for around town or short commuting work. hybrids work quite well but arent exactly breakthrough technology. fuel cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety and fuel volume range not to mention theyll also run at least initially on gasoline. so what then we dont have impulse or warp power yet and arent likely to have it for quite some time to come. i think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. hybreds use gasoline but i dont believe that fuel cell vehicles do. but even if they did 60+ mpg beats the hell out of 15 doesnt it. the point is that currently their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it were attempted the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless the government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. there is that tucker thing again. no im talking two different vehicle types. the hybrid as you say is combination gas and electric and the fuel cell running on hydrogen which will initially be supplied from gasoline since there are supply problems providing the pure h2 and the fact that h2 is rather dangerous stuff. think hindenburg disaster. h2 is no more dangerous than any other flamable gas such as propane or even gasoline for that matter. as for the hindenburg it has been now proven that it was the highly flamable fabric covering the aircraft and the diesel fuel contained within it to power the engines that fell and burned the people on the ground running from it. hydrogen has no color when it burns. not so! if it wasnt for deregulation you would be paying that outrageous price for all your flights. bullshit and you have no proof of that. if they did that they would go out of buisness. prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost immediately after the industry was deregulated. seems fairly good proof to me. where clearly not in the article that you posted. like i said the price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred the hig

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote tbone wrote no. *gas* consumption increases in the summer not overall *oil* consumption. and where do you think that gas comes from people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. we run our heating systems all winter 24/7 because its *cold* out. we *have* to. are you saying that all home heating comes from oil furnaces is so then i think that you are in for a suprise. all of my houses have been heated by gas. and some electric. doesnt change it. the number of cars burning gas doesnt suddenly go up in the summer. the miles they run does but not enough to counter the very large heating oil demands. you think the saudis would feel the need to lower production in the summer to keep prices high if there was no change in oil demand air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power plants that run constantly the entire year. turning on the air conditioner doesnt typically involve adding generating capacity. we dont have much additional electric generating capacity since we havent been building new power plants for a decade or so. do you really think that load has no effect on the amount of fuel a power plant uses sorry to burst your bubble here but it does. the more load placed on a generator the harder it is to turn and the more steam that is required to turn it in a steam driven turbine that is. th only way to get that is to burn more fuel and many of our power plants are oil fired. a generator can only produce so much electricity. the amount to be generated is capped by the number of plants you have not how much oil to pump into it. we dont build new power plants so were stuck and the power company asks us to turn off our airconditioners instead. lol that increases their buying power. if the american dollar is weak that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more from us. yes but the oil standard currency is dollars not dinars or euros or whatever. so the saudis are using dollars to buy their western products which doesnt buy as much with its low value. lets get real here dude. ever hear the term petrodollar there is some concern that the saudis might replace the dollar with the euro for oil transactions due to political and economic reasons. the dollar is the standard of exchange for oil markets because it has been very stable. its currently rather low in value compared with the euro. the saudis are stuck with a low value currency. no im talking two different vehicle types. the hybrid as you say is combination gas and electric and the fuel cell running on hydrogen which will initially be supplied from gasoline since there are supply problems providing the pure h2 and the fact that h2 is rather dangerous stuff. think hindenburg disaster. h2 is no more dangerous than any other flamable gas such as propane or even gasoline for that matter. as for the hindenburg it has been now proven that it was the highly flamable fabric covering the aircraft and the diesel fuel contained within it to power the engines that fell and burned the people on the ground running from it. hydrogen has no color when it burns. yes that actually is the case. i believe h2 like propane is more explosive under ignition than gasoline. gasoline vapor is very dangerous stuff. the problem for fuel cells is the tank and its volume. to get any comparable range with a car youd need to seriously compress the h2 to get enough volume. the high pressure tank is what would be very dangerous in a collision. gas tanks arent pressurized to what an h2 tank would be. prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost immediately after the industry was deregulated. seems fairly good proof to me. where clearly not in the article that you posted. like i said the price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred yes in the document i quoted. elig and crandall 1998 study determined a 13% decrease within 2 years and 30% drop 10 years of dereg as measured in constant 1993 dollars i think. you dont like the heritage foundation so you probably also wont like the cato institute either but they say closely similar things in a series of reports listed at http//www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/airline.html. how about the economic encyclopedia http//www.econlib.org/library/enc/airlinederegulation.html. this report says average fares droped 30% between 1978 and 1990. as you pointed out earlier they were declining before dereg as well according to this report because of the changeover to jet and jumbo jet aircraft but best estimates are fares dropped 10-18% on average over what they would have been under previous regulatory formulas. but their sources of raw data and analysis are not necessarily so. harvard and george mason unive

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote no. *gas* consumption increases in the summer not overall *oil* consumption. and where do you think that gas comes from people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. most furnaces dont run 24/7 either and if yours does then it is either too small for your house or their is something wrong with it. do you get an oil delivery every day - we run our heating systems all winter 24/7 because its *cold* out. we *have* to. are you saying that all home heating comes from oil furnaces is so then i think that you are in for a suprise. all of my houses have been heated by gas. and some electric. doesnt change it. the number of cars burning gas doesnt suddenly go up in the summer. the miles they run does but not enough to counter the very large heating oil demands. lol sure it dose. especially when you add in the number of people vacationing and using equipment that has sat idle all winter long. and then their is that increased demand for electricity. you think the saudis would feel the need to lower production in the summer to keep prices high if there was no change in oil demand need to no. want to hell yes. air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power plants that run constantly the entire year. turning on the air conditioner doesnt typically involve adding generating capacity. we dont have much additional electric generating capacity since we havent been building new power plants for a decade or so. do you really think that load has no effect on the amount of fuel a power plant uses sorry to burst your bubble here but it does. the more load placed on a generator the harder it is to turn and the more steam that is required to turn it in a steam driven turbine that is. th only way to get that is to burn more fuel and many of our power plants are oil fired. a generator can only produce so much electricity. the amount to be generated is capped by the number of plants you have not how much oil to pump into it. we dont build new power plants so were stuck and the power company asks us to turn off our airconditioners instead. lol you really need to educate yourself on this. while a given generator can only produce so much electricity it is not running at its max all of the time. just like the engine in your truck can only produce so much hp it is not producing it all of the time. and like your vehicle the more weight you put into it the more fuel it will use over a given distance the same holds true for a power plant. the more current you demand from it up to its maximum the more fuel it will require to produce it. lol that increases their buying power. if the american dollar is weak that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more from us. yes but the oil standard currency is dollars not dinars or euros or whatever. so the saudis are using dollars to buy their western products which doesnt buy as much with its low value. lets get real here dude. ever hear the term petrodollar there is some concern that the saudis might replace the dollar with the euro for oil transactions due to political and economic reasons. the dollar is the standard of exchange for oil markets because it has been very stable. its currently rather low in value compared with the euro. the saudis are stuck with a low value currency. but that is only valid if they buy primarily from other countries that have a stronger dollar. no im talking two different vehicle types. the hybrid as you say is combination gas and electric and the fuel cell running on hydrogen which will initially be supplied from gasoline since there are supply problems providing the pure h2 and the fact that h2 is rather dangerous stuff. think hindenburg disaster. h2 is no more dangerous than any other flamable gas such as propane or even gasoline for that matter. as for the hindenburg it has been now proven that it was the highly flamable fabric covering the aircraft and the diesel fuel contained within it to power the engines that fell and burned the people on the ground running from it. hydrogen has no color when it burns. yes that actually is the case. i believe h2 like propane is more explosive under ignition than gasoline. gasoline vapor is very dangerous stuff. the problem for fuel cells is the tank and its volume. to get any comparable range with a car youd need to seriously compress the h2 to get enough volume. the high pressure tank is what would be very dangerous in a collision. gas tanks arent pressurized to what an h2 tank would be. it depends on the type of tank now doesnt it. but unless something is done to encourage development of such things while our current fuel supply is still available we my wind up s

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. most furnaces dont run 24/7 either and if yours does then it is either too small for your house or their is something wrong with it. do you get an oil delivery every day - no but if you run your car like your furnace runs youll be bankrupt! the dollar is the standard of exchange for oil markets because it has been very stable. its currently rather low in value compared with the euro. the saudis are stuck with a low value currency. but that is only valid if they buy primarily from other countries that have a stronger dollar. theyre still stuck with low value dollars no matter who they buy from for a given barrel of oil. thats why they raise the barrel price. to get more value. where clearly not in the article that you posted. like i said the price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred yes in the document i quoted. elig and crandall 1998 study determined a 13% decrease within 2 years and 30% drop 10 years of dereg as measured in constant 1993 dollars i think. big deal it was dropping at as high of a rate prior to deregulation. dropping due to aircraft type changes not due to regulation. all the studies ive pointed you to some 6 or 8 i think on three different sites found *real* reductions in fares over what the regulated fare would be. you dont like the heritage foundation so you probably also wont like the cato institute either but they say closely similar things in a series of reports listed at http//www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/airline.html. the cato institute is probably more right wing then the heritage foundation. just look at its banner in the upper right hand corner. it is obvious that anything found here will be leaning way to the right so what is the point of looking at any of the links. i already know what they are going to say. and the economic encyclopedia too and economists at various educational facilities but this is only an estimate because they have no idea what the truth actually is. it is not that they are lying there is just no way to know. 10-18% is a huge range and it could have just as easily been 0. they know what the rules under various regulatory scenarios. they know the price of labor and the price of fuel and the rates of inflation. seems to me they can make a pretty good estimate. and if they really cant then i dont see how anyone could say things would be better if regulated either. again these are the findings of individuals and i am not saying that deregulation was a bad thing but as you said when deregulation first occurred the prices went up. exactly what consumers were benefited by that and if it were not for the competition from newer lower priced airlines they would have stayed that way. from my readings of miscellaneous sources it seems general agreement that deregulation resulted in lower air fares by allowing airlines to make decisions based on real supply-demand forces. it was also good for increasing air travel volume. where deregulation might not have done so well is in the area of service both on the plane and to various low volume locations. there also seems to be some real debate on safety even though the number of air fatalities have dramatically decreased during deregulation. the studies are based on conservative assumptions and estimates not facts. but the studies are from wide ranges of people economists not entirely from conservative slanted think tanks. even the more neutral sources dont really dispute the fare reduction claim of deregulation. the year of deregulation 279 million people flew flights made. today it is something on the order of 600 million. this would simply not be possible without dereg because regulators werent allowing more airlines to enter the field and were setting the numbers of flights and stops. lol what facts do you have to show that the number of flights or routes would not have been increased to allow for demand. because the regulatory body limited the numbers of carriers flights routes stops etc. cant carry more people without more capacity once the changeover to jumbo jet was accomplished. were reaching a limit now because of ground control deficiencies which are entirely government owned. another de facto type of regulatory limit. the number of planes in a given area and time is the number of planes in a given area and time. what does that have to do with who ownes them not ownership of the plane ownership of the ground control system. its no longer up to the task of dealing with the traffic. there is need for new airports and equipment which the government has been slow to respond to. economics would have forced a private system to upgrade long ago since that would be the only way to

From : tbone

tbone wrote people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. most furnaces dont run 24/7 either and if yours does then it is either too small for your house or their is something wrong with it. do you get an oil delivery every day - no but if you run your car like your furnace runs youll be bankrupt! lol true enough but our oil consumption is high all of the time despite the minor differences from season to season and sadly i see no volentary reduction in usage in sight. the dollar is the standard of exchange for oil markets because it has been very stable. its currently rather low in value compared with the euro. the saudis are stuck with a low value currency. but that is only valid if they buy primarily from other countries that have a stronger dollar. theyre still stuck with low value dollars no matter who they buy from for a given barrel of oil. thats why they raise the barrel price. to get more value. i agree with the get more value part but if they buy american goods then the value of the american dollar has the same value regardless or how it stands up to the euro or any other currency. where clearly not in the article that you posted. like i said the price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred yes in the document i quoted. elig and crandall 1998 study determined a 13% decrease within 2 years and 30% drop 10 years of dereg as measured in constant 1993 dollars i think. big deal it was dropping at as high of a rate prior to deregulation. dropping due to aircraft type changes not due to regulation. lol yes it was. you seem to have this idea that the airlines were forcing the cab to reduce fairs but it was the other way around. the cab was forcing the airlines to reduce its prices because the jets cost much less per passenger mile to operate and the airlines had to stay within cab limits. all the studies ive pointed you to some 6 or 8 i think on three different sites found *real* reductions in fares over what the regulated fare would be. but they were all from a highly conservative viewpoint. you dont like the heritage foundation so you probably also wont like the cato institute either but they say closely similar things in a series of reports listed at http//www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/airline.html. the cato institute is probably more right wing then the heritage foundation. just look at its banner in the upper right hand corner. it is obvious that anything found here will be leaning way to the right so what is the point of looking at any of the links. i already know what they are going to say. and the economic encyclopedia too and economists at various educational facilities educational facilities have both liberal and conservative people working at them. i am not saying that they are dead wrong what i am saying is that they are making assumptions without facts. perhaps it is nothing more than to increase the american confidence in our system after the fall of the ussr. but this is only an estimate because they have no idea what the truth actually is. it is not that they are lying there is just no way to know. 10-18% is a huge range and it could have just as easily been 0. they know what the rules under various regulatory scenarios. they know the price of labor and the price of fuel and the rates of inflation. seems to me they can make a pretty good estimate. but an estimate based on no facts is just a fantasy regardless of how many people believe or agree with it. and if they really cant then i dont see how anyone could say things would be better if regulated either. i didnt say that they would. i simply dont know and neither do they but being economists they would rather go with the principles of our economic system. again these are the findings of individuals and i am not saying that deregulation was a bad thing but as you said when deregulation first occurred the prices went up. exactly what consumers were benefited by that and if it were not for the competition from newer lower priced airlines they would have stayed that way. from my readings of miscellaneous sources it seems general agreement that deregulation resulted in lower air fares by allowing airlines to make decisions based on real supply-demand forces. it was also good for increasing air travel volume. it is things like this and the air safety bs that make the whole argument a load of crap. in what valid way did deregulation have anything to do with it the chart clearly shows a constant and increasingly upward movement in air travel prior to deregulation and there is not a single fact supporting that would change. however there was a sharp decline immediately after deregulation and a reduction in the rate of clime thereafter that to

From : milesh

tbone wrote of course drilling our own oil in the anwr would do a lot to remove thedemand for middle-eastern oil. really and how do you know this perhaps you should work for the drilling companies since even they dont know how much oil is currently there. thats because they are not allowed to find out. its politically difficult for oil companies to do exploratory drilling in the us let alone tap it. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote of course drilling our own oil in the anwr would do a lot to remove thedemand for middle-eastern oil. really and how do you know this perhaps you should work for the drilling companies since even they dont know how much oil is currently there. thats because they are not allowed to find out. its politically difficult for oil companies to do exploratory drilling in the us let alone tap it. lol oh please milesh. instead of destroying the entire planet why dont people just take some responsibility for their own actions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : paul jensen

people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. most furnaces dont run 24/7 either and if yours does then it is either too small for your house or their is something wrong with it. do you get an oil delivery every day - no but if you run your car like your furnace runs youll be bankrupt! before you guys take this any further how about getting some facts... http//www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oilgas/petroleum/analysispublications/oilmarketbasics/demandtext.htm .

From : mgg

dude...give it up. its painfully clear that stephen knows far more about this subject than you. when you continue to respond you dig your hole deeper and deeper. its like youre thrashing about in quicksand g. is it that difficult to concede when someone knows more than you and move on this aint the only thread im referring to btw ;- --mike tbone wrote people dont run their cars 24/7 like they do their house heating systems during winter. the net is decrease in consumption for northern hemisphere consumers. most furnaces dont run 24/7 either and if yours does then it is either too small for your house or their is something wrong with it. do you get an oil delivery every day - no but if you run your car like your furnace runs youll be bankrupt! lol true enough but our oil consumption is high all of the time despite the minor differences from season to season and sadly i see no volentary reduction in usage in sight. the dollar is the standard of exchange for oi

From : tbone

dude...give it up. its painfully clear that stephen knows far more about this subject than you. when you continue to respond you dig your hole deeper and deeper. its like youre thrashing about in quicksand g. is it that difficult to concede when someone knows more than you and move on this aint the only thread im referring to btw ;- --mike lol funny that you would chime in after the conversation is already over. since this whole discussion is really nothing more than personal opinion based on incomplete information including the studies referred to how exactly does he know painfully more than i do now be specific. let me guess you are a conservative -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote neither will the destruction of every bit of wilderness that we have left you drive a dodge truck. doesnt it use gasoline and oil where the heck do you think it comes from dang not in my backyard backasswards mentality. who says destroy everything we have left every day you live you consume. everything you consume came from our enviroment. so i suggest you stop consuming. if you cant do that then your argument is baseless. yes i have a dodge truck and most of the time it sits in the garage until i need it. i also have a nissan that i use as my daily driver. it gets about 25 mpg compared to my trucks 14. my wife drives an intrepid that also gets around 25 mpg. the point is that many people buy these huge gas sucking suvs and huge houses that cost a fortune to heat and cool for no other reason than they can. the simple fact is that we dont need that oil we just want it to fuel our selfish desires and fuck everything else. the fact that most of us including me waste far more resources than we really need too makes your argument about needing these resources backasswards baseless and without merit. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : milesh

tbone wrote thats because they are not allowed to find out. its politically difficult for oil companies to do exploratory drilling in the us let alone tap it. lol oh please milesh. instead of destroying the entire planet why dont people just take some responsibility for their own actions. your statement doesnt change the reason why the oil companies do not know how much oil we have. as long as you yourself use oil products your not in my backyard mentality is baseless. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote thats because they are not allowed to find out. its politically difficult for oil companies to do exploratory drilling in the us let alone tap it. lol oh please milesh. instead of destroying the entire planet why dont people just take some responsibility for their own actions. your statement doesnt change the reason why the oil companies do not know how much oil we have. neither will the destruction of every bit of wilderness that we have left have you been watching the many if not all of the oil companies have revised their estimated reserves and reduced them which shows that they were either lying initially or they really dont have any true and accurate ways to measure it. i would say that it is a little of both and these are established wells never mind areas out in the middle of nowhere in delicate eco-systems. what if they do drill there and destroy the ecology and find no oil or that it is too difficult to pump or that it is to contaminated to be profitably refined. would it just be oh well too bad tuff shit as long as you yourself use oil products your not in my backyard mentality is baseless. no it is not. when americans begin to take some responsibility for their actions and the amount of fuel they use then i might think differently but until then... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : milesh

tbone wrote neither will the destruction of every bit of wilderness that we have left you drive a dodge truck. doesnt it use gasoline and oil where the heck do you think it comes from dang not in my backyard backasswards mentality. who says destroy everything we have left every day you live you consume. everything you consume came from our enviroment. so i suggest you stop consuming. if you cant do that then your argument is baseless. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote yes i have a dodge truck and most of the time it sits in the garage until i need it. i also have a nissan that i use as my daily driver. it gets about 25 mpg compared to my trucks 14. my wife drives an intrepid that also gets around 25 mpg. the point is that many people buy these huge gas sucking suvs and huge houses that cost a fortune to heat and cool for no other reason than they can. the simple fact is that we dont need that oil we just want it to fuel our selfish desires and fuck everything else. the fact that most of us including me waste far more resources than we really need too makes your argument about needing these resources backasswards baseless and without merit. lol...what the heck are you saying talk about waste all you want. but you need the oil yourself. if you are against using oil from your backyard usa then where the heck do you want to get it so you can use your truck and nissan ive heard all the leftists arguments before. use solar hydrogen or any number of alternative fuels. great but thats down the road not today. where is your oil for today gonna come from .

From : tbone

tbone wrote yes i have a dodge truck and most of the time it sits in the garage until i need it. i also have a nissan that i use as my daily driver. it gets about 25 mpg compared to my trucks 14. my wife drives an intrepid that also gets around 25 mpg. the point is that many people buy these huge gas sucking suvs and huge houses that cost a fortune to heat and cool for no other reason than they can. the simple fact is that we dont need that oil we just want it to fuel our selfish desires and fuck everything else. the fact that most of us including me waste far more resources than we really need too makes your argument about needing these resources backasswards baseless and without merit. lol...what the heck are you saying talk about waste all you want. but you need the oil yourself. if you are against using oil from your backyard usa then where the heck do you want to get it so you can use your truck and nissan ive heard all the leftists arguments before. use solar hydrogen or any number of alternative fuels. great but thats down the road not today. where is your oil for today gonna come from funny but i was not aware that the world was out of oil and the last of it was in the anwr. did that happen sometime today the fact is that there is still plenty of it available and this country can do plenty to cut back usage and conserve what has already been found. like steve said it will probably take $5.00+ a gallon for fuel to wake people up and that is what we are on our way to. drilling in the anwr will not prevent this from happening it will only delay it and that is only if the reserves there are huge. the leftist arguments as you call them are valid and intelligent to begin setting up for these alternative fuels now while we still have plenty of oil because many of these new ideas simply will not work and others will take a long time to get right. as for where my oil comes from the same place it does now and i am already making changes to use much less of it than i did in the past so when it does get to $5.00 a gallon ill be laughing at people that kept their heads up their asses all the way to the bank. perhaps the mideast will stop production again for a while and wake this country up but even if they did... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : milesh

tbone wrote funny but i was not aware that the world was out of oil and the last of it was in the anwr. oh i see. so we have to drill in someone elses backyard until it runs out. then look for oil here at home anwr is not the only place being prevented from drilling or exploring. not even close. im sure youre aware that the area in question in anwr is a vast wasteland void of almost any vegetation or wildlife. but this isnt about anwr. its about the need for oil today and not relying on oil from other nations today. i ask you one more time. you consume oil products. where do you want that oil to come from .

From : tbone

tbone wrote funny but i was not aware that the world was out of oil and the last of it was in the anwr. oh i see. so we have to drill in someone elses backyard until it runs out. then look for oil here at home if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. anwr is not the only place being prevented from drilling or exploring. not even close. really give me a list and please include the reason why each one is being stopped or better yet a link to one of your conservative web sites that lists them. i always find the half truths entertaining. im sure youre aware that the area in question in anwr is a vast wasteland void of almost any vegetation or wildlife. lol a typical conservative answer. i am sore that you are also aware of the fact that it is a migration path that would lead to the possible extinction of the animals that live up their if it were blocked by drilling rigs and pipe lines. but what the hell who cares if a few of gods creations are wiped out as long as you can operate your boat for a few cents less per gallon on a man made lake in the middle of the desert. but this isnt about anwr. its about the need for oil today and not relying on oil from other nations today. if you and others like you are so concerned about our dependency on other nations for oil then why dont they and you do something about the amount that they use reducing consumption equates to the same thing as increased production any way that you look at it. i guess that your concern does not extend to anything that may effect your life style today. i ask you one more time. you consume oil products. where do you want that oil to come from i aready answered this the other guy. i would rather waste their oil than ours because when we run out and its only a matter of time until it happens we lose. i would prefer that people would open their eyes a little but we both know better than that. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : paul jensen

if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. .

From : paul jensen

the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. you would have to be pretty stupid if you think well just wake up one day and were out of oil. how the hell is that in the best interest of the oil companies they are in the energy business and you can be damn sure theyre not going to tell their stockholders thats it. were out of oil. we used it all up. there is no more energy. were locking the doors and going home. no more insert name of oil company here. wake up dumbass! they will find and use another energy source when it becomes economically viable to do so. as you say someday well really run out of oil. before that day comes the cost of oil products will become so high you cant even imagine it - by then the energy companies will have something else as will the car companies. you can be damn sure that before that happens the oil spickets in the middle east will be wide open as they try to get every last dollar out of their resource before it becomes obsolete. we dont need government or enviro whackos. their knee-jerk short-sided thinking will only result in disaster not an orderly transition to some other energy source which will no doubt happen sometime during the 21st century. stop reacting and start thinking! use that gray matter between your ears. rant off .

From : tbone

if you have a functioning brainstem yes. since oil is a finite resource it makes much more sense to use up the other guys first than to waste our own on the suvs and mcmansions that many now needlessly buy. at least this way we have a chance of fixing some of the problems when their runs out. forget it. this guy is just trying to play the class warfare card. go back to your liberal web sites and try to find something that makes sense if that is possible. oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : paul jensen

oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. and this would be none of your business. government is not the answer to everything. oil is easy. when the supply truly does get low i remember how we were running out in the 70s someone will come up with a new energy source perhaps seperating out hydrogen from water or whatever and a new source will be used and someone will become very very rich. the incentive to get rich will drive the free market to develop alternative energy sources. of course it is obvious that freedom and capitalism are bad things to you but lets face it thats how oil became the dominent energy source for the 20th century. every hear of a guy named getty if my wife and i want a 4000 square foot house we will have one and its none of your damn business. we worked hard to get to where were at and we dont need some jealous $30000-a-year schmuck telling us how were destroying the planet. enjoy your gas guzzling dodge truck. .

From : tbone

oh gee another far right wing conservative that doesnt seem have two functioning brain cells never mind a functioning brain stem. i never said that everybody should live in the same house and or drive the same vehicle but i know many who have bought houses well over 3500 sq/ft and cant even afford to furnish them and for no other reason than low interest rates. and this would be none of your business. when did i say that it was government is not the answer to everything. read above! oil is easy. now thats the whole problem isnt it. and as long as it is nobody is going to attempt to create a new source of energy because there is no profit in it and the oil companies simply will not allow it. when the supply truly does get low i remember how we were running out in the 70s someone will come up with a new energy source and what new energy source did we develop in the 70s perhaps seperating out hydrogen from water or whatever and a new source will be used and someone will become very very rich. it must be nice to live in your dream world. if a new source of energy was so easy to develop and make someone rich then why hasnt it been done btw it takes something called energy to separate the hydrogen from water. where are we going to get it with our limited supply of coal water and nuclear power plants the incentive to get rich will drive the free market to develop alternative energy sources. lol sure. the person who could invent a cure for aids or cancer would be rich beyond their wildest dreams and yet it still hasnt happened. why is that perhaps because not all things are possible. of course it is obvious that freedom and capitalism are bad things to you but lets face it thats how oil became the dominent energy source for the 20th century. every hear of a guy named getty freedom and capitalism are not bad things but the greed ignorance and stupidity that tend to come along with them are. if my wife and i want a 4000 square foot house we will have one and its none of your damn business. we worked hard to get to where were at and we dont need some jealous $30000-a-year schmuck telling us how were destroying the planet. enjoy your gas guzzling dodge truck. you are right it is none of my business and i never said that it was but if you buy that house for no other reason than you worked hard then you are very much a part of the problem of our dependency on foreign oil. as for how much i make you dont have a clue and whining like that just shows your level of ignorance. btw i do like my dodge truck. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

the simple fact is that they use much more fuel to heat and cool and any way you look at it the more we use the faster it will run out and if you cant understand that then you really are just dumber than dirt. you would have to be pretty stupid if you think well just wake up one day and were out of oil. how the hell is that in the best interest of the oil companies they are in the energy business and you can be damn sure theyre not going to tell their stockholders thats it. were out of oil. we used it all up. there is no more energy. were locking the doors and going home. no more insert name of oil company here. you really dont learn by example do you. that is exactly what they are going to do. but first they will sell off all of the stock that they possibly can. when it comes down to the end do you really think that they give a phuck about anything but themselves i guess that you have already forgotten about mci and enron. wake up dumbass! they will find and use another energy source when it becomes economically viable to do so. you say this and then call me dumbass. how do you know that there even is another viable source of energy and if so where is it with the rising costs and instability in the oil market how much better of an opportunity do you need. as you say someday well really run out of oil. before that day comes the cost of oil products will become so high you cant even imagine it - by then the energy companies will have something else as will the car companies. so then to you it is a good idea to bring this time along asap lol and you call me the dumbass. you can be damn sure that before that happens the oil spickets in the middle east will be wide open as they try to get every last dollar out of their resource before it becomes obsolete. hahahahahahahaha you really are funny. the only way that that would happen is if the new source of energy is less expensive than the oil and if that were true where is it we dont need government or enviro whackos. lol oh i see anyone that even thinks about looking into preventitave measures is just some type of whacko. their knee-jerk short-sided thinking will only result in disaster first of all its short sighted and second that falls far more on the right wing idiots. it seems that with most of them unless the problem is already in full blown disaster mode it doesnt exist and you cant get more short sighted than that. not an orderly transition to some other energy source which will no doubt happen sometime during the 21st century. oh really you mean like back in 73. how many times do you beed to bekicked in the face to see that there is a real problem and being aware of it is far from a knee-jerk reaction. btw since this is the 21st century exactly when do you see this magical transformation happening stop reacting and start thinking! use that gray matter between your ears. iow do nothing until we are completely phucked and then blame it on the other guy yea a wise decision there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .