Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:



"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means
not being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant
difference. My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all
our capacity_.

What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was pretty
clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't able to
understand context and need things spelled out literally.



And there are people that blow context during their responses.

The context of the article/sub-thread was CAPACITY, and Mike Rappaport kept
quoting OUTPUT numbers.

There are also people who don't communicate worth a crap and expect people
to know what they meant. Wives are good for that.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a wife.

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there are
two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one
side of the time when the rules were changed.


Come back when you learn the rules of logic.

PLONK



Me too, please? Then I won't have to see your inane replies.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:


Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
occasionally today?


(my response is more general in nature and not specific to Matt Barrow)

sigh

ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

I can't claim one way or the other as I don't know if a few thousand
nukes would really put billions of tons of dust in the air. I doubt it.
And I don't know how many tons a large volcano launches, but I doubt
it is billions either. I do doubt that we have enough nukes to launch
enough dust to dramatically alter the global temps, but I don't have
even close to enough data to claim that as fact.

Matt

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Come back when you learn the rules of logic.

PLONK

Once again you've gotten yourself into an argument with one of your
betters on a subject you know little about, been shown up as a blowhard,
and run away with your tail between your legs. This is becoming your
trademark.

How about plonking me, too, while you're at it?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Roger" wrote in message
...

Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.

I'd still use it, but qualify it by adding forced by the cost of fuel.

That's appropriate, but what I think of when people say "forced" is
rationing, or those stupid "gas your car on even numbered or odd numbered
days" programs we had back in the 70's.

As for rationing, ask some (really) senior people about the rationing during
WW2. Ask them how many politically connected people got dispensations,
waivers, etc.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:51:16 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Bob Noel" wrote)
Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.


I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.

Glad you added the "political" to that. One in the Snake River Valley
deposited ash something like 12 to 15 feet deep clear over in kansas.
Now that is a *lot* of fallout:-))

Roger, you're older than I thought!!

(Top posting because this message refuses to indent properly)

I see by the map that Greenland has a few small towns and an USAF base, all
right on the coast. Population is 56K, population of Iceland is 297K five
times more.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/gl.html

What am I missing?




wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has been
inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale (non-self-supporting).

I know that, but the original poster does not seem to have known that
and it seems quite common misconception that both countries were
uninhabited for long periods.
Greenland has actually quite large areas that are quite inhabitable but
the island is so large that those areas are only a very small part of
the total size of the country. I belive that the "green" areas in
Greenland may well be larger than the "green" areas of Iceland.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
occasionally today?

(my response is more general in nature and not specific to Matt Barrow)

sigh

ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

As someone else pointed out, above ground testing my all the nations was
well into the thousands of detonations. More than "a few" and just about the
"few thousands".

Pinatubo in the early 90's actually lowered the world temp a couple degrees
for about two years IIRC.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:



"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means
not being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant
difference. My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all
our capacity_.

What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was pretty
clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't able to
understand context and need things spelled out literally.



And there are people that blow context during their responses.

The context of the article/sub-thread was CAPACITY, and Mike Rappaport
kept quoting OUTPUT numbers.

There are also people who don't communicate worth a crap and expect
people to know what they meant. Wives are good for that.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a wife.


I'll whack you with a rolling pin!!!

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there
are two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one
side of the time when the rules were changed.


Come back when you learn the rules of logic.

PLONK

Me too, please? Then I won't have to see your inane replies.

Okay, seeing as you wrote the book on inane replies with seldom, if ever,
any substantive content.