http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...n_emission s/

Apparently there is a quorum present. After reading the minutes -or just
looking at the coloring you did at the previous meeting- perhaps a
discussion of the merits of bringing back leaded gas.

mr.b wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...n_emission s/

Apparently there is a quorum present. After reading the minutes -or just
looking at the coloring you did at the previous meeting- perhaps a
discussion of the merits of bringing back leaded gas.

Nah. Leaded gas is used in other places like Europe and Asia where they
have more cars and fewer emission controls.

On 3 Apr 2007 14:24:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:43:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

Are you now going to insist that the Supreme Court of
the United States of America is a tool of the radical left or some
other such nonsense?

I'm going to insist that the Supremes are not in the business of resolving
factual controversies such as causes of, and effective remedies for, GW.
They're in the business of deciding what statutes mean and whether agencies
have followed the procedures required by statutes. That's what they did in
this case. I would probably come down on the minority side of this 5-4
decision, but that's really not relevant.

The decision gives the EPA at least three choices. It may determine that
vehicle emissions do not contribute significantly to climate change. It may
determine that the do contribute significantly to climate change and
regulate them. Or it may determine that there is sufficient scientific
uncertainty that it cannot make a reasoned judgment on the issue.

The decision also leaves open the possibility that it could determine that
vehicle emissions do contribute to climate change, but that for policy
reasons they should nevertheless not be regulated.

I summary, what the court said is that the EPA cannot refuse to make a
decision on the basis that Congress has tied its hands.


clear, concise, and spot on.

Cessna 310 wrote:
mr.b wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...n_emission s/


Apparently there is a quorum present. After reading the minutes -or just
looking at the coloring you did at the previous meeting- perhaps a
discussion of the merits of bringing back leaded gas.

Nah. Leaded gas is used in other places like Europe and Asia where they
have more cars and fewer emission controls.


As they say down the road, "That ain't right". I lurk in here picking the brains of sailors and I've
read your posting record. You seem to be a mile wide in opinion and an inch deep in fact on things.
And you don't post anything about boats or cruising. What are you doing in here? You shilling for
someone? And most of all, why would you respond to a post titled: "Attn: Flat Earth Society
Members"? It's not like it's a club anyone would want to join.

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
mr.b wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...n_emission s/


Apparently there is a quorum present. After reading the minutes -or
just
looking at the coloring you did at the previous meeting- perhaps a
discussion of the merits of bringing back leaded gas.

Nah. Leaded gas is used in other places like Europe and Asia where
they have more cars and fewer emission controls.


As they say down the road, "That ain't right".


I've been around most of Europe and it is right. Very few pollution
controls. Was recently in Moscow and there were no controls at all.
Try Madrid in July or Milan almost any time.


I lurk in here picking
the brains of sailors and I've read your posting record. You seem to be
a mile wide in opinion and an inch deep in fact on things. And you don't
post anything about boats or cruising. What are you doing in here?

Reading about other's experiences. And I do own a Hunter sailboat.
Looking to buy a powerboat in the near future, planning on doing more
extensive cruising when I retire (soon).


You
shilling for someone? And most of all, why would you respond to a post
titled: "Attn: Flat Earth Society Members"? It's not like it's a club
anyone would want to join.

Why are you responding to it? Are you a member?

Are you with the usenet police?

the_bmac wrote:

As they say down the road, "That ain't right". I lurk in here picking
the brains of sailors and I've read your posting record. You seem to be
a mile wide in opinion and an inch deep in fact on things. And you don't
post anything about boats or cruising. What are you doing in here? You
shilling for someone? And most of all, why would you respond to a post
titled: "Attn: Flat Earth Society Members"? It's not like it's a club
anyone would want to join.

Are you the newsgroup moderator?

I recall several posts from Cessna310 that contained some interesting
details on global warming and some links for more information.

But you better hurry or you'll miss your Flat Earth Society and "I Saw
Sasquatch Club" meeting.

linux57 wrote:
the_bmac wrote:

As they say down the road, "That ain't right". I lurk in here picking
the brains of sailors and I've read your posting record. You seem to
be a mile wide in opinion and an inch deep in fact on things. And you
don't post anything about boats or cruising. What are you doing in
here? You shilling for someone? And most of all, why would you
respond to a post titled: "Attn: Flat Earth Society Members"? It's
not like it's a club anyone would want to join.

Are you the newsgroup moderator?

I recall several posts from Cessna310 that contained some interesting
details on global warming and some links for more information.

But you better hurry or you'll miss your Flat Earth Society and "I Saw
Sasquatch Club" meeting.


Don't start on Sasquatches. Before you know it someone will say there
are no cavemen either even tho I just saw some on TV!
G