Why we're doomed!

[PostmodernProphet]

Guess who is big into algae based biofuels?

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/bp-joins-exxon-algae-fuel-lovefest

what would be cool would be seaweed based biofuel.....imagine large floating ocean farms raising seaweed, combined with fish farming......fish cannery on one end, ethanol plant on the other.....the Japanese were looking into this a decade ago, not sure if anything is still active......

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Jeez you are INCREDIBLY dense, Southy. Here, I've highlighted my response above so you can attempt to comprehend it. If you can't, get an adult to explain it to you. Then maybe you can get said adult to show you in the dictionary the definition of the word "plagiarize" so you can apply it properly in the future.

Libby you plagiarized me again. Look at what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:



You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.

Of the quoted text above, the bold is originally yours and the italic portion is originally mine. You are claiming the text was "Originally Posted by Taichiliberal" which is a lie, and plagiarism.

You need to man-up, fix it, and apologize. Then we can discuss how I destroyed your argument, apparently so badly that you fucked up typing.

I'm going to guess that you aren't man enough to admit this simple mistake.

As the chronoloy of the posts shows, my original links FIRST gave out the information that Southy just duplicates.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680346&postcount=74

And just follow the posts from there, folks....you can see Southy's folly for yourself.

This is why trying to have a rational debate with Southy is pointless beyond a certain degree, folks. Southy just isn't bright enough to follow through with simple reading comprehension and retention. That Southy tries to bluff and bluster his way on a printed medium with a chronology of the posts is further testament to the Southern Man strategy of nonsense.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, you ignorant lout: READ YOUR OWN SOURCES MORE CAREFULLY. Here, I'll highlight it for you:

The Ridge Law has a provision which specifically exempts “windmills” from the restrictions. This exemption is for windmills, not wind turbines. The exemption is for windmills that generate mechanical energy. Wind industry proponents have tried to weaken this law by stating that the word windmill included wind turbines. In the law it states that each windmill has to be next to a house or structure. Commercial wind turbines are not attached to homes, and they are not slender in nature, they are HUGE.


Get it now, bunky? Or are you too stupid or stubborn to understand what your OWN source material is telling you?

We've been over that Libby: the article states that liberals don't like wind turbines because they are HUGE. But as I pointed out, that's not really a reason, since they like HUGE government, HUGE taxes, HUGE unions, etc.

So I'll ask you again, what's the real reason why liberals hate wind turbines?

My God, you really are actually this dense, aren't you?

Okay, let me dumb it down for you: The whole purpose of windmill power is to supply energy needs WITH AS LITTLE IMPACT TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS POSSIBLE. The reason why the LAW prohibits the giant turbines is due to the amount of deforestation to the area that would be needed to install them.

Kind of defeats the purpose of trying to save the environment if you're destroying it in the process, doesn't it bunky?

So windmills in that area can be installed with no problem....therefore the "liberals" are not only promoting wind power, but protecting the natural eco-system at the same time.

Therefore, your oft parroted statement is logically and factually proven WRONG....as well as your additional accusations.

But as a insipidly stubborn neocon parrot, I suspect your little brain will just let this logic pass through your Southern Man head and you'll repeat your absurd assertions as usual. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So your just a Charver clown with nothing of substance to add to the discussion...how sad.

If my two (now three) posts in this seven-page thread have somehow derailed your erudite, unimpeachable and incontrovertible arguments concerning whatever it was you were going on about, then i humbly beg from you a thousand pardons.

Fingers crossed i haven't jeopardised your Pulitzer Prize.

Good Day.

My, my....it took Chaver all that time to page through the dictionary for his run-on sentence. Pity all it did was just cement his place as a Charver clown on this thread.

Say goodnight gracie....shows over for you.

 

[/MSG/]

My, my....it took Chaver all that time to page through the dictionary for his run-on sentence. Pity all it did was just cement his place as a Charver clown on this thread.

Say goodnight gracie....shows over for you.

You're actually arguing with the demi-god Charver?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[charver]

My, my....it took Chaver all that time to page through the dictionary for his run-on sentence. Pity all it did was just cement his place as a Charver clown on this thread.

Say goodnight gracie....shows over for you.

Actually it took charver all that time to wake up in his different time zone.

Now then sir. You seem to be under the illusion that this particular thread is some sort of weighty tome conveying all manner of gravitas and should therefore be treated with a degree of deference. May i offer you a little helpful advice.

1. If you expect seriousness to run through the length of your thread then put forward an argument which isn't immediately ridiculed by virtually every poster commenting on it.

2. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

3. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

Now i do realise that posts #2 and post #3 are actually identical but it was such an important point that i thought it worth commenting on twice.

Do have a nice day. Good Morning.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

lol, charver......unfortunately, in Touchie's case that's what poses as serious thought.....

 

[cancel2 2022]

As the chronoloy of the posts shows, my original links FIRST gave out the information that Southy just duplicates.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680346&postcount=74

And just follow the posts from there, folks....you can see Southy's folly for yourself.

This is why trying to have a rational debate with Southy is pointless beyond a certain degree, folks. Southy just isn't bright enough to follow through with simple reading comprehension and retention. That Southy tries to bluff and bluster his way on a printed medium with a chronology of the posts is further testament to the Southern Man strategy of nonsense.

For wind power to work effectively you will have to completely transform the transmission grid in the USA, this will entail a massive amount of investment and may not even prove to be cost effective in the long run.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy-e...ies-requires-massive-investment-in-grid-restr

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/featured/business-news-projects/modernizing-the-grid/

 

[/MSG/]

Actually it took charver all that time to wake up in his different time zone.

Now then sir. You seem to be under the illusion that this particular thread is some sort of weighty tome conveying all manner of gravitas and should therefore be treated with a degree of deference. May i offer you a little helpful advice.

1. If you expect seriousness to run through the length of your thread then put forward an argument which isn't immediately ridiculed by virtually every poster commenting on it.

2. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

3. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

Now i do realise that posts #2 and post #3 are actually identical but it was such an important point that i thought it worth commenting on twice.

Do have a nice day. Good Morning.

I've never actually seen Charver own someone before. Tits.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Actually it took charver all that time to wake up in his different time zone. And yet THAT was the best you could do...how sad for you.
Now then sir. You seem to be under the illusion that this particular thread is some sort of weighty tome conveying all manner of gravitas and should therefore be treated with a degree of deference. May i offer you a little helpful advice.
My, my....how formal. This is obviously part of Charver's mock personna to try an establish an air of superiority under the guise of manners. Seems a waste of time and space on Charver's part when all he's doing is just avoiding any real discussion of the topic of this thread and opting for just base insults and personal attacks...as any good intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot is want to do. But, let's watch Charver do his dance and get his accolades from the neocon peanut gallery. I'll try to school him on his errors, but somehow I just don't think he's open minded enough to appreciate the effort.

1. If you expect seriousness to run through the length of your thread then put forward an argument which isn't immediately ridiculed by virtually every poster commenting on it.

Ridicule without substance means NOTHING, Charver old thing. It's merely a sign that the critics have NOTHING of value to offer on the opinion put forward. As the chronology of the posts shows, the critics either did not understand the point of the opening posts or purposely tried to misconstrue what was being stated because they took personal offense to the criticism.

2. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

Ahhh, but since YOU seem to deem it necessary to take such a serious tone of condescending instruction on perceived dislikes, then perhaps it is YOU who should realize the contradiction by your very action here. Remember, Charver old bean, ANYTHING goes DOES NOT rule out rational discourse...it merely means any subject discussion goes.

3. If you expect board users to maintain an air of formality and sincerity in your threads then maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to post them in a forum which isn't entitled "Whatever Goes", containing threads and posts of a, generally, light-hearted nature.

Now i do realise that posts #2 and post #3 are actually identical but it was such an important point that i thought it worth commenting on twice.

Which is a clear indication of your self delusion of importance to anything you post.

Do have a nice day. Good Morning.

Ta-ta, you Charverish clown you!

 

[Taichiliberal]

lol, charver......unfortunately, in Touchie's case that's what poses as serious thought.....

And yet your dopey ass only shows up to jump on a personal slam. Seems once again the Post Modern Fool paints himself into a corner.

laugh, clown, laugh

 

[/MSG/]

Ta-ta, you Charverish clown you!

This is getting so comical here. You're arguing with Charver, you actually think he's serious.

I guess you DO need a modicum of intelligence to understand British humor.

 

[Taichiliberal]

For wind power to work effectively you will have to completely transform the transmission grid in the USA, this will entail a massive amount of investment and may not even prove to be cost effective in the long run.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy-e...ies-requires-massive-investment-in-grid-restr

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/featured/business-news-projects/modernizing-the-grid/

The sources you link here make two distinct points:

1. That Germany has SUCCESSFULLY increased it's non-coal, oil energy sources up to 16%, and that further increase has more to do with reorganizing financial support than anything else. They have the will and the foresight to do such.

2. That the American energy grid can greatly benefit by applying solar and wind to those rural areas that have difficulty with energy supply..and that being "off the grid" economically benefits in the long run....especially if solar and wind can be adapted to the grid as auxillary/alternative. In contrast to maintain the standard ways to increase efficiency of the grid and better applications to all populations, the cost would be recouped within a short time.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I've never actually seen Charver own someone before. Tits.

 

[Minister of Truth]

This is getting so comical here. You're arguing with Charver, you actually think he's serious.

I guess you DO need a modicum of intelligence to understand British humor.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWS8Mg-JWSg&feature=related"]YouTube- Monty Python and the Holy Grail : 3 Questions[/ame]

 

[charver]

My, my....how formal. This is obviously part of Charver's mock personna to try an establish an air of superiority under the guise of manners. Seems a waste of time and space on Charver's part when all he's doing is just avoiding any real discussion of the topic of this thread and opting for just base insults and personal attacks...as any good intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot is want to do. But, let's watch Charver do his dance and get his accolades from the neocon peanut gallery. I'll try to school him on his errors, but somehow I just don't think he's open minded enough to appreciate the effort.

I was brought up to be polite as any self-respecting Englishman once was, before children started being taught communism and masturbation at school and spending their free-time injecting marijuana and breakdancing. Are you watching neocon peanut gallery?
(Pause for short applause)

If you're reading this, SM, i'm sure you're as surprised as i am that we are apparently such political bedfellows but perhaps we should start lacing daisies into one another's hair and calling each other brother.

Ridicule without substance means NOTHING, Charver old thing. It's merely a sign that the critics have NOTHING of value to offer on the opinion put forward. As the chronology of the posts shows, the critics either did not understand the point of the opening posts or purposely tried to misconstrue what was being stated because they took personal offense to the criticism.

Or the chronology of the posts show that your point was just 'a little bit rubbish' and you took personal offence at other people pointing that out. I wouldn't worry about it, mainly because this is a message board and pretty inconsequential.

Ahhh, but since YOU seem to deem it necessary to take such a serious tone of condescending instruction on perceived dislikes, then perhaps it is YOU who should realize the contradiction by your very action here. Remember, Charver old bean, ANYTHING goes DOES NOT rule out rational discourse...it merely means any subject discussion goes.

Exactly. Anything goes, including posts that do not seek to address your 'point', which you started complaining about and resulted in this rather silly conversation which is getting sillier and sillier.

Now...in the spirit of Christmas (only 141 days to go) and as you seem a little slow on the uptake i shall spell it out for you very clearly, so take a damp cloth to your eyes and give them a good wash. Ready?

You seem very keen to tell both myself and others that i have nothing to say about the subject of your thread. The thing is i already know this and everybody else, bar yourself, is also fully aware of this fact. And now you are 'in the loop' as well.

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was brought up to be polite as any self-respecting Englishman once was, before children started being taught communism and masturbation at school and spending their free-time injecting marijuana and breakdancing. Are you watching neocon peanut gallery?
(Pause for short applause)

If you're reading this, SM, i'm sure you're as surprised as i am that we are apparently such political bedfellows but perhaps we should start lacing daisies into one another's hair and calling each other brother.



Or the chronology of the posts show that your point was just 'a little bit rubbish' and you took personal offence at other people pointing that out. I wouldn't worry about it, mainly because this is a message board and pretty inconsequential.



Exactly. Anything goes, including posts that do not seek to address your 'point', which you started complaining about and resulted in this rather silly conversation which is getting sillier and sillier.

Now...in the spirit of Christmas (only 141 days to go) and as you seem a little slow on the uptake i shall spell it out for you very clearly, so take a damp cloth to your eyes and give them a good wash. Ready?

You seem very keen to tell both myself and others that i have nothing to say about the subject of your thread. The thing is i already know this and everybody else, bar yourself, is also fully aware of this fact. And now you are 'in the loop' as well.

And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

As the chronology of posts clearly shows.... taichi just got an ass whuppin from charver. (not to mention about 20 other posters)

 

[DamnYankee]

My prediction was spot-on. Libby can't admit that he fucked up and plagarized:

I'm going to guess that you aren't man enough to admit this simple mistake.

As the chronoloy of the posts shows, my original links FIRST gave out the information that Southy just duplicates.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=680346&postcount=74

And just follow the posts from there, folks....you can see Southy's folly for yourself.

This is why trying to have a rational debate with Southy is pointless beyond a certain degree, folks. Southy just isn't bright enough to follow through with simple reading comprehension and retention. That Southy tries to bluff and bluster his way on a printed medium with a chronology of the posts is further testament to the Southern Man strategy of nonsense.

 

[DamnYankee]

My God, you really are actually this dense, aren't you?

Okay, let me dumb it down for you: The whole purpose of windmill power is to supply energy needs WITH AS LITTLE IMPACT TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS POSSIBLE. The reason why the LAW prohibits the giant turbines is due to the amount of deforestation to the area that would be needed to install them.

Kind of defeats the purpose of trying to save the environment if you're destroying it in the process, doesn't it bunky?

So windmills in that area can be installed with no problem....therefore the "liberals" are not only promoting wind power, but protecting the natural eco-system at the same time.

Therefore, your oft parroted statement is logically and factually proven WRONG....as well as your additional accusations.

But as a insipidly stubborn neocon parrot, I suspect your little brain will just let this logic pass through your Southern Man head and you'll repeat your absurd assertions as usual. Carry on.

In the project that I was referring to, the windmills were to be installed on the pasture of a working dairy farm. There would be no "deforestation". In fact, since the cows don't care about a HUGE windmill above them, the pasture would have continued to serve the same function that it has for the past 150 years.

So tell me again Libby, why did the liberals fight this project?

 

[Canceled1]

I have just wrung out my washcloth and placed a cool clean one upon my eyes to bring the swelling down from laughing hysterically and crying at the same time over the complete and comical trouncing of Touchyliberal by Sir Charver!

Touché! Touché! Touché!