On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Casa de Masa" wrote in message news >>
>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>
>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>> other side from you.
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>
>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>> runs on.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> They could do much worse than asking Graham. He is an and Oil and Gas
>> Exploration professional.
>
> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>

Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.

Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.

What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials thusly.

On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>
>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>
>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>> other side from you.
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>
>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>> runs on.
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>> Exploration professional.
>>
>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>
>
> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>
> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>
> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
> thusly.

THANK YOU!!!!!!
I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Casa de Masa"* wrote in message news >>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>> runs on.
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>
>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>
>>
>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>
>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>
>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>> thusly.
>
>THANK YOU!!!!!!
>I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte

Graham, you know I am your friend. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I know you are knowledgeable in your field.
Janet US

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Casa de Masa"* wrote in message news >>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>> runs on.
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>
>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>
>>
>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>
>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>
>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>> thusly.
>
>THANK YOU!!!!!!
>I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte

The troll sucks up to you and you buy it like a schoolboy. Some
scientist.

On 10/3/2017 2:31 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>>
>>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>>
>>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>>> thusly.
>>
>> THANK YOU!!!!!!
>> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte
>
> Graham, you know I am your friend. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
> I know you are knowledgeable in your field.
> Janet US
>

A scientist can be very good at what he does and then his good work is
misused by others.

Scientists can still have opinions. They may be good at what they do,
but they are still human. There was a time when the top scientists of
the world thought the sun revolved around the earth.

More recent, how about these guys:
Brain power: Scientists at the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh
secured a £200,000 government grant to find out whether BSE has jumped
the "species barrier" from cows into sheep. An inquiry is now under way
after it was found that scientists had been mistakenly testing cattle
brains instead of sheep brains for five years.

Keep an open mind and don't be afraid to question.

"Casa lo pensa" wrote in message news
On 10/3/2017 2:34 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
> news >
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:07:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2017 1:14 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:45:45 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-10-02 9:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/2017 11:34 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-02 7:00 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:51:47 -0600, graham >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so do I
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely. The only question though, to get one resource is another
>>>>> being destroyed? There are arguments on both sides and I've not taken
>>>>> sides yet.
>>>>
>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>> the
>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>> you'll
>>>> have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> this is the article that most impacted me. The photos are
>>> particularly horrifying. The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>
>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it. Graham
>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>> like a good thing to clean the river. Then you look at this group of
>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>
> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
> are exporting it. I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
> thing. But we are developing other energy resources. Wind seems
> promising. It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
> thing.
> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
> Janet US
>
> ==
>
> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>
>
>
Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!

===

That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p





--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:37:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 10/3/2017 2:31 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>>>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>>>
>>>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>>>> thusly.
>>>
>>> THANK YOU!!!!!!
>>> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte
>>
>> Graham, you know I am your friend. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
>> I know you are knowledgeable in your field.
>> Janet US
>>
>
>A scientist can be very good at what he does and then his good work is
>misused by others.
>
>Scientists can still have opinions. They may be good at what they do,
>but they are still human. There was a time when the top scientists of
>the world thought the sun revolved around the earth.

True, And if it was that simple, scientists wouldn't always disagree
among themselves. They clearly need people like me to tell them that
sustainable is the way of the future.

On 2017-10-03 12:31 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>>
>>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>>
>>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>>> thusly.
>>
>> THANK YOU!!!!!!
>> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte
>
> Graham, you know I am your friend. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
> I know you are knowledgeable in your field.
> Janet US
>
Janet, you most certainly DID NOT hurt my feelings!!!! I have other
friends who also have different viewpoints to me but we all get along:-)
Graham

On 2017-10-03 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/3/2017 2:31 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions,
>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and
>>>>>> Gas
>>>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>>>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>>>
>>>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>>>> thusly.
>>>
>>> THANK YOU!!!!!!
>>> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte
>>
>> Graham, you know I am your friend.Â* I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
>> I know you are knowledgeable in your field.
>> Janet US
>>
>
> A scientist can be very good at what he does and then his good work is
> misused by others.
>
That's certainly true but my clients trust my judgement to the extent
that they keep asking me for help when at 73, I'm long past normal
retirement age.

> Keep an open mind and don't be afraid to question.

Which has ruled my thought processes since adolescence. However, one
should not have such an open mind that one's brains fall out:-)

On 10/3/2017 12:28 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>> runs on.
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>
>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>
>>
>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>
>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>
>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>> thusly.
>
> THANK YOU!!!!!!
> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte


Hey yer welcome, any good petro-geologist lives in mortal fear of dry
holes anyway.

On 10/3/2017 12:48 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:28:51 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 9:22 AM, Casa lo pensa wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2017 2:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:53 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Casa de Masa"Â* wrote in message news >>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many of
>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and their
>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on the
>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire society
>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> They could do much worse than asking Graham.Â* He is an and Oil and Gas
>>>>> Exploration professional.
>>>>
>>>> That's like asking a baker if a bread-less diet is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Iow you think everything looks like a loaf to him.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue, snark-o, any geologist whose success/accuracy rate is
>>> plagued by rose colored glasses is soon out of work.
>>>
>>> What a dismissive ASS you are to impugn his professional credentials
>>> thusly.
>>
>> THANK YOU!!!!!!
>> I'm a scientist first! Trained to think critically! If my inte
>
> The troll sucks up to you and you buy it like a schoolboy. Some
> scientist.
>

I speak the truth.

That makes you nervous and hateful, for obvious reasons.

On 10/3/2017 1:38 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "Casa lo pensa"Â* wrote in message news >
> On 10/3/2017 2:34 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "U.S. Janet B."Â* wrote in message
>> news >>
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:07:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2017 1:14 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:45:45 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-10-02 9:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 11:34 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-02 7:00 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:51:47 -0600, graham >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so do I
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire
>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely.Â* The only question though, to get one resource is another
>>>>>> being destroyed?Â* There are arguments on both sides and I've not
>>>>>> taken
>>>>>> sides yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>>> you'll
>>>>> have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> this is the article that most impacted me.Â* The photos are
>>>> particularly horrifying.Â* The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it.Â* Graham
>>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>>> like a good thing to clean the river.Â* Then you look at this group of
>>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>>
>> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
>> are exporting it.Â* I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
>> thing.Â* But weÂ* are developing other energy resources.Â* Wind seems
>> promising.Â*Â* It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
>> thing.
>> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
>> Janet US
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>>
>>
>>
> Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!
>
> ===
>
> That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p
>
>
>
>
>
It's so unreliable you'd think the gubmint was controlling it...

;-0

"Casa lo pensa" wrote in message news
On 10/3/2017 1:38 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "Casa lo pensa" wrote in message news >
> On 10/3/2017 2:34 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
>> news >>
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:07:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2017 1:14 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:45:45 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-10-02 9:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 11:34 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-02 7:00 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:51:47 -0600, graham >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so do I
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions, many
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire
>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely. The only question though, to get one resource is another
>>>>>> being destroyed? There are arguments on both sides and I've not
>>>>>> taken
>>>>>> sides yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>>> you'll
>>>>> have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> this is the article that most impacted me. The photos are
>>>> particularly horrifying. The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it. Graham
>>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>>> like a good thing to clean the river. Then you look at this group of
>>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>>
>> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
>> are exporting it. I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
>> thing. But we are developing other energy resources. Wind seems
>> promising. It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
>> thing.
>> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
>> Janet US
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>>
>>
>>
> Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!
>
> ===
>
> That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p
>
>
>
>
>
It's so unreliable you'd think the gubmint was controlling it...

;-0

==

You mean ... it isn't?????


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 10/4/2017 1:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "Casa lo pensa"Â* wrote in message news >
> On 10/3/2017 1:38 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Casa lo pensa"Â* wrote in message news >>
>> On 10/3/2017 2:34 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "U.S. Janet B."Â* wrote in message
>>> news >>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:07:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2017 1:14 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:45:45 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-10-02 9:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 11:34 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2017 9:32 AM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:42:47 -0600, graham >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-02 7:00 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:51:47 -0600, graham >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so
>>>>>>>>>>> do I
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions,
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way
>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>> other side from you.
>>>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire
>>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>>> runs on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely.Â* The only question though, to get one resource is
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> being destroyed?Â* There are arguments on both sides and I've not
>>>>>>> taken
>>>>>>> sides yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>> have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>> this is the article that most impacted me.Â* The photos are
>>>>> particularly horrifying.Â* The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it.Â* Graham
>>>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>>>> like a good thing to clean the river.Â* Then you look at this group of
>>>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
>>> are exporting it.Â* I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
>>> thing.Â* But weÂ* are developing other energy resources.Â* Wind seems
>>> promising.Â*Â* It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
>>> thing.
>>> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!
>>
>> ===
>>
>> That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> It's so unreliable you'd think the gubmint was controlling it...
>
> ;-0
>
> ==
>
> You mean ... it isn't?????
>
>
LOL!

Well...there's this HAARP, and word has it that angels don't play it...

Casa lo pensa wrote:
>Ophelia wrote:
>>Casa lo pensa* wrote:
>>Ophelia wrote:
>>>Casa lo pensa* wrote:
>>>Ophelia wrote:
>>>>U.S. Janet B.* wrote:
>>>>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>graham wrote:
>>>>>>>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>lucretiaborgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> do I but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions,
>>>>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and
>>>>>>>>>>> their "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way
>>>>>>>>>> on the other side from you.
>>>>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire
>>>>>>>>> society runs on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely.* The only question though, to get one resource is
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> being destroyed?* There are arguments on both sides and I've not
>>>>>>>> taken sides yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>>>>> you'll have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the article that most impacted me.* The photos are
>>>>>> particularly horrifying.* The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>>>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it.* Graham
>>>>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>>>>> like a good thing to clean the river.* Then you look at this group of
>>>>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>>>>
>>>> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
>>>> are exporting it.* I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
>>>> thing.* But we* are developing other energy resources.* Wind seems
>>>> promising.** It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
>>>> thing.
>>>> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
>>>> Janet US
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>>>>
>>> Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!
>>> ===
>>>
>>> That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p
>>>
>> It's so unreliable you'd think the gubmint was controlling it...
>>
>> ;-0
>> ==
>>
>> You mean ... it isn't?????
>>
>LOL!
>
>Well...there's this HAARP, and word has it that angels don't play it...

Perchance the angels play a lyre... lots of angels here. heheheh

On 10/4/2017 9:06 AM, wrote:
> Casa lo pensa wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Casa lo pensaÂ* wrote:
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>> Casa lo pensaÂ* wrote:
>>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> U.S. Janet B.Â* wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Casa de Masa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> lucretiaborgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting to say the least - see you read the Guardian, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do I but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the quality is starting to noticeably fail, as with all paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newspapers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read it for the news but very carefully for their opinions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>>>>>> which I find disagreeable - particularly on the Oil Sands and
>>>>>>>>>>>> their "Leave it in the ground" campaign.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your point of view on this subject but I am way
>>>>>>>>>>> on the other side from you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Natural resources Luddites fail to understand what our entire
>>>>>>>>>> society runs on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely.Â* The only question though, to get one resource is
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> being destroyed?Â* There are arguments on both sides and I've not
>>>>>>>>> taken sides yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trouble is that there is considerable ignorance on the nature of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Athabasca Oil Sands. They are a massive, NATURAL oil seep! If all
>>>>>>>> exploitation were to cease today, oil would continue to spew into the
>>>>>>>> creeks and rivers as it has done for millenia. Walk on the muskeg and
>>>>>>>> your boots will be covered with the stuff. Swim in the creeks and
>>>>>>>> you'll have oil in your hair and black smudges on your body.
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is the article that most impacted me.Â* The photos are
>>>>>>> particularly horrifying.Â* The magnitude is overwhelming.
>>>>>>> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...z&OCID=U457DHP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yacevqe4
>>>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not taken a stand because I don't know enough about it.Â* Graham
>>>>>> says it is skimming oil that would contaminate the river and it sounds
>>>>>> like a good thing to clean the river.Â* Then you look at this group of
>>>>>> photos and wonder how good it really is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my understanding that we currently have more oil than we need and
>>>>> are exporting it.Â* I understand that the oils supply isn't a forever
>>>>> thing.Â* But weÂ* are developing other energy resources.Â* Wind seems
>>>>> promising.Â*Â* It is always difficult to seek balance with this sort of
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> P.S. I'm glad you checked out the link.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> Wind is ok until the wind doesn't blow constantly.
>>>>>
>>>> Blasted sun is subject to daily interruptions too!
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> That flippin' weather again, eh? ;p
>>>>
>>> It's so unreliable you'd think the gubmint was controlling it...
>>>
>>> ;-0
>>> ==
>>>
>>> You mean ... it isn't?????
>>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Well...there's this HAARP, and word has it that angels don't play it...
>
> Perchance the angels play a lyre... lots of angels here. heheheh
>

Great pun!