Californian busybody telling Canada about cars

Jim S. opined in :

> "RichA" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> They'll have to move. Maybe to Greenland when it's green again.
>> The name was coined sometime before the year 1000, when they had
>> a long stretch of winterless years in Europe. Year round growing
>> seasons in England. Must have been all those cars and methane?
>
> I'll answer just one of the many failures of logic and fact you state.
> The warming in Greenland you mention is not a function of climate. Think of
> it like the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. Further, Greenland was so named for
> commercial reasons.
>
>
>

.... sorta like "Iceland" was... if you get the drift of 11th century Viking
land developer humor.

Do humans have an impact, yes... is the impact significant, probably... is it
catastrophic?
No.

Is there REAL evidence of a rapid shift? Or is this yet another "bandwagon"
over-subscription such as the banning of surface applied DDT for undeveloped
countries?

And the fear that a flake of Asbestos falling on your child is grounds to
join in a class action .

Read this and rebut if you want

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml



Jim S. opined in :

> If you can't accept science, you are beyond logic. If you accept that we
> have any impact at all, which everyone does, it's only a matter of time.
> We are quickly moving to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that haven't
> been observed for 100 million years. Further, everyone accepts that the
> reason behind the huge jump in levels of C02 is anthropogenic. There is
> excellent science that proves this is real. There is also excellent
> science, accepted by everyone, about what things were like in the past.
> If you can't accept the basic laws of physics, and see that the same
> things will happen in the future, you are beyond logic. Hundreds of
> millions of dollars have been spent studying this. This is not one
> little study by a graduate student. This is thousands of studies, peer
> reviewed, repeated. It is as science as science gets. Even companies who
> have a vested interest in denying climate change, now accept it as
> reality. If you can't accept this level of science as fact, you could
> never convict someone of a crime.
>
> Here is a bit of an interview with Stephen Schneider, Biological
> Sciences dude at Stanford --
>
> "Well, most scientists would argue that these very mild and very
> catastrophic outcomes are plausible, maybe even a 10 percent chance of
> each of them. But the bulk of the likelihood is somewhere between the
> end of the world and the "good for you" scenarios that you see all the
> time in the newspapers and in the Congressional debates.
> The bulk of scientists are pretty straight about saying this is a
> probability distribution. And right now our best guess is that we're
> expecting warming on the order of a few degrees in the next century.
> It's our best guess. We do not rule out the catastrophic 5 degrees or
> the mild half or one degree. And the special interests, ..... from deep
> ecology groups grabbing the 5 degrees as if it's the truth, or the coal
> industry grabbing the half degree and saying, 'Oh, we're going to end up
> with negligible change and CO2's a fertilizer,' and then spinning that
> as if that's the whole story--that's the difference between what goes on
> in the scientific community and what goes on in the public debate."
>
>
>
>
>
> Spike" > wrote in message
> ... > Which is precisely
> my point... As you just pointed out... there is no
>> con census. I never said humans have no impact. Only that the impact
>> humans have is far from determined. And as you also pointed out, those
>> various organizations each have their own agendas which motivate their
>> findings. Just as a large number of "studies" have been found to be
>> tainted by a policy requiring so called experts to "publish or
>> perish". Human are supposed to have such an impact, yet those self
>> same "experts" make a prediction, such as the size of the hole in the
>> ozone layer, and then the hole either gets way larger than projected,
>> or unexpectedly shrinks.
>>
>> I take it you have decided what the sole source for factual
>> information is and you expect one and all to accept only your
>> source(s) because they agree with what you believe. In which case you
>> should probably do your part, and return to the Amish lifestyle. Use
>> nothing modern, including the internet and computers. Much like if we
>> disarm, they will disarm.
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 21 Nov 2004 12:18:39 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>>
>>>I'd be more discriminating if I were you. There is no debate about
>>>climate change -- CO2 and other green house gases have increased
>>>greatly since the industrial revolution. The increase is without doubt
>>>anthropogenic. Climate
>>>change will occur. It's unfortunate that the media often frames "The
>>>Global
>>>Warming Debate" as a debate about if global warming is real. The only
>>>debate
>>>is about how much climate change will occur. The fossil industry guys
>>>have their good-for-you proposal about sunnier weather and less harsh
>>>winter. Some rather green folks see it as dooms-day. The going line is,
>>>10% chance of each of the extremes. Climate change is real. There is
>>>no debate about the fact that humans are altering the atmosphere and
>>>the climate. It's only
>>>a debate about the degree (nice pun eh?) to which it will change.
>>>
>>>

First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
"everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
magnetic poles.

I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
the protestations of corporate greed. You remind me of my sister who,
after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
something, and that's they way she was taught in college.

By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
purpose of the user.

So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
non-productive exchange of ideas.




On 21 Nov 2004 18:51:07 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>If you can't accept science, you are beyond logic. If you accept that we
>have any impact at all, which everyone does, it's only a matter of time. We
>are quickly moving to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that haven't been
>observed for 100 million years. Further, everyone accepts that the reason
>behind the huge jump in levels of C02 is anthropogenic. There is excellent
>science that proves this is real. There is also excellent science, accepted
>by everyone, about what things were like in the past. If you can't accept
>the basic laws of physics, and see that the same things will happen in the
>future, you are beyond logic. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been
>spent studying this. This is not one little study by a graduate student.
>This is thousands of studies, peer reviewed, repeated. It is as science as
>science gets. Even companies who have a vested interest in denying climate
>change, now accept it as reality. If you can't accept this level of science
>as fact, you could never convict someone of a crime.
>
>Here is a bit of an interview with Stephen Schneider, Biological Sciences
>dude at Stanford --
>
>"Well, most scientists
Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
> quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
> with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
> "everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
> climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
> of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
> advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
> magnetic poles.
> I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
> provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
> shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
> the protestations of corporate greed.

Heh, that's good. There are some pretty scary people around here on both
sides of the debate. My location and occupation lends me to observing largly
the greener side of the scary people. A very close friend of mine does
reasearch on climate and so forth, so he's fun to talk to. It's really scary
to hear some of the things he hears from green folks. The political people
are the worst.

>You remind me of my sister who,
> after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
> something, and that's they way she was taught in college.
>
> By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
> prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
> earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
> not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
> purpose of the user.

I'll remind you that science is what proves the earth is round, science put
men on the moon, science proves there is no center to the universe. Properly
applied science can only answer questions of fact.

> So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
> And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
> that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
> computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
> non-productive exchange of ideas.

Well, I plan to live until I die as well. I don't have that immortality
thing worked out yet. But hey, I enjoy my Capri, my computer, my hunting and
fishing too. Rabbit, pheasant, deer, and salmon, walleye, large mouth bass -
in order of favorite respectively.

I don't believe any exchange of ideas is unproductive.

OMG!!! FOFLMAO!!!!!

Um.... synthetic oil maybe LOL!!! Damn, too early for this sort of thing.

--
Kate
98 Cobra Drop Top
Please Lord, at the end, just one last ride... with the top down.



"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| Everything runs in cycles of "average" time period between like
| events. They can only predict based on the past, but they don't know
| what really causes it.
|
| Supposedly, we are overdue for an ice age now. One report I read said
| that the melting of the ice caps it what triggers an ice age. So, this
| global warming thing could be just a precursor to that event.
|
| So, where you are, I guess you better start thinking about relocating
| or opening a snowcone stand.
|
| Heck, I'm gonna keep on driving as long as I can 'cause I heard a
| scientist say that a major asteroid hits the earth every so many
| thousand years.
|
| What worries me is that tectonic plate movement is probably what
| powers the system which makes earth habitable. Could all that oil be
| the lube which makes it possible for the plates to move freely? What
| happens when you lose all the oil in your engine? Oops!
|
|
|
| On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:15:44 GMT, "Richard" > wrote:
|
| >
| >"Spike" > wrote in message
| .. .
| >> As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of
| >> three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more
| >> ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently
| >> produces.
| >
| >I believe that is more than man has EVER produced since his beginnings on
| >this planet.
| >
| >>
| >> But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that long ago that cars
| >> were blamed for global "cooling" which was going to bring about an ice
| >> age. Now it's global warming melting the polar caps. Is it possible
| >> that both are just natural events in climate.
| >
| >I believe that were I live was under about a mile of ice only 10/15,000
| >years ago. Hell, in the mere blink of an eye (last 2,000,000 years)
there
| >have be more than 20 glacial advances and retreats in North America.
| >http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ .
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Joke Jim, joke joke joke ... hee hee funny funny... *wink* you know....

--
Kate
98 Cobra Drop Top
Please Lord, at the end, just one last ride... with the top down.



"Jim S." > wrote in message
...
| I'll point you to -
| http://www.letus.nwu.edu/projects/gw...&CO2-graph.pdf
|
| Spike, I don't know where you are getting your information, but I think
you
| should start looking elsewhere.
|
|
| "Spike" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Everything runs in cycles of "average" time period between like
| > events. They can only predict based on the past, but they don't know
| > what really causes it.
| >
| > Supposedly, we are overdue for an ice age now. One report I read said
| > that the melting of the ice caps it what triggers an ice age. So, this
| > global warming thing could be just a precursor to that event.
| >
| > So, where you are, I guess you better start thinking about relocating
| > or opening a snowcone stand.
| >
| > Heck, I'm gonna keep on driving as long as I can 'cause I heard a
| > scientist say that a major asteroid hits the earth every so many
| > thousand years.
| >
| > What worries me is that tectonic plate movement is probably what
| > powers the system which makes earth habitable. Could all that oil be
| > the lube which makes it possible for the plates to move freely? What
| > happens when you lose all the oil in your engine? Oops!
| >
| >
| >
| > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:15:44 GMT, "Richard" > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >"Spike" > wrote in message
| > .. .
| > >> As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of
| > >> three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more
| > >> ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently
| > >> produces.
| > >
| > >I believe that is more than man has EVER produced since his beginnings
on
| > >this planet.
| > >
| > >>
| > >> But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that long ago that cars
| > >> were blamed for global "cooling" which was going to bring about an
ice
| > >> age. Now it's global warming melting the polar caps. Is it possible
| > >> that both are just natural events in climate.
| > >
| > >I believe that were I live was under about a mile of ice only 10/15,000
| > >years ago. Hell, in the mere blink of an eye (last 2,000,000 years)
| there
| > >have be more than 20 glacial advances and retreats in North America.
| > >http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ .
| >
| > Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
|
|

Note that you said "properly applied science". That implies that
science can be IMproperly applied. Therefore, the application of said
science as THE TRUTH, can be false.

Too often, people have been lead to believe that science is
infallible. How often have we heard some postulation espoused by
scientists, only to have them reverse themselves later. Even
Einstein's "perfect" equation is now being questioned. And (what a
time to draw a blank) even the mathematician (the one in the
wheelchair using a voice synthesizer) stated that some of his work was
no longer valid in light of new discoveries made.

As for immortality... that one I have solved. First I shall do as my
father does... I have stopped having birthdays based upon the earth
calendar year. Neptune is good, Pluto is better. The entire universe
rotates, so, basing my birthdays on the time it takes the solar system
to revolve around the central axis of the universe is getting there.

You say communicative exchanges are never unproductive? Try convincing
a religious person that there is no god, there is only science, or
vice versa. Try convincing a conservative to accept the liberal point
of view or vice versa. Or a tree hugger that logging is a good thing,
and vice versa (well, ok. being a tree hugger did get rid of Sonny
Bono). Try convincing me that science can make not mistakes.

When you have dealt with the loss of your children's lives, the loss
of a spouse to mental illness, of fought in a war or served as a
police officer where the taking of a life in order to save a life is a
good thing.... then apply your science to all things and see if it
still fits.

Meanwhile, the fishing gear is in the car, the dog is anxious to
go..... and I feel the need for speed even at $2.55 a gallon.....


On 22 Nov 2004 01:28:59 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:

>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
>> quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
>> with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
>> "everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
>> climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
>> of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
>> advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
>> magnetic poles.
>> I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
>> provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
>> shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
>> the protestations of corporate greed.
>
>Heh, that's good. There are some pretty scary people around here on both
>sides of the debate. My location and occupation lends me to observing largly
>the greener side of the scary people. A very close friend of mine does
>reasearch on climate and so forth, so he's fun to talk to. It's really scary
>to hear some of the things he hears from green folks. The political people
>are the worst.
>
>>You remind me of my sister who,
>> after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
>> something, and that's they way she was taught in college.
>>
>> By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
>> prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
>> earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
>> not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
>> purpose of the user.
>
>I'll remind you that science is what proves the earth is round, science put
>men on the moon, science proves there is no center to the universe. Properly
>applied science can only answer questions of fact.
>
>> So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
>> And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
>> that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
>> computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
>> non-productive exchange of ideas.
>
>Well, I plan to live until I die as well. I don't have that immortality
>thing worked out yet. But hey, I enjoy my Capri, my computer, my hunting and
>fishing too. Rabbit, pheasant, deer, and salmon, walleye, large mouth bass -
>in order of favorite respectively.
>
>I don't believe any exchange of ideas is unproductive.
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I know.... sooooo keep yer top up.... it's cold out thar... I might
explain that in a scientific way but this is a mixed audience group...
LOL

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:51:53 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote:

>Joke Jim, joke joke joke ... hee hee funny funny... *wink* you know....

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

So Greenland and Iceland got mixed up in the sales pitch... happens at
used car lots all the time.... HAH! Actually, I loved Iceland!
FANTASTIC fishing! And Greenland sucked rocks! I need to try New
Zealand. I could get high on methane (good thing I quit smoking) while
enjoying some great fishing!

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:21:18 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> wrote:

>Jim S. opined in :
>
>> "RichA" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> They'll have to move. Maybe to Greenland when it's green again.
>>> The name was coined sometime before the year 1000, when they had
>>> a long stretch of winterless years in Europe. Year round growing
>>> seasons in England. Must have been all those cars and methane?
>>
>> I'll answer just one of the many failures of logic and fact you state.
>> The warming in Greenland you mention is not a function of climate. Think of
>> it like the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. Further, Greenland was so named for
>> commercial reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>
>... sorta like "Iceland" was... if you get the drift of 11th century Viking
>land developer humor.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

You can accept science as a method to answering questions, or you can
believe in the fates. Truth is relative, science doesn't find "The Truth."
It is a practice, and a method of inquiry. If you fail to accept it, you
relegate your life to the darkness and frustration of never understanding
what can be understood. I do not say that there is not value to religion and
other ways of understanding, but I think the scientific domain, the domain
of what is here and can be investigated is separate from the ethereal.

You could argue that there are things outside of human control and
understanding i.e. God, the fortunes etc.

So, the question becomes, is climate change the domain of science or
mysticism?

If climate change is the domain of science, you must give a response to the
science. You must say something like, X hasn't been taken into account or Y
is an unknown quantity. The debate must occur there, and will only have
value there. You simply say that scientists have made mistakes in the past.
This is *not* a valid critic of the problem at hand. Just because a mechanic
misdiagnosed a problem with a car in the past is not any indication that
future diagnoses will be faulty. If you say science is fallible, you either
do not understand what science is, or you believe things outside of the
corporeal world have influence upon it. Again, you have to state that the
science regarding climate change is incomplete or faulty, and *give evidence
to support the claim.*

Failing a scientific response, two options remain for you. Mysticism, or you
could say, "I don't know very much about the situation, so I can't come to
an informed decision."

Is the science incomplete or is science itself to blame, modernity or
mysticism? It's your choice.

All the climate change skeptics have moved from a position of, "humans have
no impact," to arguing about the degree of impact. Even the most rosy of
predictions put forth by the coal industry show significant change. No
serious person is talking about apocalyptic global warming in the next 100
years either. There is a simple insurance argument to be made - A little
work now so things don't get too out of hand in the future. Or, wait till
things are really bad and incur massive costs then.

Incidentally,
I think all communicative exchanges are productive. In this, I got to learn
something about you. Learning about people interests me greatly.


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Note that you said "properly applied science". That implies that
> science can be IMproperly applied. Therefore, the application of said
> science as THE TRUTH, can be false.
>
> Too often, people have been lead to believe that science is
> infallible. How often have we heard some postulation espoused by
> scientists, only to have them reverse themselves later. Even
> Einstein's "perfect" equation is now being questioned. And (what a
> time to draw a blank) even the mathematician (the one in the
> wheelchair using a voice synthesizer) stated that some of his work was
> no longer valid in light of new discoveries made.
> As for immortality... that one I have solved. First I shall do as my
> father does... I have stopped having birthdays based upon the earth
> calendar year. Neptune is good, Pluto is better. The entire universe
> rotates, so, basing my birthdays on the time it takes the solar system
> to revolve around the central axis of the universe is getting there.
>
> You say communicative exchanges are never unproductive? Try convincing
> a religious person that there is no god, there is only science, or
> vice versa. Try convincing a conservative to accept the liberal point
> of view or vice versa. Or a tree hugger that logging is a good thing,
> and vice versa (well, ok. being a tree hugger did get rid of Sonny
> Bono). Try convincing me that science can make not mistakes.
>
> When you have dealt with the loss of your children's lives, the loss
> of a spouse to mental illness, of fought in a war or served as a
> police officer where the taking of a life in order to save a life is a
> good thing.... then apply your science to all things and see if it
> still fits.
>
> Meanwhile, the fishing gear is in the car, the dog is anxious to
> go..... and I feel the need for speed even at $2.55 a gallon.....
>
>
> On 22 Nov 2004 01:28:59 EST, "Jim S." > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spike" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> First you say I have not a clue and that everyone agrees, and then you
>>> quote a statement from Stanford in which the first line starts out
>>> with "most" scientists would argue.... You have made my point. Not
>>> "everyone" agrees with your position. A considerable number of
>>> climatologic have stated that there have been similar rises and falls
>>> of temps throughout history and pre-history, just as there have been
>>> advances and declines of the ice sheet, and periodic reverses of the
>>> magnetic poles.
>>> I still say that there is not a con census, which you yourself
>>> provided documentation of, as to what is going on. Until there is, I
>>> shall not subscribe to the scare tactics of the liberal academics, nor
>>> the protestations of corporate greed.
>>
>>Heh, that's good. There are some pretty scary people around here on both
>>sides of the debate. My location and occupation lends me to observing
>>largly
>>the greener side of the scary people. A very close friend of mine does
>>reasearch on climate and so forth, so he's fun to talk to. It's really
>>scary
>>to hear some of the things he hears from green folks. The political people
>>are the worst.
>>
>>>You remind me of my sister who,
>>> after college, knew without a doubt that there was only one way to do
>>> something, and that's they way she was taught in college.
>>>
>>> By the way, there are various groups who have used your science to
>>> prove: the earth is flat; man has never traveled to the moon; the
>>> earth is the center of the universe, etc, and I'm talking about today,
>>> not 900 years ago. Like statistics, science can be bent to serve the
>>> purpose of the user.
>>
>>I'll remind you that science is what proves the earth is round, science
>>put
>>men on the moon, science proves there is no center to the universe.
>>Properly
>>applied science can only answer questions of fact.
>>
>>> So, good luck to you either way. Me... I'm going to live until I die.
>>> And in 5000 years, not one person will care what I thought or did. And
>>> that's fine. But while I was here, I enjoyed my Mustangs, my guns, my
>>> computer, my family, fishing, and everything else.... including this
>>> non-productive exchange of ideas.
>>
>>Well, I plan to live until I die as well. I don't have that immortality
>>thing worked out yet. But hey, I enjoy my Capri, my computer, my hunting
>>and
>>fishing too. Rabbit, pheasant, deer, and salmon, walleye, large mouth
>>bass -
>>in order of favorite respectively.
>>
>>I don't believe any exchange of ideas is unproductive.
>>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16