http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* If every roof was a solar panel - 16 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
* I'm having fantasies about Mary Magdalene - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/02eb2ac4e0c0cdc5?hl=en
* Who has the cheapest Nuklar incident insurance? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e68020225de78543?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: If every roof was a solar panel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd0a5af9cc4337f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 12:01 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Those can be perfectly adequately powered
>>>>>> with the baseload power generation, fuckwit.
>>>>> Maybe yesterday and maybe today,
>>>> No maybe about it. For the future too.
>>> If the future means for the next several years.
>> For the hundreds of years in fact.
> Not a chance.
Fraid so, you watch.
> Worst case scenario is that a new technology comes along to change the formula
Wont happen with power generation eliminating baseload power generation.
You cant change the laws of physics, stupid.
>>> Technology doesn't sleep.
Sometimes it does. There hasnt been any new technology for
eating utensils since knives and forkes and spoons were invented.
The chinese didnt even bother with those, they kept using
chopsticks they invented thousands of years ago now.
>> What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
> And those prices always become lower
Not always, particularly when the resource used starts getting very scarce.
>>>>> but with the ever increasing new gotta have gizmos
>>>>> the base load requirement will soon be swamped.
>>>> Nope, anyone with even half a clue builds more as they are required.
>>> At ever increasing marginal costs.
>> Thats another lie. If you dont care about the CO2 from
>> coal burning, those get cheaper, not more expensive.
> But strangely enough we care about such marginal things as pollution.
Some do, plenty dont. The chinese clearly dont currently.
> Shame you don't.
You aint established that I dont. I care about the
visual pollution that solar on all roofs would produce.
I'd much rather have nice clean nukes producing electricity that
is used to power everything instead. And would much rather not
have the CO2 pollution that coal fired power stations produce.
And would much rather have houses heated with the electricity
from nice clean nukes rather than have then heated by burning
natural gas, oil or wood.
> You might as well say if we paid the coal miners less the they get cheaper.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
>>>>> In any event supplementing the baseload with
>>>>> solar allows you to take dirty plants offline.
>>>> Like hell it does with airconditioning.
>>> Care to try that in english
>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to comprehend
>> that, its only got one word with more than one syllable.
> monosyllabic gibberish is still gibberish
You wouldnt know what real gibberish was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
>>>> A square yard panel powers sweet fuck all air conditioning.
>>> And you continually insist on proving your lack of reading
>>> abilities. Read the subject line: "If every roof was a solar panel".
>> All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
> And I keep moving it back,
Another bare faced lie.
>> This one had moved on to one square yard panel per roof, fuckwit.
> Then you should have changed the subject line.
Nope. Some usenet clients dont handle that very well, fuckwit.
> I fixed that by moving my discussion back on topic
Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as always.
>>> Sure, 14.5 billion for two nukes is much less expensive
>> Yep, even just one square yard panel on every roof would cost
>> something like $130B. Ten times the cost of those two nukes.
> At todays prices. Remember, technology moves on and prices get lower.
Thats true in spades of nukes, fuckwit.
>>> and more quickly implemented.
>> Thats a lie with one panel per roof.
> Let's see your math to back that up
Dont need any maths to see how long it would take to cover all roofs with solar.
>>>>>> Its completely insane to be spending anything like $130B to replace
>>>>>> the existing baseload power generation for that particular load,
>>>>>> much more expensively.
>>>>> Tell that to Georgia Power which is spending $14.5 BILLION to build
>>>>> just TWO Nuke Plants to cover an expected 27% increase in baseload.
>>>> No need, they know that $130B wouldnt do anything like that.
>>> What they know is that they can't lose any money building nukes.
>>> Gov't loan guarantees and a guaranteed rate of return courtesy
>>> of the Georgia Public Utilities Commission. They couldn't do it
>>> without either of those. Capitalism at its best
>> Irrelevant to the FACT that one panel on every roof would cost a hell
>> of a lot more and wouldnt deliver anything like the same power either.
> In fact having a program to cover every roof with one square
> yard each would result in the per unit cost becoming lower,
Yes.
> low enough for somebody to realize that they could
> actually put more than one square yard on each roof
They still wouldnt do it anyway.
>>>>> You could buy an insanely large amount of PV for that
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie. Nothing like what those nukes will generate.
>>> Including nuclear waste with no viable storage solution.
>> Another pig ignorant lie. Its reprocessed and used in nukes.
>>>>> and never even have to address the spent fuel issue...
>>>> Nothing to 'address', its reprocessed and used in nukes.
>>> 1) where it is reprocessed it is only because of the
>>> inability to extract all of the available energy in one pass
>> And that happens with ALL nukes, fuckwit.
> Which makes them inherently wasteful
Nope, reprocessing stops the waste, fool.
>>> 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> I don't see you offering proof
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> with an additional gain of approx 25%.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Since you are obviously a Nuclear Physicist I'll
> wait for you to provide a cite to prove that
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> New generations of unbuilt plants MIGHT
>>> do a second and third reprocessing
>> Doing it right now, fool.
> Which ones?
The frog ones.
>>> 3) Not all countries reprocess.
>> Not all countrys have nukes, fool.
> So you were unable to follow the thought. How unsurprising. So I'll
> rod it down for you: Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
Yep, they use the services of countrys that do
that more cheaply than they can do it themselves.
>>> Once-through nuclear fuel cycle
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Which you will be unable to prove
YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
YOU get to prove it.
THATS how it works.
>>> A once through (or open) fuel cycle
>> Only fools do anything like that.
> Seems like fools and nuke plants go hand in hand
Nope, just your pig ignorance, as always.
>>> Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent
>>> to storage without further processing save additional
>>> packaging to provide for better isolation from the biosphere.
>> Only fools do anything like that.
>>> This method is favored by six countries: the United States,
>>> Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>> Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel currently.
> So your statement that only fools do that
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> is a lie
Nope, everyone can see for themselves that yours is.
>>> And you will show us with your usual style a well documented
>>> cite proving that these emissions are equal to or greater than
>>> the emissions from coal and gas fired plants
>> Corse they have to be greater when the power used to do that
>> comes from coal and gas fired plants and there is the extra
>> emissions from the plants that produce the materials used, fool.
> That's a very verbose lack of response.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> In fact there is at least one PV plant that is powered by...PVs
Not with the raw materials it uses for the housings etc it aint.
> Now if you offer some actual proof about the emissions, I would be impressed.
You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.
>>> Oh, did I upset you, again?
>> You never ever have done anything like that, fool.
>>>>>> That approach would completely cripple the economy, fuckwit.
>>>>> By creating more jobs than a nuke plant ever could,
>>>> Pigs arse it would. What jobs it would produce would be in china.
>>> Not if the policy were to buy local so as to stimulate the economy.
>> Taint gunna happen. That would make an already immense cost much higher again.
> Remember this, say it over and over until you actually hear it:
> Technology never sleeps
Quite a bit of the time it does in fact.
Try telling that to the chinese still using chopsticks after all this time.
And that pathetic little mantra has nothing to do with what was being discussed there anyway.
>> Even you should have noticed that the US already has a massive
>> problem paying for the bailout that was needed when the clowns were
>> allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
> And you should have been able to discern that the economy is slowly but surely getting better.
Pity about the immense national debt that isnt.
>>> But even if it they were in China, it would still
>>> produce more jobs than a Nuke plant would.
>> Done by illegal immigrants.
> Jobs is jobs
The congress aint gunna be stupid enough to spend billions subsidising
jobs for illegals with the already immense national debt its currently got.
>>>>> improving the environment
>>>> Pigs arse it would. You have that obscene visual pollution of all those roofs.
>>> Roofs that are so beautiful now?
>> Lot better than they would be with a panel on every roof.
> Just for effete snobs like you they now make PVs that mimic roof tiles
Pity fuck all will be paying much more for those when the cost is already so
high that hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to cover their roof with them.
>>>>> and lessening health care costs...
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie. You'd have all those clowns
>>>> falling off their roofs when cleaning the panels.
>>> Not everyone is as clumsy as you. Of course I guess we
>>> should eliminate chimneys because of all those chimney
>>> sweeps that are falling off the roofs when sweeping chimneys.
>> Few clean their own chimneys.
> But what about those poor chimney sweeps?
They're irrelevan to what solar panels.
>> Plenty would try to clean their own panels,
>> just like they mostly do clean their own windows.
> By incorporating special Low-E glass you tend to eliminate dust problems and
> a good hose with a nozzle or wand eliminates the need to actually climb on the roof.
Pigs arse it does with houses with more than one level.
>>>> Most of them would be bankrupted by the medical bills they get shafted with.
>>> Is that really the best you can do?
>> Your shit is clearly the best you can manage
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
<reams of your wogshit flushed where it belongs>
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 1:51 am
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev wrote
> J Burns wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> Karen Silkwood wrote
>>>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for A.C.
>>> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August, I take it...
>> I guess that's why the Yuma County Fair warns that the Fine Arts Building has evaporative cooling only. I'll bet it
>> will be fine March 29 to April 3. I imagine it would be adequate on many August days.
> Perhaps. I know you need SOMETHING. While we were having dental work
> in Algodones the power in the entire town went out for an hour or so. Not pleasant.
Irrelevant to how well swamp coolers would work there.
> If you, as a business, warn people about your own shortcomings, I suspect that they're not likely to be imaginary.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:38 am
From: me@privacy.net
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
<atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
something I came across
USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=315726
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:40 am
From: me@privacy.net
Bill Bowden <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
>A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
>for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
>and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
>housing material and inverter.
yep only abt 100 watts
but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
that's 13 gigawatts yes?
interesting
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 10:57 am
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
> something I came across
> USA has no place to PUT spent fuel
Thats just plain wrong, all nukes have spent fuel.
And when you are going to reprocess it, there is no point in PUTting it anywhere.
> http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=315726
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 10:59 am
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> Bill Bowden <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
>> A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
>> for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
>> and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
>> housing material and inverter.
> yep only abt 100 watts
> but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
> that's 13 gigawatts yes?
Only at peak sun times.
> interesting
Nope, its a fart in the bath in the total power demand,
particularly given that you wont get that all at once.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 11:01 am
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> Bill Bowden <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote
>> A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
>> for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
>> and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
>> housing material and inverter.
> yep only abt 100 watts
That wont even power your TV when the sun is shining fully.
> but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
> that's 13 gigawatts yes?
> interesting
Fraid not.
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 11:48 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8v08sdFcriU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> For the hundreds of years in fact.
>
> > Not a chance.
>
> Fraid so, you watch.
Yet another of your unsupported "what-ifs"
>
> > Worst case scenario is that a new technology comes along to change the
> > formula
>
> Wont happen with power generation eliminating baseload power generation.
Yet another of your unsupported "what-ifs"
> You cant change the laws of physics, stupid.
But they bend ever so easily
> >>> Technology doesn't sleep.
>
> Sometimes it does. There hasnt been any new technology for eating utensils
> since knives and forkes and spoons were invented.
Ah, drongo, but they have become so cheap that anyone and everyone can afford
them. Just one of the advantages from technology that doesn't sleep
> The chinese didnt even bother with those, they kept using chopsticks they
> invented thousands of years ago now.
Chopsticks which became easier and cheaper to produce. Just one of the
advantages from technology that doesn't sleep
> >> What matters is the relative prices of the technology.
>
> > And those prices always become lower
>
> Not always, particularly when the resource used starts getting very scarce.
Which leads to replacement resources. Just another advantage from technology
that doesn't sleep
> > But strangely enough we care about such marginal things as pollution.
>
> Some do, plenty dont. The chinese clearly dont currently.
Not true. They know how much in lost productivity and increased health care it
is costing them. They are also losing business from companies refusing to
import products that are produced at gross polluter factdories.
> > Shame you don't.
>
> You aint established that I dont. I care about the visual pollution that
> solar on all roofs would produce.
No one will ever die from an ugly looking roof...except hopefully you.
> I'd much rather have nice clean nukes producing electricity that is used to
> power everything instead. And would much rather not have the CO2 pollution
> that coal fired power stations produce.
>
> And would much rather have houses heated with the electricity from nice clean
> nukes rather than have then heated by burning natural gas, oil or wood.
How sad for you. I'd much rather have a properly designed house that has a
minimum heating and cooling load, a load that could easily be supplied by
direct/indirect solar and passive cooling.
> > You might as well say if we paid the coal miners less the they get cheaper.
>
> You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
Are you speaking from personal experience, old man?
> > monosyllabic gibberish is still gibberish
>
> You wouldnt know what real gibberish was if it bit you on your lard arse,
> child.
Not true. You are a living, breathing example of gibberish...and you are
adamantly intent on continuously proving it.
> >> All threads move on from the subject, fuckwit.
>
> > And I keep moving it back,
>
> Another bare faced lie.
Because when I talk about "every roof" that doesn't mean "every roof" to you.
More proof that you are the poster child for gibberish
> Nope. Some usenet clients dont handle that very well, fuckwit.
But most do. Try using something NOT produced by microsloth
> > I fixed that by moving my discussion back on topic
>
> Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as
> always.
Because when I talk about "every roof" that doesn't mean "every roof" to you.
More proof that you are the poster child for gibberish
> > At todays prices. Remember, technology moves on and prices get lower.
>
> Thats true in spades of nukes, fuckwit.
Another bare faced lie. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, as
always.
> Dont need any maths to see how long it would take to cover all roofs with
> solar.
So you are unable to do simple math. You just made a VERY spectacular fool of
yourself, as always.
> > In fact having a program to cover every roof with one square yard each
> > would result in the per unit cost becoming lower,
>
> Yes.
So you are now admitting that the $130 billion figure is way too high. Thank
you.
> > low enough for somebody to realize that they could actually put more than
> > one square yard on each roof
>
> They still wouldnt do it anyway.
Just because you are the Rod Almighty in no way means you are able to actually
predict what real people would do
> > Which makes them inherently wasteful
>
> Nope, reprocessing stops the waste, fool.
And still leaves highly radioactive non-fissionable waste to safely store for
1000s of years
> >>> 2) where it is reprocessed it is only reprocessed once
>
> >> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
> > I don't see you offering proof
>
> YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.
Which you called a lie so it is your responsibility to prove you are correct
>
> YOU get to prove it.
>
> THATS how it works.
Doesn't apply to you though, does it?
> > Which ones?
>
> The frog ones.
Yet another pignorant lie
> > So you were unable to follow the thought. How unsurprising. So I'll rod it
> > down for you: Not all countries that have nukes reprocess
>
> Yep, they use the services of countrys that do that more cheaply than they
> can do it themselves.
Yet another pignorant lie
> >>> Not a cycle per se, fuel is used once and then sent to storage without
> >>> further processing save additional packaging to provide for better
> >>> isolation from the biosphere.
>
> >> Only fools do anything like that.
>
> >>> This method is favored by six countries: the United States, Canada,
> >>> Sweden, Finland, Spain and South Africa.[1]
>
> >> Those only do that currently because its cheaper to use new fuel
> >> currently.
Ah, so they don't send it to other countries for reprocessing. Thank you for
proving you lied.
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
But as usual you are unable to prove it. Must hurt.
>
> > In fact there is at least one PV plant that is powered by...PVs
>
> Not with the raw materials it uses for the housings etc it aint.
But that wasn't you point. Do try to keep up old fella
>
> > Now if you offer some actual proof about the emissions, I would be
> > impressed.
>
> You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.
TRANSLATION: I rod speed, rod almighty, am unable to offer any proof about the
emissions, so I will soon resort to running away and replying with my less than
kindergarden flame attempts
> > Remember this, say it over and over until you actually hear it: Technology
> > never sleeps
>
> Quite a bit of the time it does in fact.
What a porky
>
> Try telling that to the chinese still using chopsticks after all this time.
>
> And that pathetic little mantra has nothing to do with what was being
> discussed there anyway.
Certainly not with what you are trying to discuss, but most assuredly with what
I keep bringing you back to. Must hurt to have such a short attention span
> > And you should have been able to discern that the economy is slowly but
> > surely getting better.
>
> Pity about the immense national debt that isnt.
Which isn't preventing technology from advancing, nor is it preventing social
advancement. Shame that the economy is slowly but surely getting better.
>
> >>> But even if it they were in China, it would still produce more jobs than
> >>> a Nuke plant would.
>
> >> Done by illegal immigrants.
>
> > Jobs is jobs
>
> The congress aint gunna be stupid enough to spend billions subsidising jobs
> for illegals with the already immense national debt its currently got.
Of course not, but they will spend billions and billions to help national
security and to see all those dollars spent in their districts. That money has
got to go somewhere, doesn't it?
> Pity fuck all will be paying much more for those when the cost is already so
> high that hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to cover their roof with
> them.
Remember technology never sleeps.
> > But what about those poor chimney sweeps?
>
> They're irrelevan to what solar panels.
Could you do that in english?
>
> >> Plenty would try to clean their own panels, just like they mostly do clean
> >> their own windows.
>
> > By incorporating special Low-E glass you tend to eliminate dust problems
> > and a good hose with a nozzle or wand eliminates the need to actually climb
> > on the roof.
>
> Pigs arse it does with houses with more than one level.
Thank you for admitting that the majority of houses would not have any trouble
keeping their panels clean. That wasn't so hard, was it?
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>
:>}
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 11:50 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8v0evsFo0hU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote
> > J Burns wrote
> >> The Real Bev wrote
> >>> Karen Silkwood wrote
>
> >>>> But some shading and maybe a swamp cooler can eliminate the need for
> >>>> A.C.
>
> >>> More like 'may' instead of 'can'. You've never been to Yuma in August, I
> >>> take it...
>
> >> I guess that's why the Yuma County Fair warns that the Fine Arts Building
> >> has evaporative cooling only. I'll bet it
> >> will be fine March 29 to April 3. I imagine it would be adequate on many
> >> August days.
>
> > Perhaps. I know you need SOMETHING. While we were having dental work
> > in Algodones the power in the entire town went out for an hour or so. Not
> > pleasant.
>
> Irrelevant to how well swamp coolers would work there.
Because the efficiency of a swamp cooler rises to infinity when there is no
electricity to power it
>
> > If you, as a business, warn people about your own shortcomings, I suspect
> > that they're not likely to be imaginary.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 4:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 4:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:13 pm
From: Bill Bowden
On Mar 24, 5:40 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
> >A square yard is worth about 100 watts. I see raw solar cells on ebay
> >for 2KW DIY panels at $840 if you want to add the cost of the housing
> >and insulation. That's about 20 times cheaper, not including extra
> >housing material and inverter.
>
> yep only abt 100 watts
>
> but think of the 130 million roofs in the USA
>
> that's 13 gigawatts yes?
>
> interesting
Well, it depends on the average sunlight for the location. Some solar
panels are about $2600 per kilowatt, which is worth 15 cents an hour.
So, if you live in a sunny area, you might get $1.50 a day, figuring
10 hours of bright sunlight.
The return on that investment would be about $550 a year or 21% which
is a pretty good deal. But factoring in cloudy days might cut the
return in half or more to maybe 8%. Works well in southern CA, but
probably not Seattle.
-Bill
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:15 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8v20r0FivfU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the puerile shit any 2 year old could leave
> for dead.
:>}
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:15 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8v20q9Fit0U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the puerile shit any 2 year old could leave
> for dead.
:>}
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 7:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote just the puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 8:09 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <8v2ebiFb23U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
:>}
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm having fantasies about Mary Magdalene
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/02eb2ac4e0c0cdc5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 12:38 am
From: Opus
On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
Stop the Bullshit Campaign" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>
> http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>
> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
> man has to do.
>
> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT
> WALKS?
>
> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence of
any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements about
their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 5:58 am
From: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">
On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
> Stop the Bullshit Campaign"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>>
>> http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>>
>> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
>> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
>> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
>> man has to do.
>>
>> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
>> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
>> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT
>> WALKS?
>>
>> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
> Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
> been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
> married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence of
> any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements about
> their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
(compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
been married to Mary M?
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 8:03 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 24, 8:58 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
> > Stop the Bullshit Campaign"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>
> >>http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>
> >> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
> >> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
> >> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
> >> man has to do.
>
> >> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
> >> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
> >> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT
> >> WALKS?
>
> >> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> > Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
> > Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
> > been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
> > married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence of
> > any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements about
> > their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
>
> The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
> (compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
> been married to Mary M?
We are led to believe that he resisted the temptation, but that
depends on the looks of Mary Magdalene as well. This sounds really
unbelievable...
On Mar 23, 4:03 pm, David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.27f41971c938d63d98a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Brian E. Clark <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <cc2bf472-df78-476e-a502-ad54607b4f79
> > @k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, comandante.ban...@yahoo.com
> > says...
>
> > > > > Subject: I'm having fantasies about Mary Magdalene
>
> > > > I imagine she's a bit old for you.
>
> > > What, I won't see her when I die?
>
> > Do you have any idea how long the wait is in heaven, to see
> > Mary Magdalene? She's a really popular lady. There are
> > still martyrs from the First Crusade who've made it only
> > halfway down the queue.
>
> Monica Bellucci, who played her in The Passion of the Christ,
> is very hot but also very popular.
>
> DD
Oh my God, I can't believe it Jesus didn't get tempted!!!
http://myhotdesktop.com/bulkupload/21/Monica-Bellucci/Monica-Bellucci-59.JPG
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 10:54 am
From: "Rod Speed"
T�m Sherm�n� �_�" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net wrote:
> On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of
>> the Stop the Bullshit Campaign"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>>>
>>> http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>>>
>>> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
>>> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
>>> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
>>> man has to do.
>>>
>>> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
>>> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
>>> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND
>>> BULLSHIT WALKS?
>>>
>>> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>>
>> Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
>> Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
>> been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
>> married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence
>> of any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements
>> about their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
>
> The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
> (compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
> been married to Mary M?
Why would they have bothered to hide something like that ?
Guess they might have if she was a prostitute.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 12:05 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit
Campaign"
On Mar 24, 1:54 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> T m Sherm n _ " <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
> >> On Mar 23, 6:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of
> >> the Stop the Bullshit Campaign"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>
> >>>http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>
> >>> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
> >>> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
> >>> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
> >>> man has to do.
>
> >>> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
> >>> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
> >>> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND
> >>> BULLSHIT WALKS?
>
> >>> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> >> Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
> >> Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
> >> been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
> >> married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence
> >> of any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements
> >> about their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
>
> > The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
> > (compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
> > been married to Mary M?
>
> Why would they have bothered to hide something like that ?
>
> Guess they might have if she was a prostitute.
Maybe it would legalize prostitution and promote sexual liberation...
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 1:16 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"
"T�m Sherm�n� �_�" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
message news:imff53$529$1@dont-email.me...
> On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
[...]
>> Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
>> Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
>> been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
>> married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence of
>> any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements about
>> their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
That is exactly what you have done - extended an idiotic thread originated
by an idiot! You are one damn slow learner.
> The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
> (compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
> been married to Mary M?
What does Tom Sherman know about the Church Fathers that you could not put
into a thimble with room to spare? Usenet is absolutely the dumbest medium
yet invented by mankind. Where else can you access such idiotic comments
outside the local saloon.
Saint Edward the Great has reported Tom Sherman to the Spanish Inquisition -
and it will be no easy chair for him!
--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 5:26 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 3/23/2011 7:13 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the
Stop the Bullshit Campaign wrote:
> I did a search and found her just like in my fantasies...
>
> http://www.thenazareneway.com/marymagdelene_narrowweb__300x401,0.jpg
>
> She's sexy and hot. I wonder if Jesus ever... Well, you know, he
> resisted the temptations from Satan, but the flesh is a different
> matter. I mean, unless you are gay, you must like her and do what a
> man has to do.
>
> Or do I have a sick mind? And what is all this sexual repression by
> the Christians anyway? Why they don't accept prostitution,
> particularly when we live in a society where MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT
> WALKS?
>
> 'Oh Mary Magdalene, I need a "massage"!'
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Bullshit rides a bike too...
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 6:40 pm
From: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">
On 3/24/2011 3:16 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
> "T�m Sherm�n� �_�"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote in
> message news:imff53$529$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/24/2011 2:38 AM, Opus the Poet wrote:
> [...]
>>> Not that I want to extend this thread, but many scholars think that
>>> Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, that an unmarried rabbi would have
>>> been ignored by the majority of Jews in that era so he must have been
>>> married. The affection shown Mary M. by Jesus was the only evidence of
>>> any involvement but it is believed that any actual statements about
>>> their marriage were edited from the Bible by Paulists...
>
> That is exactly what you have done - extended an idiotic thread originated
> by an idiot! You are one damn slow learner.
>
>> The "Christian" churches present a distorted and mostly mythical Jesus
>> (compared to what the real man may have been), so why should he of not
>> been married to Mary M?
>
> What does Tom Sherman know about the Church Fathers that you could not put
> into a thimble with room to spare? Usenet is absolutely the dumbest medium
> yet invented by mankind. Where else can you access such idiotic comments
> outside the local saloon.
>
> Saint Edward the Great has reported Tom Sherman to the Spanish Inquisition -
> and it will be no easy chair for him!
They will poke me with soft cushions, with the stuffing all up one end?
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who has the cheapest Nuklar incident insurance?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e68020225de78543?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 24 2011 12:20 pm
From: Karen Silkwood
I don't want any glow in the dark insurance. who has the best deal.
I'm very frugal.
--
Karma, What a concept!
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
