PDA

View Full Version : we're getting warmer??? so what?



decoy91288
11-11-2004, 03:08 AM
On another thread Spope posted the following:

"On a "greenie" note, the world has lost almost 400,000 miles of polar ice cap in the last few yers, you don't think that will cease if only the US and Europe quit polluting do you, China, the Baltics, and the Asian market are putting even our past 100 + years of polluting to shame just in one single decade."

I am interested in your opinions re: the "THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!" OMG THE SKY IN FALLING IN!!

vs.

Some historical fact (done by less than perfect memory here so correct as needed). One thousand years ago Greenland -- now covered by some 240 feet of ice cap -- was an agricultural center with enough population for the Church to have an Archbishop there to oversee the various parishes, it also was an agricultural center producing wine for export to Europe before the "mini ice age" set in circa 1300. In other words, historically, the 'correct' average temp is somewhat higher than it has been for the last 700 years and the adjustment being so stridently hailed as the harbinger of the end of civilization is but a return to normal, warmer, temperature averages. In the 1970's several scientists published papers (repeated in the popular press) just as stridently claiming we were entering a "NEW ICE AGE -- COMING TO BRING THE END OF CIVILIZATION AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT!" Jeez -- is it any wonder I think the whole global warming thing is but a bull**** guess of what cannot be reliably predicted? Where have I missed the bandwagon so many others seem to have climbed on so easily. Are there real facts to support the suppositions being made or is this just another case of human self delusion?



------------------
Craig

Evan
11-11-2004, 03:43 AM
Gee, some pretty wrong info.

"Some historical fact (done by less than perfect memory here so correct as needed). One thousand years ago Greenland -- now covered by some 240 feet of ice cap "

The Greenland icecap is around a mile deep and more and can be dated back by ice cores 123,000 years.

http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/b28.htm

Wine? We grow wine here in BC and it reaches -30 in the wine growing country. And, we don't have the Atlantic conveyor effect.

There is no doubt there was an ice age that ended 30,000 years ago (give or take a few minutes). It's been warmer ever since. I'm not going assign specific blame for possible causes of global warming, that's another topic. It is warming. There are many reasons why and it isn't simple. Solar variation and it's effect is not well understood. Greenhouse gasses likewise. Vulcanism, likewise. Cow farts, likewise.

The best evidence is from the arctic regions in Canada. Polar bears didn't appear overnight. They are now faced with extinction. If anything like this had occured anytime in the last millions of years the bears would likely be gone just like the cold adapted megafauna of North America.

Forrest Addy
11-11-2004, 06:04 AM
I don't know what you're smoking Mr Decoy but don't smoke it here. This is a machine shop website. We deal with practical every day stuff.

I think you want to look where the end-of-the-world buffs, area 51 obsessives, and twitchy guys in tin foil hats hang out.

speedy
11-11-2004, 06:33 AM
Craig, wether or not there is global warming and wether or not it can be attributed to modern industrial practce I cannot say. What I do know is that 'you shouldn`t ****e in your own bed'and what concerns me is the pollution that is inflicted on this wonderful planet .
Ken

captainkirk
11-11-2004, 07:49 AM
When in danger when in doubt, run around scream and shout!!!!!!


I personally have a few smaller and more pressing matters to focus my attention on, now where in Gods name did I put that ball turning attachment???

( I did like the Twitchy guys in tin foil hats reference)

[This message has been edited by captainkirk (edited 11-11-2004).]

J Tiers
11-11-2004, 07:59 AM
That stuff, and..... hasn't much place here..

That said, may as well get the facts...

There WAS a settlement on Greenland, and its name (Greenland) came from the wonderful crop-growing conditions along the coast.

That didn't last, of course. Soon, within the lifetime of the original settlers, there was snow and ice again.

And, then, the "mini ice age" in europe. Colder than usual, but probably still warmer than Minnesota or similar areas. Very unusual for europe, and lasted nearly a hundred years, IIRC. Long enough for Dutch painters to have "immortalized" scenes from it.

speedy
11-11-2004, 08:06 AM
captainkirk. When in danger when in doubt, run around scream and shout!!!!!!

Of course you mean Rock and Roll!! http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

Ken

wierdscience
11-11-2004, 08:28 AM
Yes the globe is warming,just like it has every year for the last 30,000,so what?
The polar Ice caps are receeding,but global warming is not the only factor involved.Vulcanizm particularly in Antartica plays a role.
People see movies(well about 10 people)like Waterworld and go nuts,but it ain't gonna happen,Mt Everest won't be the last dry land on the planet there simply is not enough water locked up in ice to do that especially since the volume decreases when it melts.
I would also like to point out that not all scientists agree on global warming,some believe we are on the verge of another ice age.

Ted Coffey
11-11-2004, 08:30 AM
This is an appropriate thread for anyone with a shop at less than 25 feet above sea level. So I hear. HehHen

pgmrdan
11-11-2004, 09:05 AM
Saturday it was in the 70's here and my 18 year old son was all concerned about global warming. Sunday the temp was in the 50's and the weather man said the high for that date was 79*F and the low for that date was 1*F.

I remember Thanksgiving days where I was walking around outside in a short sleeve shirt and other Thanksgiving days where I was freezing my butt off shoveling snow.

Yeah, things vary a lot BUT the thing too many people fail to remember is that this rock we call home is a finite object. We are destroying it, the question is how quickly are we destroying it.

Global warming? I don't know the answer and I don't know anyone else who does. I'm more concerned about the poisons we are putting into the air, water, soil, and our food.

[This message has been edited by pgmrdan (edited 11-11-2004).]

Swarf&Sparks
11-11-2004, 09:13 AM
Damn! My shop is 3' above sea level and 30 yards from the ocean. Anybody wanna buy a waterfront property real cheap? (yair, right)

Rustybolt
11-11-2004, 09:40 AM
Here's something to consider. When Mount Penatubo(?) erupted in the Philipines awhile back, in the weeks it erupted, it put more gaseous effluent and particulate matter into the atmosphere than all of mans activity, since we've had activity.
I think its safe to say that the world is so big and the forces that control it so little understood that to say we have any appreciable long term effect is a little arrogant. Anyone who has seen the Mississippi River overflow it's banks will know what I mean.

pgmrdan
11-11-2004, 10:14 AM
I've seen the Mississippi River overflow its banks several times and I don't know what you mean. Maybe we're talking about different Mississippi Rivers.

Are you talking about the Mississippi River up north where it's beautiful and clean or are you talking about the Mississippi River near St. Louis (and further south) where it's a dirty, filthy, stinking mess with oil slicks floating on it?

I've seen the effects of a Shell oil spill on the Gasconade River in Missouri that was much bigger than some Pacific coast oil spills that were talked about on the news programs for weeks.

Don't tell me I'm being arrogant to be concerned about what we're doing to the earth. Look at the death and destruction of wildlife that occurred thereafter. It was real and it was long term (death is permanent) to the wildlife concerned.

[This message has been edited by pgmrdan (edited 11-11-2004).]

Boomer
11-11-2004, 10:27 AM
Is there an Alt key combination that will give a real degree symbol instead of using an asterisk? Inquiring minds want to know.

Swarf&Sparks
11-11-2004, 10:39 AM
yup, it's alt 248, but this MS POS (W98)won't let me key it even tho I usta do it under DOS. Lemme know how you get on.
Rgds, Lin

maddog
11-11-2004, 10:41 AM
Global warming is a bunch of nonsense
spewed by the left wing nutballs.

We haven't been around long enough to
gather enough data. All we know is that
we may be in a warming cycle.

Who's to say weather or not this is a
normal or abnormal occurance? It's pretty
niave to think that a 200 year timeslice
of data (and I'm being generous) is enough
to make ANY determination one way or the
other.

No, this is all a bunch of huey designed
to punish the industrialized (the producers)
countries of the world.

firbikrhd1
11-11-2004, 10:50 AM
Like others on the board, I'm concerned about the well being of our planet as much as anyone, who wouldn't be? We live here.
Still, I think things need to be put in context. WWII spilled more oil in the worlds's oceans via ship sinkings that one can imagine. My Dad remembers oil floating 8" deep in Dinner Key near Coconut Grove Florida. There were no clean up efforts or EPA then, even so today, Dinner Key shows no trace of oil spills. How much contamination was put into the environment from fires, bombs and weaponry during that war? Yet the earth goes on. Our planet moves closer to the Sun on the order of something like 6 feet a year, we're getting hotter all the time ever so slowly due to that. The sun reacts with our atmosphere and manufactures Ozone faster than we could ever destroy it and as a poster mentioned earlier, a single volcano eruption spews forth more contaminants than we do in the civilized world. It must be recognized that humans are a part of nature too, whether you believe in a Devine Creator or Evolution or something in between.

Should we be cautious with our pollution? Absolutely! Should we conserve at every opportunity? Without a doubt! Trouble is, we can't make much of an impact as the only country in the world with a concern. We are competing in a world market today against countries that have few, ineffective or no pollution control standards. The costs of production here is driven up by pollution control costs. Companies here send our jobs overseas to get away from those controls in order to compete. (Sure, cheap labor is a big part too) I suggest the following. How about a law that says anything imported into this country has to be manuafactured with equipment that meets anti pollution standards equavalent to those in this country. With that alone we could affect the pollution production of the whole world and even afford to lower the standards on some things here. We are at the point in some areas, automobiles for instance, where exhaust contaminants are almost non existant. While theres nothing wrong with that, how much does it cost in terms of not only dollars, but addidional pollution due to the manufacture of anti pollution equipment? There must be a point of diminishing returns, where cost outweighs benefit.
Enough time spent on this, nobody listens to me anyway. Back to the shop.....

pgmrdan
11-11-2004, 11:30 AM
firbikrhd1,

Now that I've said we're polluting the planet the question is, "What can we do about it?" I agree with you in that I think the answer is, "Not much!"

We used to be the land of resources and cheap labor hundreds of years ago. That's how we got started. Today, other countries are following in our footsteps and we are complaining because they are doing what we've already done.

Who are we to judge other countries for the pollution and waste they are creating while trying to become more like we've become?

I don't think we can pass laws that tell other countries we won't buy their products unless they're manufacturing processes meet our standards. (We have a hard enough time telling companies in the USA to follow our laws.) They'll just sell elsewhere. There are many more consumers outside of the USA than there are inside.

The world truly is becoming a global community and we're suffering the growing pains.

Evan
11-11-2004, 11:30 AM
Boomer,

Alt 0176 °°° 10,000°

Evan
11-11-2004, 12:04 PM
Maddog,

"Global warming is a bunch of nonsense
spewed by the left wing nutballs."

I'm curious why this would be something that only "left wing nutballs" would say. Why wouldn't "right wing nutballs" say it?

How does the fact that the Earth is warming lately fit only a left wing agenda?

BillH
11-11-2004, 12:08 PM
There are sooooo many different factors that can contribute to global warming, it would be foolish and non-scientific to say it's all about human pollution.

Rustybolt
11-11-2004, 12:35 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pgmrdan:
I've seen the Mississippi River overflow its banks several times and I don't know what you mean. Maybe we're talking about different Mississippi Rivers.

Are you talking about the Mississippi River up north where it's beautiful and clean or are you talking about the Mississippi River near St. Louis (and further south) where it's a dirty, filthy, stinking mess with oil slicks floating on it?

I've seen the effects of a Shell oil spill on the Gasconade River in Missouri that was much bigger than some Pacific coast oil spills that were talked about on the news programs for weeks.

Don't tell me I'm being arrogant to be concerned about what we're doing to the earth. Look at the death and destruction of wildlife that occurred thereafter. It was real and it was long term (death is permanent) to the wildlife concerned.

[This message has been edited by pgmrdan (edited 11-11-2004).]</font>


I'm talking about the last time it broke levies and flooded some on this countries prime bottomland. Nature is gonna do what it wants to do no matter how hard you try and tame it.Many thousand of acres of prime farmland ruined from the deposition of sand from further upriver.All the locks levies and flood control didn't help at all.

dsergison
11-11-2004, 03:00 PM
test test test ° Aha! only works via the number pad!!!

§ ° š þ ∩ ╒ Cool! gonna have some fun with that. thanks, EVAN!

:◘ :î :þ

pgmrdan
11-11-2004, 03:07 PM
"I'm talking about the last time it broke levies and flooded some on this countries prime bottomland."

I know what you're talking about! I was there!!! Floods of 1993.

I flew over the convergence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers 6 times during that period. My home was in the suburbs of St. Louis but I was working in Iowa and Virginia. I drove highway 61 every Friday and Sunday for months during that time period. The Mississippi was many miles out of its banks.

I drove one stretch of highway on a Friday night, got home, unpacked the car, and 45 minutes after I had driven on that stretch of highway they showed on TV that it was under water due to a levee failure.

For 9 years I worked in downtown St. Louis and frequently walked to the Gateway Arch during my lunch break. I used to see the floodwaters on the steps down to Water Street where the water was so high the street signs were only about a foot above water, if that.

I attended University in Cape Girardeau, MO which is on the Mississippi River. I used to walk from my apartment down to the river to watch barge traffic at night. Awesome!!!

I've seen the floodgates closed along the Mississippi in St. Louis and Cape Girardeau on several occasions.

I'm familiar with the Mississippi River.

[This message has been edited by pgmrdan (edited 11-11-2004).]

wierdscience
11-11-2004, 09:58 PM
As to the Mississippi,down south here it is muddy.I have also heard folks from up north say that"oh,that river is poluted,its soo brown and muddy,shouldn't you do something to clean it up"
First off Desoto said the river was muddy and that was what?300 years ago?
Second as I explained to a lady from Minnesota,the rest of the polution was put there by ignorant yankees http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif I told her when she got home to stop flushing her toilet.

As for the left wing agenda,global warming has been hijacked by the left and is being used as a tool to control people by fear.
The evidence is never presented in a fair context,it is always biased and presented in standard doom and gloom fashion.Listen carefully and you can hear the standard catch phrases.When they talk about auto emissions its always SUV'S that take the rap,when they talk about healthcare they always use the word "crisis".Nazi Germany could have learned a thing or two about propaganda from NPR.

[This message has been edited by wierdscience (edited 11-12-2004).]

gizmo2
11-11-2004, 10:01 PM
Cow farts! The SECOND biggest natural producer of methane. Numero Uno? Termite farts! No foolin'. And what's wrong with my tin foil hat? We got fashion police here???

pgmrdan
11-11-2004, 10:11 PM
wierdscience,

Where it really get muddy is where the Ohio River joins it. There it also gets much deeper. Not nearly as much flooding problems in 1993 south of where the Ohio River ties into the Mississippi River.

PSD KEN
11-11-2004, 10:11 PM
Yeah, ice ages come and go.
One potential cause is the earth tilting on its axis. ever so slight.
Has that been checked?
Now, the old timers should say: "BYGAWD, waren't this way when I wuz young"
I'm only 65, so aint' one of the olden's.

[This message has been edited by PSD KEN (edited 11-11-2004).]

HTRN
11-11-2004, 10:58 PM
To all those who are bandiying about whether Global warming is a problem or not, I have to inject one word:

1816

The year 1816 was the coldest winter ever recorded since America kept track of these things (pre revolutionary times) It was often referred to as "Eighteen hundred and froze to death". New Haven Conn. got 5 inchs of snow the first week of September. This terrible winter is now attributed to a series of Volcanic eruptions over the previous 2 years culminating with the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, an eruption that was more violent then Krakatoa...

Do Humans contribute to global warming? Probably
Do Humans contribute enough to be significant? Doubtful.

People talk about the Temperature rising half a degree, well 1816 was something like 20 degrees below normal. It has been estimated that Tambora in that one eruption generated more "pollution" than all of human history to the present day.

HTRN

------------------
This Old Shed (http://http:thisoldshed.tripod.com/enter.htm)

Evan
11-12-2004, 01:29 AM
The "pollution" added by a singular event is temporary regardless of the amount. A volcanic eruption may indeed contribute a significant amount of dust, sulphur and CO2 but it doesn't stick around. It is recycled and rained out. To see the sort of changes we are seeing requires a steady and prolonged contribution from some source. CO2 is not an inert gas. To maintain an increasing amount of CO2 requires a steady input to the atmosphere that exceeds the uptake by plants and oceans. The question is what sources are there that can account for the increase?

HTRN
11-12-2004, 02:27 AM
Evan, I'd say three quarters of air pollution comes from China and India. Imposing ever harsher standards on first world countries is not going to solve the problem, it's only going to shift an ever larger economic burden on too the respective populaces. We could be burning Anthracite Coal in this country instead of LNG/LPG in gas turbines. "Black" coal is much cheaper and more importantly available in abundance here in NA. We don't because it dirtier than gas, not much, but enough to make the econazi's froth at the mouth. Instead we import gas and burn it in turbines to make electricity, thus keeping us on the leash of foreign suppliers.

Compare the worst American City with Beijing... Pittsburgh in the 50's would seem like a vacation spot by comparison. The Chicoms are starting to clean up the city. Why? Not due to enviornmental concerns, but because alot of foreign companies(and their foreign workers) raised a stink about the living conditions in the city. Right now, enviornmental standards can only hurt the economic machine and they won't do more than the minimum necessary.

HTRN

Evan
11-12-2004, 03:05 AM
HTRN,

The USA Generates over half of it's electricity using coal. This is far greater than any other method used in the US.

http://www.electricityforum.com/electricity-generation.html

Swarf&Sparks
11-12-2004, 08:18 AM
Hey, right about number pad. I plugged a keyboard into the lappy and alt 248 ° degrees °° works jes' fine, brain fart. &lt;grin&gt;

Rustybolt
11-12-2004, 08:53 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
HTRN,

The USA Generates over half of it's electricity using coal. This is far greater than any other method used in the US.

http://www.electricityforum.com/electricity-generation.html

</font>

Illinois gets most of its electricity from Nukes. We used to have one more but Com ED converted its Zion nuke plant because they claimed it would be too costly to update. Oh well. There is one pathetic wind generating tower right behind it on the lakeshore.
On a side note; the discharges are great places to go in the winter months to catch salmon and trout. The fish hang out in the warmer water to regulate their temperature and eat the little fish that get run through the sytem.

wierdscience
11-12-2004, 09:49 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pgmrdan:
wierdscience,

Where it really get muddy is where the Ohio River joins it. There it also gets much deeper. Not nearly as much flooding problems in 1993 south of where the Ohio River ties into the Mississippi River.</font>

Yup,its not much of a problem here because of the 1918,22'29'30' and 32' floods.

Yes co2 is being added,but it's not all cars and that is what its being blamed on in the media.
I find it interesting that spikes in co2 occured before each of the last two ice ages.

Rustybolt
11-12-2004, 10:57 AM
Wierd. have you ever been to Old Shaneetown.?
My wife grew up near there. The old bank building which is four stories tall has high water marks up to the third floor. The town was moved inland after the 1937 flood.

decoy91288
11-12-2004, 11:54 AM
Forrest Addy -- I have much respect for you, your excellent articles for the HSM magazines, and this forum. It was not an intent to highjack the forum for OT questions but I am not aware of another place to find such a collection of varied opinion, reasonably thought out and politely argued. (for the most part http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif) My late wife was a college professor and the occasional questions similar to the one starting this thread could be surfaced at faculty gatherings over a few drinks and generate most interesting and varied response, much as this forum has. Thank you all for responding.

I recall a "Discovery Channel" presentation a few years ago (when I still owned a TV) showing a region in Africa where large amounts of CO2 is vented into our atmosphere resulting in death to any oxygen breather that ventures into low lying areas within, particularly in the mornings before the sun's heat has dispursed the nights accumulation. I do not recollect any comment on what effect such a large contribution of so called "greenhouse gas" over centuries might be. But that particular venting and knowing there are many active volcanic regions with similar long term co2 contributions somewhat belies the "singular event" argument I quote below.

I really dont wear a tin foil hat, nor have I smoked -- anything -- for many years. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

As an aside -- I did once pull out a US Army issued wallet card of the Court required statement advising arrestees of their rights in order to settle a discussion of what the exact wording was. This at a faculty party - but minutes later the three of us having the discussion were the only folks in sight. Seems someone overheard me "reading their rights" and not knowing me figured me for a cop making a bust and told everyone there was a raid.


"The "pollution" added by a singular event is temporary regardless of the amount. A volcanic eruption may indeed contribute a significant amount of dust, sulphur and CO2 but it doesn't stick around. It is recycled and rained out. To see the sort of changes we are seeing requires a steady and prolonged contribution from some source. CO2 is not an inert gas. To maintain an increasing amount of CO2 requires a steady input to the atmosphere that exceeds the uptake by plants and oceans. The question is what sources are there that can account for the increase?"



------------------
Craig

dvideo
11-12-2004, 12:26 PM
Decoy...

In all honesty, you are selectively off base here. You are right, there is some serious smarts hanging out here - and occasionally posting. What Mr. Addy says is right, too. OT. Unfortuantely, those who have chosen to dwell on this topic in the past are often political - and not scientist. Profound scientific conviction - when you can't explain how the television works that you get your opinion from - is suspect. But people are entitled to their opinions.

So as all these kind gentlemen say, it's OT and we choose not to talk it here. It is a kindly agreement.

We can all agree that logic and values have not gone into setting a policy for use and processing of this country's natural resources. It hurts, too. For sure, a lot of machinist and construction people have lost out because of it. The reasons have been political, so - so are the solutions. That is sure OT.

--jerry

Rustybolt
11-12-2004, 06:48 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by wierdscience:
Yup,its not much of a problem here because of the 1918,22'29'30' and 32' floods.

Yes co2 is being added,but it's not all cars and that is what its being blamed on in the media.
I find it interesting that spikes in co2 occured before each of the last two ice ages.

</font>


So did volcanic activity.

wierdscience
11-12-2004, 08:40 PM
I still say the globe will warm up real good when a big chuck of rock hits it.Notice I said when and not if.

It would be poetic justice thou,people stop driving cars,no electrical power being produced,no war,no famine and bla,bla,bla everything is great and wonderful then BOOOOOM!Space rock! http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

SJorgensen
11-13-2004, 04:39 PM
So what have we got here? A bunch of wanabee machinists trying to be a bunch of wanabee global atmospheric scientists?

It is enough for me that the majority of the worlds best scientists agree that human activity is having an impact on global trends within the time that reliable data has been recorded.

It is compelling enough to cause each of us to be aware of it and do what we can. It is better. I remember growing up when coal was the way many homes were heated. Natural gas improved the air on my street and today you can see all the way across the valley.

Coal would still be a great source of energy if only the exhaust gasses and CO2 could be sequestered in a small scale system.

Some of the methods that I've read about is to somehow process the CO2 into something like calcium carbonate. On a large scale I can picture it but what about something that would work on an automobile in a closed system?

Whatever the solution is it will probably be someone like one of those in the group here, who recognises the problem and applies some common sense solutions and some HSM skills to solving the problem.

Thanks for the OT thread. It isn't always a waste of time to read them.

Evan
11-13-2004, 07:17 PM
There are over six billion of us on the planet. The US burns over a billion tonnes of coal a year, just behind China at 1.3 billion tonnes. It is not possible that this plus the rest of the world isn't having some effect. It is. We just don't know how much and in what way, but it is. We will find out, like it or not.

motorworks
11-13-2004, 07:34 PM
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?dirsub=%2FACIA%2Foverview

pete913
11-13-2004, 08:33 PM
Anyone remember LA in the late 60's before the EPA? Back when most days you could cut the air with a knife? If the scientists that say we're polluting ourselves off the planet are wrong (doubtful) and we enforce clean air and water regs and all the rest of it, what's the worst that can happen? We have a cleaner place to live in? If they are right, and the world continues on its path the way it is, there's no second chance. I get a real kick out of people infering that environmentalists are "wackos", and that people who refuse to see their hand in front of their faces, mostly because of their insatiable lust for money, are somehow not wackos.

spope14
11-13-2004, 09:41 PM
Ah forget it.......this is a machining board. Just FYI, I am a somewhat right wing guy who does not jump on band wagons easily but has seen what I have seen.

Wrote one heck of a post - gone to internet heaven. If I am going to take the time to get a hammering, I will do it where I can show my resources for real. A chat board is not that place, and besides, I have a real respect for all on this board.

Not going to take the bait, and usually do not respond to these lines anyway, alas, I remember the "guns post".


Peace all.........

[This message has been edited by spope14 (edited 11-13-2004).]

Evan
11-14-2004, 01:50 AM
Good point.