Posted by Dan Bloomquist on July 30, 2005, 5:02 pm
JoeSixPack wrote:
>
>>
>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a massive
>>>>>scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it directly to
>>>>>create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>
>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace this
>>>>civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>>the little >> thingies in front.
>>
>>Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>
> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
> the bottom, without the
> little >> thingies in front.
Well, I guess I was wrong. You've had one six pack too many...
Best, Dan.
--
Add one for email
Posted by JoeSixPack on July 30, 2005, 10:15 pm
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a
>>>>>>massive scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
>>>>>>directly to create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>>
>>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace
>>>>>this civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>>
>>>Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>>above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>>
>> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
>> the bottom, without the
>> little >> thingies in front.
> Well, I guess I was wrong. You've had one six pack too many...
Makes no sense whatsoever, but then again you rarely do.
Posted by Dan Bloomquist on July 31, 2005, 2:18 am
JoeSixPack wrote:
> Makes no sense whatsoever, but then again you rarely do.
Quote, explain. Until then, you are simply quaking....
Best, Dan.
--
Add one for email
Posted by Derek Broughton on August 1, 2005, 2:56 pm
JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>
>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a
>>>>>massive scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
>>>>>directly to create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>
>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace
>>>>this civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>
>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>
>> Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>> above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>
>
> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
> the bottom, without the
> little >> thingies in front.
Wrong. There were no little thingies (!) until we responded. If you
_didn't_ write "We might have to invest in solar and wind ...", then you
seriously need to fix your news program, because it's quoting wrong.
--
derek
Posted by JoeSixPack on August 1, 2005, 11:42 pm
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a
>>>>>>massive scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it
>>>>>>directly to create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>>
>>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace
>>>>>this civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>>
>>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>>> the little >> thingies in front.
>>>
>>> Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>> above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>>
>>
>> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
>> the bottom, without the
>> little >> thingies in front.
> Wrong. There were no little thingies (!) until we responded. If you
> _didn't_ write "We might have to invest in solar and wind ...", then you
> seriously need to fix your news program, because it's quoting wrong.
> --
> derek
Well, there's nothing I can do to help you. The simple fact is that my post
was a response to someone else's words, and there's nothing you can do to
alter that fact. I wouldn't consider "fixing" my newsreader until I heard
the same story from at least one other person. Outlook Express by the way,
is a well-tested application for this purpose.
XML site map
>>
>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We might have to invest in solar and wind energy collection on a massive
>>>>>scale, and then either use it to distill biofuels or use it directly to
>>>>>create hydrogen fuel....
>>>>
>>>>There are over a trillion tons of proven coal reserves on the planet.
>>>>There is nuclear energy. There is by no means enough land to replace this
>>>>civilization's demand for energy with crop fuels.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you need another six pack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like you misread the post. My words were at the bottom, without
>>>the little >> thingies in front.
>>
>>Are you saying I didn't quote you correctly? That you didn't write the
>>above about solar, wind, and hydrogen?
>>
> That's correct. I responded to a post by someone else. My comments are at
> the bottom, without the
> little >> thingies in front.