History's Worst Presidential Candidate

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:57:53 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Ool"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...

We are not "becoming aggressive all of a sudden," or even slowly. We
are finally responding to aggression waged against us for decades from
the Middle East.

Well, here's another little tidbit about history you're probably going
to see as a non sequitur,

Yes, as would most sane people.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: :
: : Not only that, it's bull**** because we haven't had a battleship, with
: : or without 16" guns, for quite some time.
: :
: :Not in service, but I believe two remain on the naval register.
:
: Where they are not going anywhere and not shelling anyone.
:
:But we do have them, and they do have 16" guns.

For some extremely loose definition of 'have'. By this definition, we
still 'have' 32-gun sailing vessels.

For a definition of 'have' that is actually applicable to the original
discussion to hand, we haven't had such a ship for a good decade.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
:
:But we do have them, and they do have 16" guns.
:

For some extremely loose definition of 'have'. By this definition, we
still 'have' 32-gun sailing vessels.

For a definition of 'have' that is actually applicable to the original
discussion to hand, we haven't had such a ship for a good decade.


Do you consider the Wisconsin and Constitution to be equivalent? They're
both still US Navy ships, and they can both be toured. You can tour the
lower decks of the Constitution, but you can only stroll topside on the
Wisconsin. That's because USS Wisconsin is in storage, the lower decks are
full of preservatives and dehumidifiers. USS Wisconsin could return to
active Navy service, USS Constitution cannot.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:32:19 +0200, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Tamas Feher"
:

I would like Mr Feher to identify these wells that are
pumping OVER A BARREL OF OIL A SECOND.

"Currently the largest oil well in the United States is at Goose Creek,
flowing 30,000 barrels of oil per day."

In fact there was an early-1900 drill in the USA spitting 45k barrels of
oil a day up into the air! "The McDonald No. 1 with oil gushing from
pipe into pond - Largest Oil Well in United States Making 45,000 BBLS".

In fact there was the "ONC-72 - The Largest Oil Gusher, 50,000 Barrels
Oil a Day./200 Million Feet of Gas, in Oklahoma, USA"

I guess you can see how middle-eastern oil wells produce several-fold of
that. Today the saudi "Ghawar" field alone produces over 5,25 million
barrels of oil a day, half as many as USA consumes.

It is easy, oil comes up under earth's crust's pressure at those places,
you dont even need to use those nodding pumps. "The Burgan Field in
Kuwait is one of the world's richest oil fields. It is so rich that it
is one of the world's easiest production sites, with oil practically
flowing to the surface on its own."

By the way, it seems layman english language does not clearly separate
the terms "oil well" and "oil field". I mean an "oil well" should be a
single, towering structure used to drill holes to extract oil or the
pipehead that remains at the scene afterwards. However, searching with
Google shows the term "oil well" is often used to describe what should
actually be an "oil field": a place where a lot of "oil wells" are built
to cultivate a large underground oil reservoir.

BTW, modern technology allows for one tower with one vertical shaft to
launch dozens of horizontal or oblique shafts at depths under 1,000
yards. Thus, it is a matter of debate what you can call an "oil well": a
single hole shaft from surface to oil down there or a single
drilling-tower that may actually collect oil from several sub-shatfs.

Anyhow, a barrel a second is easily done with one single hole in the
Middle-East if it is at the right place.

That's nice. The question, however, was about France,
Germany and Japan (none of which are in the US or the Middle
East).

--

Bob C.

Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: :
: :But we do have them, and they do have 16" guns.
: :
:
: For some extremely loose definition of 'have'. By this definition, we
: still 'have' 32-gun sailing vessels.
:
: For a definition of 'have' that is actually applicable to the original
: discussion to hand, we haven't had such a ship for a good decade.
:
o you consider the Wisconsin and Constitution to be equivalent?

Today, you bet I do.

:They're
:both still US Navy ships, and they can both be toured. You can tour the
:lower decks of the Constitution, but you can only stroll topside on the
:Wisconsin. That's because USS Wisconsin is in storage, the lower decks are
:full of preservatives and dehumidifiers.

:USS Wisconsin could return to
:active Navy service, USS Constitution cannot.

And when it does that, then folks can talk about us 'having' a
battleship. Until then, we don't.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Bob Casanova wrote:

:On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:32:19 +0200, the following appeared
:in sci.skeptic, posted by "Tamas Feher"
:
:
:I would like Mr Feher to identify these wells that are
:pumping OVER A BARREL OF OIL A SECOND.
:
:"Currently the largest oil well in the United States is at Goose Creek,
:flowing 30,000 barrels of oil per day."
:
:In fact there was an early-1900 drill in the USA spitting 45k barrels of
:oil a day up into the air! "The McDonald No. 1 with oil gushing from
:pipe into pond - Largest Oil Well in United States Making 45,000 BBLS".
:
:In fact there was the "ONC-72 - The Largest Oil Gusher, 50,000 Barrels
:Oil a Day./200 Million Feet of Gas, in Oklahoma, USA"
:
:I guess you can see how middle-eastern oil wells produce several-fold of
:that.

Nonsense!

:Today the saudi "Ghawar" field alone produces over 5,25 million
:barrels of oil a day, half as many as USA consumes.

And the Ghawar field contains hundreds of wells, both production and
injection.

:It is easy, oil comes up under earth's crust's pressure at those places,
:you dont even need to use those nodding pumps. "The Burgan Field in
:Kuwait is one of the world's richest oil fields. It is so rich that it
:is one of the world's easiest production sites, with oil practically
:flowing to the surface on its own."

The phrase "practically flowing" means that it isn't, really, and
still has to be pumped.

:By the way, it seems layman english language does not clearly separate
:the terms "oil well" and "oil field". I mean an "oil well" should be a
:single, towering structure used to drill holes to extract oil or the
:pipehead that remains at the scene afterwards. However, searching with
:Google shows the term "oil well" is often used to describe what should
:actually be an "oil field": a place where a lot of "oil wells" are built
:to cultivate a large underground oil reservoir.

Nonsense. There is no confusion between the two. Please show me
these wells in Saudi Arabia that are producing ONE BARREL OF OIL PER
SECOND; your original claim.

:BTW, modern technology allows for one tower with one vertical shaft to
:launch dozens of horizontal or oblique shafts at depths under 1,000
:yards. Thus, it is a matter of debate what you can call an "oil well": a
:single hole shaft from surface to oil down there or a single
:drilling-tower that may actually collect oil from several sub-shatfs.
:
:Anyhow, a barrel a second is easily done with one single hole in the
:Middle-East if it is at the right place.
:
:That's nice. The question, however, was about France,
:Germany and Japan (none of which are in the US or the Middle
:East).

You expect him to stick to the subject?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:25:55 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by Fred J. McCall
:

Bob Casanova wrote:
snip

:That's nice. The question, however, was about France,
:Germany and Japan (none of which are in the US or the Middle
:East).

You expect him to stick to the subject?

Not really, but one can always hope.

--

Bob C.

Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

Ool wrote:

We might be able to get it on-topic by mentioning the need for alter-
native energy and things such as solar power satellites as opposed to
the invasion of politically unstable places full of oil.

One of Kerry's goals is less dependence on oil. I don't know that he
supports the notion of SPS, though.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Ool wrote:

What has this got to do with space? You've cross-posted this rubbish to
this group for no reason at all.


We might be able to get it on-topic by mentioning the need for alter-
native energy and things such as solar power satellites as opposed to
the invasion of politically unstable places full of oil.


But right now emotions are a bit high considering a possible turning
point is so close, deciding whether the US is going to go down the
road of robber baron colonial wars or invest in brains instead, so
you should forgive high-strung people the occasional off-topic rant.

Brains would be better for space exploitation, of course, BTW...


Brains are also needed to enforce a Pax Americana.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
has a lot of stuff in it that's on-topic in this newsgroup.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:50:52 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We might be able to get it on-topic by mentioning the need for alter-
native energy and things such as solar power satellites as opposed to
the invasion of politically unstable places full of oil.

One of Kerry's goals is less dependence on oil. I don't know that he
supports the notion of SPS, though.

If he does, he's certaintly never mentioned it.