John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch



There are ways to have foundation-managed research without having the
crooks of the oil industry involved.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.


I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:34:29 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

I support nukes too.

Nuke everything!!

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:34:29 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish.
Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats
are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and
development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes
any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other
night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study
them.

Nonsense.

I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

I support nukes too.

Nuke everything!!

specially that Woodstock. All those heathen rock and rollers and galactic
rulers.

I know it is a different Woodstock, but does not matter.