🚀 go-pugleaf

I think the last thing society needs is druggies in political office

I don't buy any arguments that any of you speak on behalf of the
impoverished.... otherwise you'd be given your dope away.... right?

Doesn't mark own emeryseeds.com or something like that?

You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
outright illicit activity.

You will likely see more and more backlash the higher ther MJ Party
climbs........ why cause it?



"John Turmel" <bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:af9muo$217$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> JCT: I keep being asked why I don't give it up. Why I don't
> quit beating up on Alan Young, Marc Emery and their boy
> Boris St-Maurice. What's the purpose? What's the gain?
>
> Yesterday I got a call that explained the advantages of
> continued beating on the opponents. CBC.ca Vanvoucer called
> to do an interview on.... Marc Emery.
>
> Marc's running for mayor of Vancouver and in searching the
> net for his name, the reporter said my name kept popping up.
> So I took half an hour to explain how Alan Young had
> sabotaged Terry Parker's motion to invalidate the law and
> how a whole bunch of Canadian rats popped out of the
> woodwork to support his blocking Turmel.
>
> I explained how he'd been embarrassed by the straw poll
> where I got more than 4 times move votes than him for the
> leadership of the Marijuana Party and which he then deleted
> so I couldn't claim those proxy votes at the convention.
>
> The reporter had read it all and wanted to know what I was
> doing. I asked if he knew about the upcoming July 9 meeting
> where Marc Emery is supposed to be speaking. Yes, he was
> aware of it. I told him about Emery calling the world-wide
> successful LETS anti-poverty system "funny money" and that
> there would be people at the meeting to brace him on his
> economic non-sense, his censorship, and his foul mouth in
> public.
>
> >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:20:12 -0400
> >From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: An Event In Vancouver in July 2002
> >To: turmel@freenet.carleton.ca
> John - for your information...
>
> The War on Freedom: Have We Lost Our Rights?
> Featuring:
> Stephen Easton, Fraser Institute
> And
> ******* Marc Emery, Vancouver Mayoral Candidate ********
> And
> Vin Suprynowicz, Columnist, Las Vegas Review-Journal
>
> July 9th 7 PM Delta Pinnacle Hotel Vancouver, BC
> Event Details:
> Speakers:
> Marc Emery. Marc is a man of political and business
> prestige. In politics, he is President of the BC Marijuana
> Party and a mayoral candidate in Vancouver's municipal
> elections this November. In business, he is the world's
> largest purveyor of marijuana seeds. Marc is know for his
> entertaining speeches and his unapologetic style. Marc has
> gained the attention of the international press repeatedly,
> being featured in everything from CNN to the Wall Street
> Journal to the National Post. Marc is a principled
> libertarian, who refuses to compromise on any issue. And he
> is known for his generous activism when it comes to pro-
> freedom causes.
>
> JCT: A libertarian censor. Can anyone really believe that
> Emery holds Libertarian ethics?
>
> Location: Delta Pinnacle Hotel 2nd Floor Ballroom 1128 West
> Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. Date: Tuesday July 9th, 2002
> Time: 6:30 PM Early Registration
> 6:45 PM Registration and appetizers
> 7:00 PM Event begins
> 9:00 PM Event Ends
> Tickets $30, Tables $210 (6 tickets)
> Proceeds go to covering the cost of the event. Speakers
> lecture for free. For Tickets Contact: Michael Cust 604-786-
> 6618 Bruce Armstrong 780-437-1129
> ===
>
> JCT: The reporter wanted to know about Vancouver people who
> might not be too happy with Marc. And I just happened to be
> able to refer him to the bc.general and nanaimo.general
> Usenet newsgroups where people had commented when I had
> posted my complaints about Marc's undemocratic and
> dictatorial nature there.
>
> From the http://www.cannabisculture.com forum on the
> Marijuana Party of Canada was the response as to why threads
> were deleted with Emery telling everyone it's his money and
> his place and he could do what he wanted: .
>
> >> The Marijuana Party
> Why have my messages w/ threads been deleted?
> balanced (unbalanced) 05/10/02 09:16 PM
>
> Why have the two threads I began gone missing? Who has the
> power to delete messages anyone? I'm going to attempt to
> delete Marc Scott Emery's "turmel is a wingnut" because I
> find it silly and past it's due date. And if I cannot than
> that means the moderator of this forum is removing messages
> that he doesn't agree with. What kind of a circus side-show
> cronyistic bullshit board is this, anyway? balanced
>
> Marc Scott Emery (Prince of Pot) 05/10/02 10:23 PM
> Re: Why have my messages w/ threads been deleted?
>
> I had them removed. This is my property, my space and my
> money and my organization. You are not welcome here because
> you are hostile to my interests. I am not here to give a
> sounding board for my enemies. You are no more welcome here
> than a DEA agent. Marc Emery - Moderator
>
> JCT: Now remember, this is the Marijuana Party of Canada
> forum that Marc insists on being able to censor because it's
> at his site. Also remember that the Marijuanapartyofcanada
> listserv at yahoogroups.com is moderated by Emery's editor
> Dana Larsen who has censored my posts from there too. Marc
> seems to have an inordinate amount of control over the party
> that his boy Boris runs. I posted my report on his actions
> from <yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/1053> to several
> BC newsgroups and generated the following comments which I
> referred the reporter to:
>
> >Newsgroups: bc.politics, nanaimo.general
> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Vancouver Mayor candidate Marc Emery
> >From: Norm Greenfield (normgreenfield@netscape.com)
> >Date: 2002-05-13 21:32:11 PST
> So these guys suppose to be an argument for the use of Pot?
> ===
>
> >From: Apostle (Apostle@god.com)
> >Date: 2002-05-14 12:57:15 PST
> Emery pretends to be about free speach but he's not... he
> has barred people from his discussion boards simply because
> he is unable to debate.....
> ===
>
> >From: Yubon Sir Francis (Yubon Sir Francis@hotmail.com)
> >Date: 2002-05-14 17:32:15 PST
> That is true, censorship is something Mark E is good at,
> kind of reminds you of a brand new dictator on the rise.
> Everyone in his party toots the lines or they get removed
> very quickly, he is not someone I would want to see get
> elected. After all, when you put in all the money in your
> party, you get to say what you like to those who join up
> and you get to dictate policy.
> ===
>
> >From: "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org>
> >Newsgroups: alt.hemp,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,
> >alt.hemp.politics,can.politics
> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Vancouver Mayor candidate Emery
> responds
> >Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:55:54 GMT
>
> > >Subject   Re: Does Marc Emery Fear Legalization?
> > >Posted by TheBudsAdvocate (enthusiast) on 05/10/02 03:53 PM
> > Chris, I'm just curious. Why are you fighting Marc's battles
> > so strongly? He has a computer, why doesn't he just come in
> Besides having a ego the size of the solar system, Marc
> Emery is currently being advised by the partyarchs who
> destroyed the BC and federal Libertarian Parties. The
> "Marijuana Party" group is almost completely composed of
> egomaniacs, con artists, anti-freedom infiltrators and RCMP
> undercover operators. Don't expect any rational behaviour
> from Emery or his political machine.
> ===
>
> >From: Merlin (merlin@_round_table.org)
> >Date: 2002-05-22 10:44:20 PST
> Emery is able to debate, he just does not want to. He knows
> very well that he is a censorious little tyrant and that
> many of his supporters and advisors are liars and thieves.
> He does not want to 'debate' that because he would have to
> admit that he likes it that way.
> ===
>
> >From: Yubon Sir Francis (Yubon_Sir_Francis@hotmail.com)
> >Date: 2002-05-22 14:54:05 PST
> That's what dictators are made of. You know that.
> ===
>
> From: Apostle (Apostle@god.com)
> Date: 2002-05-23 08:09:02 PST
> Well i guess it doesnt' really matter anyways, he will never
> get elected as the MP rep...
> ===
>
> JCT: Okay, so the people in BC know Marc better than I ever
> did. At least he's got some style. If you visit the
> marijuana party forum and look for Marc's "wingnut" attack
> on me, you'll see that he banned further debate and the
> topic has a cute little "padlock" on it to indicate that
> it's a topic that Marc doesn't want us addressing anymore.
>
> Over in the news and events forum, Alan Young's gofer Steve
> Bacon had posted the story about the group of Canadian
> Exemptees being led by Young into the wrong court again
> titled:
>
> >Pot Laws Going Down! Mine Shaft Weed Comming Up!
> >sonnyboy (enthusiast)
> >05/23/02 12:36 PM
>
> >DeathAndTAxes (journeyman)
> >05/23/02 07:27 PM
> So, this is the legal action we've heard about? The one for
> which Mr. Young and Turmel found themselves at odds? I hope
> it goes well, but my pessimist side figures that the
> gub'mint will weasel out of it.
>
> JCT: Yes it is the legal action for which Young sabotaged
> Turmel's Parker motion and for which we will ever be at
> odds.
> ===
>
> >skellington (old hand)
> >05/23/02 08:55 PM
> i think the government wants the supreme court to force them
> to change the law so that our politicians can turn to the
> americans and throw their hands up in the air and say:
> "sorry, our judiciary is independent from the political
> process." we can always mollify the yanks and meet our drug
> treaty obligations by diverting more resources to fight
> cross border smuggling...at the very least, it would help
> keep canucks out of yank jails
> ===
>
> >Marc Scott Emery (Prince of Pot)
> >05/23/02 10:12 PM
>
> skellington is 100% correct. The Canadian government knows
> the US is a rabid, nation-destroying imperialist empire and
> for Canadian politicians to change our laws defying the US
> is very difficult, fraught with trade sanctions, penalties,
> intimidation. DEAland carries high powered sticks to
> intimidate indeed. We in British Columbia know how US can
> wreak havoc on an economy when they want you to beg. Cursed
> America!
> Long live the Canadian Supreme Court, Alan Young, John
> Conroy, and Paul Burstein.
> Edited by Marc Scott Emery (05/23/02 10:13 PM)
> ===
>
> >Turmel (wingnut) 05/24/02 00:31 AM
> >Cowardly Canuck Clucks Curses at America
> The Prince of Rot says:
>
> POR: skellington is 100% correct. The Canadian government
> knows the US is a rabid, nation-destroying imperialist
> empire and for Canadian politicians to change our laws
> defying the US is very difficult, fraught with trade
> sanctions, penalties, intimidation. DEAland carries high
> powered sticks to intimidate indeed. We in British Columbia
> know how US can wreak havoc on an economy when they want you
> to beg. Cursed America!
>
> JCT: Sounds scared, doesn't he? Chicken Little, the Cowardly
> Canuck clucks curses at America.
> We're not all lunch-meat for US pressure.
> Not me, because I'm the leader of the Abolitionist movement;
> Not you because you're probably an RCMP mole.
>
> POR: Long live the Canadian Supreme Court, Alan Young, John
> Conroy, and Paul Burstein.
>
> JCT: The man is cheering a lawyers whose record is a dismal
> failure so far. At least he's finally keeping his heated
> ejaculations over Alan Young under control.
> ===
>
> JCT: So July 9 is the first chance for me to slap the punk's
> foul mouth in public. Just a taste of what he's going to be
> getting at every meeting until polling day. I won't give up
> especially as I lump Marc in with the big vermin like Alan
> Young, Richard Lake rather than the little lice like Steven
> Young, Alison Myrden, Boris St-Maurice et al.
>
> And the next time some reporter wants to do a story on Alan
> Young, or on Boris St-Maurice, or any of the crooked crew,
> I'll bet that my name pops up enough that I'll have the
> chance to get the truth out about how these traitors have
> hurt the Abolish Prohibition movement, even if they are the
> Judas Goats at the top leading the sheeple astray.
>
> So, LETSers of the West Coast, BC, where the LETS software
> was born, keep in mind Emery labelling LETS "no interest
> funny money" and let's see if we can get people mad enough
> to get out to the public meetings and roast his hide alive.
>
> LETS give Emery a nightmare he'll never forget.
>
> --
> John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel, Author of the UNILETS
> interest-free time-based currency United Nations C6 recommendation to
> Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
> http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel / http://www.medpot.net 613.632.2334

In article <l80S8.69216$Lf2.5761905@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, "User" says...
>
>I think the last thing society needs is druggies in political office

We've had them since the dawn of time, why stop now?

>You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
>Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
>outright illicit activity.

You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.

>You will likely see more and more backlash the higher ther MJ Party
>climbs........ why cause it?

Because it's necessary to let it vent until it wears itself out, that's why.  
--
P

>"John Turmel" <bc726@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:af9muo$217$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> JCT: I keep being asked why I don't give it up. Why I don't
>> quit beating up on Alan Young, Marc Emery and their boy
>> Boris St-Maurice. What's the purpose? What's the gain?
>>
>> Yesterday I got a call that explained the advantages of
>> continued beating on the opponents. CBC.ca Vanvoucer called
>> to do an interview on.... Marc Emery.
>>
>> Marc's running for mayor of Vancouver and in searching the
>> net for his name, the reporter said my name kept popping up.
>> So I took half an hour to explain how Alan Young had
>> sabotaged Terry Parker's motion to invalidate the law and
>> how a whole bunch of Canadian rats popped out of the
>> woodwork to support his blocking Turmel.
>>
>> I explained how he'd been embarrassed by the straw poll
>> where I got more than 4 times move votes than him for the
>> leadership of the Marijuana Party and which he then deleted
>> so I couldn't claim those proxy votes at the convention.
>>
>> The reporter had read it all and wanted to know what I was
>> doing. I asked if he knew about the upcoming July 9 meeting
>> where Marc Emery is supposed to be speaking. Yes, he was
>> aware of it. I told him about Emery calling the world-wide
>> successful LETS anti-poverty system "funny money" and that
>> there would be people at the meeting to brace him on his
>> economic non-sense, his censorship, and his foul mouth in
>> public.
>>
>> >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:20:12 -0400
>> >From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: An Event In Vancouver in July 2002
>> >To: turmel@freenet.carleton.ca
>> John - for your information...
>>
>> The War on Freedom: Have We Lost Our Rights?
>> Featuring:
>> Stephen Easton, Fraser Institute
>> And
>> ******* Marc Emery, Vancouver Mayoral Candidate ********
>> And
>> Vin Suprynowicz, Columnist, Las Vegas Review-Journal
>>
>> July 9th 7 PM Delta Pinnacle Hotel Vancouver, BC
>> Event Details:
>> Speakers:
>> Marc Emery. Marc is a man of political and business
>> prestige. In politics, he is President of the BC Marijuana
>> Party and a mayoral candidate in Vancouver's municipal
>> elections this November. In business, he is the world's
>> largest purveyor of marijuana seeds. Marc is know for his
>> entertaining speeches and his unapologetic style. Marc has
>> gained the attention of the international press repeatedly,
>> being featured in everything from CNN to the Wall Street
>> Journal to the National Post. Marc is a principled
>> libertarian, who refuses to compromise on any issue. And he
>> is known for his generous activism when it comes to pro-
>> freedom causes.
>>
>> JCT: A libertarian censor. Can anyone really believe that
>> Emery holds Libertarian ethics?
>>
>> Location: Delta Pinnacle Hotel 2nd Floor Ballroom 1128 West
>> Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. Date: Tuesday July 9th, 2002
>> Time: 6:30 PM Early Registration
>> 6:45 PM Registration and appetizers
>> 7:00 PM Event begins
>> 9:00 PM Event Ends
>> Tickets $30, Tables $210 (6 tickets)
>> Proceeds go to covering the cost of the event. Speakers
>> lecture for free. For Tickets Contact: Michael Cust 604-786-
>> 6618 Bruce Armstrong 780-437-1129
>> ===
>>
>> JCT: The reporter wanted to know about Vancouver people who
>> might not be too happy with Marc. And I just happened to be
>> able to refer him to the bc.general and nanaimo.general
>> Usenet newsgroups where people had commented when I had
>> posted my complaints about Marc's undemocratic and
>> dictatorial nature there.
>>
>> From the http://www.cannabisculture.com forum on the
>> Marijuana Party of Canada was the response as to why threads
>> were deleted with Emery telling everyone it's his money and
>> his place and he could do what he wanted: .
>>
>> >> The Marijuana Party
>> Why have my messages w/ threads been deleted?
>> balanced (unbalanced) 05/10/02 09:16 PM
>>
>> Why have the two threads I began gone missing? Who has the
>> power to delete messages anyone? I'm going to attempt to
>> delete Marc Scott Emery's "turmel is a wingnut" because I
>> find it silly and past it's due date. And if I cannot than
>> that means the moderator of this forum is removing messages
>> that he doesn't agree with. What kind of a circus side-show
>> cronyistic bullshit board is this, anyway? balanced
>>
>> Marc Scott Emery (Prince of Pot) 05/10/02 10:23 PM
>> Re: Why have my messages w/ threads been deleted?
>>
>> I had them removed. This is my property, my space and my
>> money and my organization. You are not welcome here because
>> you are hostile to my interests. I am not here to give a
>> sounding board for my enemies. You are no more welcome here
>> than a DEA agent. Marc Emery - Moderator
>>
>> JCT: Now remember, this is the Marijuana Party of Canada
>> forum that Marc insists on being able to censor because it's
>> at his site. Also remember that the Marijuanapartyofcanada
>> listserv at yahoogroups.com is moderated by Emery's editor
>> Dana Larsen who has censored my posts from there too. Marc
>> seems to have an inordinate amount of control over the party
>> that his boy Boris runs. I posted my report on his actions
>> from <yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/1053> to several
>> BC newsgroups and generated the following comments which I
>> referred the reporter to:
>>
>> >Newsgroups: bc.politics, nanaimo.general
>> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Vancouver Mayor candidate Marc Emery
>> >From: Norm Greenfield (normgreenfield@netscape.com)
>> >Date: 2002-05-13 21:32:11 PST
>> So these guys suppose to be an argument for the use of Pot?
>> ===
>>
>> >From: Apostle (Apostle@god.com)
>> >Date: 2002-05-14 12:57:15 PST
>> Emery pretends to be about free speach but he's not... he
>> has barred people from his discussion boards simply because
>> he is unable to debate.....
>> ===
>>
>> >From: Yubon Sir Francis (Yubon Sir Francis@hotmail.com)
>> >Date: 2002-05-14 17:32:15 PST
>> That is true, censorship is something Mark E is good at,
>> kind of reminds you of a brand new dictator on the rise.
>> Everyone in his party toots the lines or they get removed
>> very quickly, he is not someone I would want to see get
>> elected. After all, when you put in all the money in your
>> party, you get to say what you like to those who join up
>> and you get to dictate policy.
>> ===
>>
>> >From: "Smokin'" <Smokin'@reefer madness.org>
>> >Newsgroups: alt.hemp,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,
>> >alt.hemp.politics,can.politics
>> >Subject: Re: TURMEL: Vancouver Mayor candidate Emery
>> responds
>> >Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:55:54 GMT
>>
>> > >Subject   Re: Does Marc Emery Fear Legalization?
>> > >Posted by TheBudsAdvocate (enthusiast) on 05/10/02 03:53 PM
>> > Chris, I'm just curious. Why are you fighting Marc's battles
>> > so strongly? He has a computer, why doesn't he just come in
>> Besides having a ego the size of the solar system, Marc
>> Emery is currently being advised by the partyarchs who
>> destroyed the BC and federal Libertarian Parties. The
>> "Marijuana Party" group is almost completely composed of
>> egomaniacs, con artists, anti-freedom infiltrators and RCMP
>> undercover operators. Don't expect any rational behaviour
>> from Emery or his political machine.
>> ===
>>
>> >From: Merlin (merlin@_round_table.org)
>> >Date: 2002-05-22 10:44:20 PST
>> Emery is able to debate, he just does not want to. He knows
>> very well that he is a censorious little tyrant and that
>> many of his supporters and advisors are liars and thieves.
>> He does not want to 'debate' that because he would have to
>> admit that he likes it that way.
>> ===
>>
>> >From: Yubon Sir Francis (Yubon_Sir_Francis@hotmail.com)
>> >Date: 2002-05-22 14:54:05 PST
>> That's what dictators are made of. You know that.
>> ===
>>
>> From: Apostle (Apostle@god.com)
>> Date: 2002-05-23 08:09:02 PST
>> Well i guess it doesnt' really matter anyways, he will never
>> get elected as the MP rep...
>> ===
>>
>> JCT: Okay, so the people in BC know Marc better than I ever
>> did. At least he's got some style. If you visit the
>> marijuana party forum and look for Marc's "wingnut" attack
>> on me, you'll see that he banned further debate and the
>> topic has a cute little "padlock" on it to indicate that
>> it's a topic that Marc doesn't want us addressing anymore.
>>
>> Over in the news and events forum, Alan Young's gofer Steve
>> Bacon had posted the story about the group of Canadian
>> Exemptees being led by Young into the wrong court again
>> titled:
>>
>> >Pot Laws Going Down! Mine Shaft Weed Comming Up!
>> >sonnyboy (enthusiast)
>> >05/23/02 12:36 PM
>>
>> >DeathAndTAxes (journeyman)
>> >05/23/02 07:27 PM
>> So, this is the legal action we've heard about? The one for
>> which Mr. Young and Turmel found themselves at odds? I hope
>> it goes well, but my pessimist side figures that the
>> gub'mint will weasel out of it.
>>
>> JCT: Yes it is the legal action for which Young sabotaged
>> Turmel's Parker motion and for which we will ever be at
>> odds.
>> ===
>>
>> >skellington (old hand)
>> >05/23/02 08:55 PM
>> i think the government wants the supreme court to force them
>> to change the law so that our politicians can turn to the
>> americans and throw their hands up in the air and say:
>> "sorry, our judiciary is independent from the political
>> process." we can always mollify the yanks and meet our drug
>> treaty obligations by diverting more resources to fight
>> cross border smuggling...at the very least, it would help
>> keep canucks out of yank jails
>> ===
>>
>> >Marc Scott Emery (Prince of Pot)
>> >05/23/02 10:12 PM
>>
>> skellington is 100% correct. The Canadian government knows
>> the US is a rabid, nation-destroying imperialist empire and
>> for Canadian politicians to change our laws defying the US
>> is very difficult, fraught with trade sanctions, penalties,
>> intimidation. DEAland carries high powered sticks to
>> intimidate indeed. We in British Columbia know how US can
>> wreak havoc on an economy when they want you to beg. Cursed
>> America!
>> Long live the Canadian Supreme Court, Alan Young, John
>> Conroy, and Paul Burstein.
>> Edited by Marc Scott Emery (05/23/02 10:13 PM)
>> ===
>>
>> >Turmel (wingnut) 05/24/02 00:31 AM
>> >Cowardly Canuck Clucks Curses at America
>> The Prince of Rot says:
>>
>> POR: skellington is 100% correct. The Canadian government
>> knows the US is a rabid, nation-destroying imperialist
>> empire and for Canadian politicians to change our laws
>> defying the US is very difficult, fraught with trade
>> sanctions, penalties, intimidation. DEAland carries high
>> powered sticks to intimidate indeed. We in British Columbia
>> know how US can wreak havoc on an economy when they want you
>> to beg. Cursed America!
>>
>> JCT: Sounds scared, doesn't he? Chicken Little, the Cowardly
>> Canuck clucks curses at America.
>> We're not all lunch-meat for US pressure.
>> Not me, because I'm the leader of the Abolitionist movement;
>> Not you because you're probably an RCMP mole.
>>
>> POR: Long live the Canadian Supreme Court, Alan Young, John
>> Conroy, and Paul Burstein.
>>
>> JCT: The man is cheering a lawyers whose record is a dismal
>> failure so far. At least he's finally keeping his heated
>> ejaculations over Alan Young under control.
>> ===
>>
>> JCT: So July 9 is the first chance for me to slap the punk's
>> foul mouth in public. Just a taste of what he's going to be
>> getting at every meeting until polling day. I won't give up
>> especially as I lump Marc in with the big vermin like Alan
>> Young, Richard Lake rather than the little lice like Steven
>> Young, Alison Myrden, Boris St-Maurice et al.
>>
>> And the next time some reporter wants to do a story on Alan
>> Young, or on Boris St-Maurice, or any of the crooked crew,
>> I'll bet that my name pops up enough that I'll have the
>> chance to get the truth out about how these traitors have
>> hurt the Abolish Prohibition movement, even if they are the
>> Judas Goats at the top leading the sheeple astray.
>>
>> So, LETSers of the West Coast, BC, where the LETS software
>> was born, keep in mind Emery labelling LETS "no interest
>> funny money" and let's see if we can get people mad enough
>> to get out to the public meetings and roast his hide alive.
>>
>> LETS give Emery a nightmare he'll never forget.
>>
>> --
>> John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel, Author of the UNILETS
>> interest-free time-based currency United Nations C6 recommendation to
>> Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
>> http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel / http://www.medpot.net 613.632.2334
>
>

In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
> >outright illicit activity.
> 
> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> 

It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.

In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>
>
>>You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
>>Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
>>outright illicit activity.
>
>You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.

actually he is involved in mail fraud, and Turmel is no prince either.  

In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
>> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
>> >outright illicit activity.
>> 
>> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> 
>
>It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.


You're not seeing the big picture:  

Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda
have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
*very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.  
Trade in illicit things involves criminal activity, and violent means are often
necessary to deal with enforcemment authorities *and* to protect the enormous
profits demanded by people who risk so much to ply their trade.

Graft and fraud are "illicit" and illegal because they actully hurt people, in
and of themselves.

Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
property and process by fraud and graft?
--
P

"Albino Protoplasm" <you@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
news:FG4S8.69567$s82.5923885@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >
> >
> >>You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >>Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't
connected to
> >>outright illicit activity.
> >
> >You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
>
> actually he is involved in mail fraud, and Turmel is no prince either.
>
Who is?

In article <afalf206tb@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
> >> >outright illicit activity.
> >> 
> >> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> > 
> >
> >It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.
> 
> 
> You're not seeing the big picture:  

uh huh
 
> Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda

I don't know about Canada but it certainly hasn't 70 years in the US. As 
I recall it was made illegal during the Korean war. The US used to sow 
hemp in rural drainage ditches to prevent erosion.

> have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
> *very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
> of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.

Perhaps there is concern that it will be abused in the same way alcohol 
is abused - smoking an driving for example. This society rarely 
demonstrates an impressive level of maturity so it is not out of line to 
expect problems with legalizing it.

  
> Trade in illicit things involves criminal activity, and violent means are often
> necessary to deal with enforcemment authorities *and* to protect the enormous
> profits demanded by people who risk so much to ply their trade.
> 
> Graft and fraud are "illicit" and illegal because they actully hurt people, in
> and of themselves.
> 
> Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
> property and process by fraud and graft?

Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
without legalized weed.

In article <MPG.1783e5cd67858405989e1c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afalf206tb@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> >
>> >In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>> >> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
>>>> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
>> >> >outright illicit activity.
>> >> 
>> >> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
>> > 
>> >
>> >It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.
>> 
>> 
>> You're not seeing the big picture:  
>
>uh huh
> 
>> Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda
>
>I don't know about Canada but it certainly hasn't 70 years in the US. As 
>I recall it was made illegal during the Korean war. The US used to sow 
>hemp in rural drainage ditches to prevent erosion.

The US used to support *lots* of uses for hemp, before pulp-timber and oil
interests got scared of its versatility and the threat it posed to their market
share.

You don't know about Canada?  Gee, then I guess you don't know it was still
legal in Canada for several years *after* it was prohibited in the US... and it
was US political and trade pressure that forced the passage of laws against it
over much of the world.

Bone up on your own country's history: starting with the Marijuana Tax Act, and
work your way forward.

>> have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
>>*very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
>> of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.
>
>Perhaps there is concern that it will be abused in the same way alcohol 
>is abused - smoking an driving for example. This society rarely 
>demonstrates an impressive level of maturity so it is not out of line to 
>expect problems with legalizing it.

Perhaps that's so... are you advocating that an honest, trustworthy government
is one that legislates morality and maturity?  By whose standards?

You fail to see that this stuff has been widespread in our modern culture for 50
years now... partly *because* of prohibtion.
  
>> Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
>> property and process by fraud and graft?
>
>Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
>without legalized weed.

An honest government would never have made the weed illegal in the first place. 
Read your real world history and take the blinders off.   The first 30 years of
the campaign to make America pot-free were almost nothing but lies and had
nothing whatever to do with governing a nation, and they were a dismal failure
because a great many people knew it... and the following 40 years weren't much
of an improvement.

Are you aware that the US-DEA's own legal advisor quite a while ago (advice
which they ignored) said that marijuana is a nearly harmless and medically
useful product, and it should be decriminalized?
--
P

In article <afdieq0ol1@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.1783e5cd67858405989e1c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afalf206tb@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >> >> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >>>> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
> >> >> >outright illicit activity.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> >It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You're not seeing the big picture:  
> >
> >uh huh
> > 
> >> Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda
> >
> >I don't know about Canada but it certainly hasn't 70 years in the US. As 
> >I recall it was made illegal during the Korean war. The US used to sow 
> >hemp in rural drainage ditches to prevent erosion.
> 
> The US used to support *lots* of uses for hemp, before pulp-timber and oil
> interests got scared of its versatility and the threat it posed to their market
> share.
> 
> You don't know about Canada?  Gee, then I guess you don't know it was still
> legal in Canada for several years *after* it was prohibited in the US... and it
> was US political and trade pressure that forced the passage of laws against it
> over much of the world.

So?
 
> Bone up on your own country's history: starting with the Marijuana Tax Act, and
> work your way forward.

Why?

> >> have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
> >>*very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
> >> of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.
> >
> >Perhaps there is concern that it will be abused in the same way alcohol 
> >is abused - smoking an driving for example. This society rarely 
> >demonstrates an impressive level of maturity so it is not out of line to 
> >expect problems with legalizing it.
> 
> Perhaps that's so... are you advocating that an honest, trustworthy government
> is one that legislates morality and maturity?  By whose standards?

Probably the same ones we use to decide that murder and a host of other 
things are immoral.
 
> You fail to see that this stuff has been widespread in our modern culture for 50
> years now... partly *because* of prohibtion.

No I don't fail to see at all. It just isn't particularly relevant to 
me. You might want to try not assuming that your own personal beliefs 
and values are universally important to others.
   
> >> Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
> >> property and process by fraud and graft?
> >
> >Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
> >without legalized weed.
> 
> An honest government would never have made the weed illegal in the first place.

Perhaps you are right. I don't think that is necessarily so. But even if 
it were you cannot hold the present responsible for the past. And you 
have admitted that there may be potential for abuse so an honest 
government could quite easily resist legalization and still be honest.

 
> Read your real world history and take the blinders off.   The first 30 years of

Stop being so arrogant and self-centred.

> the campaign to make America pot-free were almost nothing but lies and had
> nothing whatever to do with governing a nation, and they were a dismal failure
> because a great many people knew it... and the following 40 years weren't much
> of an improvement.
> 
> Are you aware that the US-DEA's own legal advisor quite a while ago (advice
> which they ignored) said that marijuana is a nearly harmless and medically
> useful product, and it should be decriminalized?

But I thought we were in thrall to the US government. Shouldn't we 
already have snapped to, saluted the flag and implemented his 
recommendations by now if that were true?

In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
says...
> During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were needed for rope production, war runs on 
> rope.
> 
> 
Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.

In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
says...
> > Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
> > without legalized weed.
> > 
> 
> Obviously there is a whole range of choices.
  
The apostle doesn't seem to think so... if he is representative of the 
legalization movement then that is worrisome.

In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
says...
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> > says...
> > > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were needed for rope production, war runs on 
> > > rope.
> > > 
> > > 
> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
> And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope. In WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was 
> valuable.
> 
 
I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.

In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>says...
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
>> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>> > says...
>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were needed
>>for rope production, war runs on
>> > > rope.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope. In
>>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
>> valuable.
>> 
> 
>I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.

Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the most
part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...

... which makes oil all the more important, geopolitically speaking.   That was
a great part of the intent of the reasoning behind prohibitions on hemp.  Keep
the world utterly dependent on oil for as many things as possible, and oil
pretty much rules the world.

Prohibition of hemp as "marijuana" was merely a ruse to make overwhelming public
acceptance of the necessary legislation a fait accompli.

It was imposed a little early, is all.   By the time the Korean war was in full
swing, the petrocham industry had worked most of the bugs out of synthetic rope
production... but in WWII, hemp was still king, and US law had to be very
skillfully fudged in order to keep hemp rope production in full swing until
petrochem products caught up.
--
P

In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >says...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >> > says...
> >>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were needed
> >>for rope production, war runs on
> >> > > rope.
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
> >>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope. In
> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
> >> valuable.
> >> 
> > 
> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
> 
> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
> just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the most
> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...

Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought 
came from... 

In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> >
>> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>> >says...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>> >> > says...
>>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were
>>needed
>> >>for rope production, war runs on
>> >> > > rope.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
>>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope. In
>> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
>> >> valuable.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
>> 
>> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
>>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the most
>> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
>> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
>
>Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought 
>came from... 

Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you to
find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me that your
statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.
--
P

Petroleum, like hemp, will replenish fully if allowed the correct amount of
time, it just seems that hemp has a slightly higher regeneration rate =)

bp

Pansy <nospam@mybox.org> wrote in message news:afj67i0s95@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr
says...
> >
> >In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr
says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
> >> >says...
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
> >> >> > says...
> >>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they
were
> >>needed
> >> >>for rope production, war runs on
> >> >> > > rope.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
> >>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with
rope. In
> >> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
> >> >> valuable.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
> >>
> >> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is
still
> >>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for
the most
> >> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as
there's
> >> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
> >
> >Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought
> >came from...
>
> Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you
to
> find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me
that your
> statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.
> --
> P
>

In article <1x9T8.92306$s82.6845700@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, "BigPenguin" says...
>
>Petroleum, like hemp, will replenish fully if allowed the correct amount of
>time, it just seems that hemp has a slightly higher regeneration rate =)
>
>bp

<snicker>  Gee, that's twice in a row I've misspoken. <giggle>  Gotta learn to
be more specific.  <guffaw>

Hell, hemp can even *become* petroleum if you give it the right conditions and
allow it enough time.

BWAAAAAAAhahahahahahhahahahahhahahhhh..... <thud>
--
P

>Pansy <nospam@mybox.org> wrote in message news:afj67i0s95@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>> >>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr
>says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
>> >> >says...
>> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
>> >> >> > says...
>> >>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they
>were
>> >>needed
>> >> >>for rope production, war runs on
>> >> >> > > rope.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
>> >>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with
>rope. In
>> >> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
>> >> >> valuable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
>> >>
>> >> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is
>still
>> >>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for
>the most
>> >> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as
>there's
>> >> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
>> >
>> >Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought
>> >came from...
>>
>> Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you
>to
>> find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me
>that your
>> statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.
>> --
>> P
>>
>
>

In article <afj67i0s95@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >> >says...
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >> >> > says...
> >>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were
> >>needed
> >> >>for rope production, war runs on
> >> >> > > rope.
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
> >>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope. In
> >> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
> >> >> valuable.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
> >> 
> >> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
> >>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the most
> >> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
> >> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
> >
> >Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought 
> >came from... 
> 
> Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you to
> find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me that your
> statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.

Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want, 
however that's not relevant to the comment I made. I assumed that it was 
self-evident that volume has nothing to do with whether it is  renewable 
resource. As for the difference between vegetable oil and petroleum... 
how long do you think it will be before natural gas and petroleum can be 
produced from genetically modified plants? Not long I would say. I'd be 
willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.

In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afj67i0s95@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> >
>> >In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>>>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>> >> >says...
>> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
>> >> >> > says...
>> >>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were
>> >>needed
>> >> >>for rope production, war runs on
>> >> >> > > rope.
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > > 
>> >> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
>>>>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope.
>>In
>> >> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
>> >> >> valuable.
>> >> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
>> >> 
>>>> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
>>>>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the
>>most
>>>> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
>> >> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
>> >
>> >Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought 
>> >came from... 
>> 
>> Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you to
>>find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me that your
>> statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.
>
>Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
>certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,

Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
 
>however that's not relevant to the comment I made. I assumed that it was 
>self-evident that volume has nothing to do with whether it is  renewable 
>resource. As for the difference between vegetable oil and petroleum... 
>how long do you think it will be before natural gas and petroleum can be 
>produced from genetically modified plants? Not long I would say. 

Right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.   We'll have trees that grow lemon-drops and
gold bullion, too.  Are you sure you haven't been smoking some of that old rope?

> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.

Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move human
settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.

What's your point, and what does it have to do with the prohibition on hemp?
--
P

In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afj67i0s95@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.1786811b914e8377989e2e@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <afikiu02ma5@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>>>In article <MPG.1785a097ae734f04989e2a@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In article <1103_1025243790@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >> >> >says...
> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:01:34 GMT, tnr <tnr@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com 
> >> >> >> > says...
> >> >>>>> > During world war two some hemp farmers were not drafted as they were
> >> >>needed
> >> >> >>for rope production, war runs on
> >> >> >> > > rope.
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > Gee the current wars seem to run on explosives and bullets.
> >>>>>>And to get the bombs and bullets anywhere they were moved around with rope.
> >>In
> >> >> >>WW11 there were not as many synthetics, and hemp rope was
> >> >> >> valuable.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >I have no roblem believing that rope was important in 1940.
> >> >> 
> >>>> Good.   It shouldn't be much of a stretch then, to believe that rope is still
> >>>>just about as important.  We have lots of synthetics now, oil-based for the
> >>most
> >>>> part, which can substitute for hemp (which is renewable,) as long as there's
> >> >> access to oil (which is *not* renewable)...
> >> >
> >> >Really? Not renewable? Hmmm I wonder where that olive oil I just bought 
> >> >came from... 
> >> 
> >> Sorry... I did mean petroleum, and I thought it self-evident.   I defy you to
> >>find me many millions of barrels of olive oil per day and thus show me that your
> >> statement above isn't simply idiocy for the sake of argument.
> >
> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
> 
> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  

Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.
  
> >however that's not relevant to the comment I made. I assumed that it was 
> >self-evident that volume has nothing to do with whether it is  renewable 
> >resource. As for the difference between vegetable oil and petroleum... 
> >how long do you think it will be before natural gas and petroleum can be 
> >produced from genetically modified plants? Not long I would say. 
> 
> Right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.   We'll have trees that grow lemon-drops and
> gold bullion, too.  Are you sure you haven't been smoking some of that old rope?

You should study some more science.
 
> > I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.
> 
> Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
Yes.

> we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move human
> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.

Ahhh you're a global warmer.
 
> What's your point, and what does it have to do with the prohibition on hemp?

My point? You're kidding right? Somebody mentioned that synthetics 
weren't a god substitute rope material because they required the use of 
petroleum, apparently this was a negative factor in the use of 
synthetics because petroleum was claimed to be non-renewable and now 
because of global warming. Hmmmm, that was you. I think my point was 
pretty clear: "petroleum is unlikely to be non-renewable in the long 
term".

In article <MPG.17883d872b43c11a989e3c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...

(about replacing petroleum with olive or other vegetable oil)

>> >
>> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
>> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
>> 
>> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
>
>Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.

Insight?  You proposed the necessity, I didn't.   Try it on for size.

Can you just for a moment consider the amount of land required to produce
oil-producing crops enough to supply the synthetic rope of the world?  Can you
please consider the number of human beings you'd have to eliminate in order to
free that land from food production?

Good.

Now compare that with the amount of land needed for direct hemp fibre
production.
  
>>Right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.   We'll have trees that grow lemon-drops and
>>gold bullion, too.  Are you sure you haven't been smoking some of that old rope?
>
>You should study some more science.

I was referring sarcastically to the problem of land-use elaborated above.  
Sure, it's quite possible that plants can be manipulated to directly produce
what are now petroleum extracts and synthetics... but is there enough arable
space on which to grow them?  Not unless the same plants can be found which both
feed humanity and produce its petrochemicals.

i.e.:  it's not remotely practical, so forget it.

 
>>> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.
>
>>Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
>Yes.
>
>>we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move human
>> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.
>
>Ahhh you're a global warmer.

Huh?  I'm just stating a fact.  That doesn't mean I think it's the way things
ought to be... I just don't believe humanity's leaders, as a group, will see to
it that we abandon the use of the stuff until it threatens their own death (or
perhaps their bankruptcy.)

>> What's your point, and what does it have to do with the prohibition on hemp?
>
>My point? You're kidding right? Somebody mentioned that synthetics 
>weren't a god substitute rope material because they required the use of 
>petroleum, apparently this was a negative factor in the use of 
>synthetics because petroleum was claimed to be non-renewable and now 
>because of global warming. Hmmmm, that was you. 

It is non-renewable in the sense that there isn't time to replenish the supply
once it's gone... this merely assumes that we could somehow mitigate or learn to
live with the effects of its continued use until it runs out.  I don't claim
anywhere that the facts as we know them bear this assumption out.

The presence and increasing rate of global warming is one reason I believe that
the facts *don't* bear that assumption out.   I don't think there's enough time
to find the means properly to adapt or mitigate.

That time *might* be found if we stopped depending on so much petrochemical
stuff for which perfectly good short-term renewables could substitute well.

More science?  Hemp fibre is carbon removed from the atmosphere only weeks
ago... nylon/polypropylene/rayon/polyester fibre is carbon removed from the air
before our species evolved, and from the re-introduction of which our atmosphere
might well become the most potent and persistent enemy our species has ever
faced.

>I think my point was 
>pretty clear: "petroleum is unlikely to be non-renewable in the long 
>term".

In the strictest practical sense, you're absolutely right: our continued use of
it will wipe us from the face of the earth before we run out of places to find
and gather it.
--
P

In article <afo2dd01jtp@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.17883d872b43c11a989e3c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> 
> (about replacing petroleum with olive or other vegetable oil)
> 
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
> >> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
> >> 
> >> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
> >
> >Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.
> 
> Insight?  You proposed the necessity, I didn't.   Try it on for size.

Mmmm? What "necessity" exactly did I propose? 

> Can you just for a moment consider the amount of land required to produce
> oil-producing crops enough to supply the synthetic rope of the world?  Can you
> please consider the number of human beings you'd have to eliminate in order to
> free that land from food production?

Already done that.
 
> Good.

Thanks.
 
> Now compare that with the amount of land needed for direct hemp fibre
> production.

OK.
   
> >>Right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.   We'll have trees that grow lemon-drops and
> >>gold bullion, too.  Are you sure you haven't been smoking some of that old rope?
> >
> >You should study some more science.
> 
> I was referring sarcastically to the problem of land-use elaborated above.  

Then you haven't studied enough science.

> Sure, it's quite possible that plants can be manipulated to directly produce
> what are now petroleum extracts and synthetics... but is there enough arable
> space on which to grow them?  Not unless the same plants can be found which both
> feed humanity and produce its petrochemicals.

Excuse me but you are claiming there is enough land for hemp production 
so your real claim is this: no amount of selective breeding, gene 
tinkering, splicing, etc. will ever produce a plant that can make as 
much synthetic rope (would it still be synthetic?) per acre planted as 
hemp would make natural rope [per acre planted]. This is a very extreme 
claim for you to be making. What knowledge do you have that leads you to 
put forward such a proposition?
 
> i.e.:  it's not remotely practical, so forget it.

Did you know that Man was never meant to fly and that the earth is the 
centre of rotation for the solar system?
 
>  
> >>> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.
> >
> >>Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
> >Yes.
> >
> >>we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move human
> >> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.
> >
> >Ahhh you're a global warmer.
> 
> Huh?  I'm just stating a fact.  That doesn't mean I think it's the way things

Whose fact?

> ought to be... I just don't believe humanity's leaders, as a group, will see to
> it that we abandon the use of the stuff until it threatens their own death (or
> perhaps their bankruptcy.)
> 
> >> What's your point, and what does it have to do with the prohibition on hemp?
> >
> >My point? You're kidding right? Somebody mentioned that synthetics 
> >weren't a god substitute rope material because they required the use of 
> >petroleum, apparently this was a negative factor in the use of 
> >synthetics because petroleum was claimed to be non-renewable and now 
> >because of global warming. Hmmmm, that was you. 
> 
> It is non-renewable in the sense that there isn't time to replenish the supply
> once it's gone... this merely assumes that we could somehow mitigate or learn to

According to you. What is your background in synthetic petroleum 
production?

> live with the effects of its continued use until it runs out.  I don't claim
> anywhere that the facts as we know them bear this assumption out.
> 
> The presence and increasing rate of global warming is one reason I believe that
> the facts *don't* bear that assumption out.   I don't think there's enough time
> to find the means properly to adapt or mitigate.
> 
> That time *might* be found if we stopped depending on so much petrochemical
> stuff for which perfectly good short-term renewables could substitute well.
> 
> More science?  Hemp fibre is carbon removed from the atmosphere only weeks

More? So far you haven't preented any science.

> ago... nylon/polypropylene/rayon/polyester fibre is carbon removed from the air
> before our species evolved, and from the re-introduction of which our atmosphere

That's amazing! How do the hempplants know to only take carbon from the 
atmosphere that has been recently introduced?

> might well become the most potent and persistent enemy our species has ever
> faced.
> 
> >I think my point was 
> >pretty clear: "petroleum is unlikely to be non-renewable in the long 
> >term".
> 
> In the strictest practical sense, you're absolutely right: our continued use of
> it will wipe us from the face of the earth before we run out of places to find
> and gather it.

Or we'll find cheap ways to make it or make directly the end products 
for which we now use petroleum.

In article <MPG.178963beb7fdc62f989e40@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>
>In article <afo2dd01jtp@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>In article <MPG.17883d872b43c11a989e3c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> >
>> >In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
>>>>In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
>> 
>> (about replacing petroleum with olive or other vegetable oil)
>> 
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
>> >> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
>> >> 
>> >> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
>> >
>> >Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.
>> 
>> Insight?  You proposed the necessity, I didn't.   Try it on for size.
>
>Mmmm? What "necessity" exactly did I propose? 

Sorry... the screen was getting too cluttered and I cut that part rather than
editing out all the quote-markings.

And by the way, I've grown to like your style... I don't agree with you, but you
make me think rather than just telling me I'm an idiot.   It shows a respect I
didn't expect from you and I owe you the same.   I've been condescending and
even insulting about my disagreement with you sometimes, and I owe you an
apology for that.

Consider the apology offered.

What you proposed was the necessity for applying some insight.

>> Sure, it's quite possible that plants can be manipulated to directly produce
>> what are now petroleum extracts and synthetics... but is there enough arable
>>space on which to grow them?  Not unless the same plants can be found which both
>> feed humanity and produce its petrochemicals.
>
>Excuse me but you are claiming there is enough land for hemp production 
>so your real claim is this: no amount of selective breeding, gene 
>tinkering, splicing, etc. will ever produce a plant that can make as 
>much synthetic rope (would it still be synthetic?) per acre planted as 
>hemp would make natural rope [per acre planted]. This is a very extreme 
>claim for you to be making. What knowledge do you have that leads you to 
>put forward such a proposition?

I ought to flesh it out then, since you've mistaken what I meant.

The claim I make is this: because the bulk of the non-water mass of a hemp plant
is fibre useful for the production of rope, fabric... whatever, there are lots
of uses for the sort of fibre that comes from the various varieties of hemp;

because in order to be competitive with petroleum, such plants would either have
to be harvested to produce more petrochemical-fibre-value than the fibre/mass
ratio of a hemp plant or excrete such product while remaining alive long enough
to outproduce hemp, *and* would have to consume less land resources that the
pumping of oil/gas does;

because I think it very unlikely that genetic research (and I am an optomist on
that front) can produce plants as cost-effective on a fiber-for-land basis in
the short time necessary for the world to switch to those sources before direct
petrochemical fibre manufacture's contribution ends with the destruction of the
planet's human habitability;

I think the pursuit of having plants take over the manufacture of what are now
"petrochemicals" in the current sense of the word is a pipe-dream.

Does that clarify it sufficiently?

>> i.e.:  it's not remotely practical, so forget it.
>
>Did you know that Man was never meant to fly and that the earth is the 
>centre of rotation for the solar system?

I didn't know the first part.  It's obviously not something deduced from man's
inherent capability, since he plainly *can* fly.  It's true that he needs to
create mechanical means to help him to do that, but he's inherently capable to
do so, or he wouldn't have managed it.  I'd like you to show me that he wasn't
meant to, if you have (or your country's economy has) the time and the
resources.

The second part is a deduction made from fairly elemetary physics and concluded
from observations that bear out the reasoning.  If I hadn't already learned it,
I could easily be shown the truth of that.

Back to oil...

>>>>> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original
>>stuff.
>> >
>>>>Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
>> >Yes.
>> >
>>>>we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move
>>human
>> >> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.
>> >
>> >Ahhh you're a global warmer.
>> 
>> Huh?  I'm just stating a fact.  That doesn't mean I think it's the way things
>
>Whose fact?

Mine.  I said what I believe (or rather, what I'm willing to bet on,) about what
will happen in consequence of the likely behaviour of humanity's leaders... and
my belief is a fact.

I might be wrong - I most devoutly *hope* I'm wrong - but it's fact that I
believe what I said.

>>It is non-renewable in the sense that there isn't time to replenish the supply
>>once it's gone... this merely assumes that we could somehow mitigate or learn to
>
>According to you. What is your background in synthetic petroleum 
>production?

I have none.   Few people have any.  If it were practical and economical at
present, I'd like to think it would already be happening (or at least proposed
in earnest) on a massive scale... but it isn't, and I believe there are a
variety of reasons for that - not least among which is the possibility that it
would wreck the established petroleum production industry.

Before you ask: the petroleum production industry already has a huge
technological, financial and material investment in doing things more or less as
they are done now... and that investment is partly destroyed and hugely
disrupted if they are forced into the radical change that your idea represents.

You're suggesting a cultural change, a political change, a power-structure
change and a sweeping change of technological thought, all in one go.

It ain't gonna happen, because humans don't work that way.  Not in the world I
grew up in, they don't.

>> live with the effects of its continued use until it runs out.  I don't claim
>> anywhere that the facts as we know them bear this assumption out.
>> 
>>The presence and increasing rate of global warming is one reason I believe that
>>the facts *don't* bear that assumption out.   I don't think there's enough time
>> to find the means properly to adapt or mitigate.
>> 
>> That time *might* be found if we stopped depending on so much petrochemical
>> stuff for which perfectly good short-term renewables could substitute well.
>> 
>> More science?  Hemp fibre is carbon removed from the atmosphere only weeks
>
>More? So far you haven't preented any science.
>
>>ago... nylon/polypropylene/rayon/polyester fibre is carbon removed from the air
>>before our species evolved, and from the re-introduction of which our atmosphere
>
>That's amazing! How do the hempplants know to only take carbon from the 
>atmosphere that has been recently introduced?

You're being silly, I hope.   The fact that a hemp plant was recently alive
means that only recently, it was removing carbon from the air... and thus that
the carbon it contains is carbon currently in circulation in the biosphere.

What I said (or what I intended you to infer, using a bit of insight,) was this:

When you use hemp fibre, you are using currently-circulating carbon stores only
set aside for the short term, and when that fibre rots, it returns that carbon
to circulation... the net result on current carbon circulation is zero.

When you use petrochemical fibres, that presupposes that you have already
brought petroleum out of the ground... carbon that was taken out of circulation
millions of years before our species came to be, in an era when life was adapted
to a *far* more carbon-rich air supply than we evolved to... and you are placing
(barring total recycling) a good deal of that carbon back into circulation in
tha atmosphere.   We bury them or toss them into the sea or *burn* them when
we're done with them... in large part, they degrade one way or another into
atmospheric carbon... and that part that does so turns mostly into CO2: into
*the* primary greenhouse gas.

Every milligram of that fibre re-contributes carbon whose removal *created* the
current biosphere.

Beginning to see a problem with this stuff yet?

>>In the strictest practical sense, you're absolutely right: our continued use of
>>it will wipe us from the face of the earth before we run out of places to find
>> and gather it.
>
>Or we'll find cheap ways to make it or make directly the end products 
>for which we now use petroleum.

I'd like to believe your alternative is likely to come to pass... but I don't.

There are too many greedy, short-sighted and even stupid people in charge of the
world's "means of production" to make it possible, I'm afraid.

It's the same sort of people nearly 3/4 of a century ago who outlawed hemp
because of its threat to their industries, remember?
--
P

"Apostle" <Apostle@TheKingdomOfGod.com> wrote in message news:<7RmS8.73920$s82.6208492@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> "Albino Protoplasm" <you@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
> news:FG4S8.69567$s82.5923885@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> > >
> > >
> > >>You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> > >>Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't
>  connected to
> > >>outright illicit activity.
> > >
> > >You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> >
> > actually he is involved in mail fraud, and Turmel is no prince either.
> >
> Who is?

JCT: "Turmel is no prince either," is a cheap slur.
They called the last raid on my "Project Robin Hood." 
Just because Emery's no prince is no call to assume I'm like him.

In article <afok8f02nbt@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.178963beb7fdc62f989e40@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afo2dd01jtp@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.17883d872b43c11a989e3c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>>>In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> 
> >> (about replacing petroleum with olive or other vegetable oil)
> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
> >> >> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
> >> >> 
> >> >> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
> >> >
> >> >Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.
> >> 
> >> Insight?  You proposed the necessity, I didn't.   Try it on for size.
> >
> >Mmmm? What "necessity" exactly did I propose? 
> 
> Sorry... the screen was getting too cluttered and I cut that part rather than
> editing out all the quote-markings.
> 
> And by the way, I've grown to like your style... I don't agree with you, but you
> make me think rather than just telling me I'm an idiot.   It shows a respect I
> didn't expect from you and I owe you the same.   I've been condescending and
> even insulting about my disagreement with you sometimes, and I owe you an
> apology for that.
> 
> Consider the apology offered.

That is very gracious of you - thank you. Yes I understand and that kind 
of loud flailing usually happens on both sides of a question. For 
example there is one person in this thread who very clearly does not 
understand the implications of the political theory underlying his 
statements. You can't converse effectively with someone like that 
because they simply don't understand what they are saying let alone what 
you are saying in return so they substitute anger and invective. My 
major motivation in sticking my nose into most threads is simply to try 
to get people to examine their beliefs a little more critically, or from 
a different perspective. Noramlly that gets me labelled Left Wing, Right 
Wing, Homophobe, Religious nut, Godless aetheist and so on. You are the 
first person in a long time to recognize the actual intent and pattern. 
:-)

 
> What you proposed was the necessity for applying some insight.
> 
> >> Sure, it's quite possible that plants can be manipulated to directly produce
> >> what are now petroleum extracts and synthetics... but is there enough arable
> >>space on which to grow them?  Not unless the same plants can be found which both
> >> feed humanity and produce its petrochemicals.
> >
> >Excuse me but you are claiming there is enough land for hemp production 
> >so your real claim is this: no amount of selective breeding, gene 
> >tinkering, splicing, etc. will ever produce a plant that can make as 
> >much synthetic rope (would it still be synthetic?) per acre planted as 
> >hemp would make natural rope [per acre planted]. This is a very extreme 
> >claim for you to be making. What knowledge do you have that leads you to 
> >put forward such a proposition?
> 
> I ought to flesh it out then, since you've mistaken what I meant.
> 
> The claim I make is this: because the bulk of the non-water mass of a hemp plant
> is fibre useful for the production of rope, fabric... whatever, there are lots
> of uses for the sort of fibre that comes from the various varieties of hemp;

Mmmm... if I reword that in what ought to be a logically equivalent 
manner I get: there are lots of uses for the sort of fibre that comes 
from hemp because the bulk of the non-water mass of a hemp plant is 
fibre useful for the production of rope, fabric... whatever. Which seems 
tautalogical in nature.

> because in order to be competitive with petroleum, such plants would either have
> to be harvested to produce more petrochemical-fibre-value than the fibre/mass
> ratio of a hemp plant or excrete such product while remaining alive long enough
> to outproduce hemp, *and* would have to consume less land resources that the
> pumping of oil/gas does;

Mmmmm I don't see why it would have to consume less land resources than 
pumping oil/gas. As long as the total production cost (and that could 
include processing to final product, pollution, human cost etc.) is 
cheaper then it would be competitive.

It seems to me the comparisons are:

1. is the hemp product cheaper than the equivalent oil product
2. is the hemp product cheaper than the equivalent bio-engineered 
product
3. is the equivalent bio engineered product cheaper than the equivalent 
oil product


> because I think it very unlikely that genetic research (and I am an optomist on
> that front) can produce plants as cost-effective on a fiber-for-land basis in
> the short time necessary for the world to switch to those sources before direct
> petrochemical fibre manufacture's contribution ends with the destruction of the
> planet's human habitability;

Knowledge has been said to increase cubically as a function of time. I 
am quite a bit more optimistic than you I think. That we can grow human 
ears on the bodies of mice, take cells and convert them to stem cells 
and then guide them into compeltely different kinds of cells than 
originally, that we can make bucky balls and bnucky tubes and on and on 
I think we are on the cusp of attaining staggering capabilities.

 
> I think the pursuit of having plants take over the manufacture of what are now
> "petrochemicals" in the current sense of the word is a pipe-dream.

Obviously I disagree.
 
> Does that clarify it sufficiently?

Well I'm not sure I see any differene between what you are saying now 
and what I had said I thought you were saying ("> >Excuse me but you are 
claiming there is enough land for hemp production... ") other than that 
I was limiting it to the production of rope as a sort of generic standin 
for hep products. Your claim still seems to reduce to: we can't engineer 
anything better than hemp. Which is as I said before an extreme claim.

 
> >> i.e.:  it's not remotely practical, so forget it.
> >
> >Did you know that Man was never meant to fly and that the earth is the 
> >centre of rotation for the solar system?
> 
> I didn't know the first part.  It's obviously not something deduced from man's
> inherent capability, since he plainly *can* fly.  It's true that he needs to

But a century or so ago he couldn't and people thought "that's the way 
nature intended it"... it's the usual example for people who 
underestimate science.

> create mechanical means to help him to do that, but he's inherently capable to
> do so, or he wouldn't have managed it.  I'd like you to show me that he wasn't
> meant to, if you have (or your country's economy has) the time and the
> resources.
> 
> The second part is a deduction made from fairly elemetary physics and concluded
> from observations that bear out the reasoning.  If I hadn't already learned it,
> I could easily be shown the truth of that.

Mmmm actually you couldn't... the Earth is not the centre of rotation 
for the solar system. Religions believed that for many centuries, and it 
was physically dangerous to contradict them with little things like 
physics and math, but were eventually proven wrong.
 
> Back to oil...
> 
> >>>>> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original
> >>stuff.
> >> >
> >>>>Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
> >> >Yes.
> >> >
> >>>>we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move
> >>human
> >> >> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.
> >> >
> >> >Ahhh you're a global warmer.
> >> 
> >> Huh?  I'm just stating a fact.  That doesn't mean I think it's the way things
> >
> >Whose fact?
> 
> Mine.  I said what I believe (or rather, what I'm willing to bet on,) about what
> will happen in consequence of the likely behaviour of humanity's leaders... and
> my belief is a fact.

Ummmm no, your belief is your opinion. That you believe it is a fact but 
that does not make your opinion fact.
 
> I might be wrong - I most devoutly *hope* I'm wrong - but it's fact that I
> believe what I said.

Not exactly the normal use of the word. It is rarely challenged that 
some one is not presenting their true beliefs. But whether or not there 
is a significant long term rise in sea level is not fact - at least as 
far as I know.
 
> >>It is non-renewable in the sense that there isn't time to replenish the supply
> >>once it's gone... this merely assumes that we could somehow mitigate or learn to
> >
> >According to you. What is your background in synthetic petroleum 
> >production?
> 
> I have none.   Few people have any.  If it were practical and economical at

Then you really don't know if it is a non-renewable resource or not.

> present, I'd like to think it would already be happening (or at least proposed
> in earnest) on a massive scale... but it isn't, and I believe there are a
> variety of reasons for that - not least among which is the possibility that it
> would wreck the established petroleum production industry.

That is very possibly so. Also gas is cheap in the US and Canada. WE 
might see a lot more interest in alternatives if the price were closer 
to that in Europe.
 
> Before you ask: the petroleum production industry already has a huge
> technological, financial and material investment in doing things more or less as
> they are done now... and that investment is partly destroyed and hugely
> disrupted if they are forced into the radical change that your idea represents.

Only if they don't et to controil the new technology. It would't 
surprise me at all if those companies had huge research efforts underway 
to be the first to develop and patent alternative technologies.
 
> You're suggesting a cultural change, a political change, a power-structure
> change and a sweeping change of technological thought, all in one go.

You got me - I think big ;-) Not necessarily all in one go though.
 
> It ain't gonna happen, because humans don't work that way.  Not in the world I
> grew up in, they don't.

Larger cultural changes can happen in the blink of an eye. Look at China 
throughout the 20th century or the fall of the Soviet Union for example.
 
> >> live with the effects of its continued use until it runs out.  I don't claim
> >> anywhere that the facts as we know them bear this assumption out.
> >> 
> >>The presence and increasing rate of global warming is one reason I believe that
> >>the facts *don't* bear that assumption out.   I don't think there's enough time
> >> to find the means properly to adapt or mitigate.
> >> 
> >> That time *might* be found if we stopped depending on so much petrochemical
> >> stuff for which perfectly good short-term renewables could substitute well.
> >> 
> >> More science?  Hemp fibre is carbon removed from the atmosphere only weeks
> >
> >More? So far you haven't preented any science.

And while not wanting to be unnecessarily abrasive you still haven't.

> >>ago... nylon/polypropylene/rayon/polyester fibre is carbon removed from the air
> >>before our species evolved, and from the re-introduction of which our atmosphere
> >
> >That's amazing! How do the hempplants know to only take carbon from the 
> >atmosphere that has been recently introduced?
> 
> You're being silly, I hope.   The fact that a hemp plant was recently alive
> means that only recently, it was removing carbon from the air... and thus that
> the carbon it contains is carbon currently in circulation in the biosphere.

Yes I was.
 
> What I said (or what I intended you to infer, using a bit of insight,) was this:
> 
> When you use hemp fibre, you are using currently-circulating carbon stores only
> set aside for the short term, and when that fibre rots, it returns that carbon
> to circulation... the net result on current carbon circulation is zero.
> 
> When you use petrochemical fibres, that presupposes that you have already
> brought petroleum out of the ground... carbon that was taken out of circulation
> millions of years before our species came to be, in an era when life was adapted
> to a *far* more carbon-rich air supply than we evolved to... and you are placing
> (barring total recycling) a good deal of that carbon back into circulation in
> tha atmosphere.   We bury them or toss them into the sea or *burn* them when
> we're done with them... in large part, they degrade one way or another into
> atmospheric carbon... and that part that does so turns mostly into CO2: into
> *the* primary greenhouse gas.
> 
> Every milligram of that fibre re-contributes carbon whose removal *created* the
> current biosphere.
> 
> Beginning to see a problem with this stuff yet?

Only until you find a way to efficiently add oxygen and hydrogen to that 
atmosphereic carbon at which point you have turned that old carbon into 
food.
 
> >>In the strictest practical sense, you're absolutely right: our continued use of
> >>it will wipe us from the face of the earth before we run out of places to find
> >> and gather it.
> >
> >Or we'll find cheap ways to make it or make directly the end products 
> >for which we now use petroleum.
> 
> I'd like to believe your alternative is likely to come to pass... but I don't.
> 
> There are too many greedy, short-sighted and even stupid people in charge of the
> world's "means of production" to make it possible, I'm afraid.
> 
> It's the same sort of people nearly 3/4 of a century ago who outlawed hemp
> because of its threat to their industries, remember?

A sensible move at the time though. A lot of things that were reasonably 
practical to do back then become unpractical when you iuncrease the 
population by an order of magnitude. My preferred solution, or partial 
solution, to the petroleum problem is to reduce global birth rates until 
we have a sub 500 million population.

"tnr" <tnr@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.178571bb963a4166989e27@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net...
> In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
> says...
> > > Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government
> > > without legalized weed.
> > >
> >
> > Obviously there is a whole range of choices.
>
> The apostle doesn't seem to think so... if he is representative of the
> legalization movement then that is worrisome.

Oh? perhaps if you had *any* critical thinking skills you wouldn't think so,
though they don't teach that in school so it's understandable.....

"Apostle" <Apostle@TheKingdomOfGod.com> wrote in message
news:LeFU8.18497$vp.1197334@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "tnr" <tnr@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178571bb963a4166989e27@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net...
> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
> > says...
> > > > Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government
> > > > without legalized weed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Obviously there is a whole range of choices.
> >
> > The apostle doesn't seem to think so... if he is representative of the
> > legalization movement then that is worrisome.
>
> Oh? perhaps if you had *any* critical thinking skills you wouldn't think
so,
> though they don't teach that in school so it's understandable.....
>

As long as you don't vote you'll get goatblowers who will tell you their
right and your wrong...

In article <LeFU8.18497$vp.1197334@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, 
Apostle@TheKingdomOfGod.com says...
> 
> "tnr" <tnr@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.178571bb963a4166989e27@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net...
> > In article <1103_1025223039@shawnews>, couchfulodogs*@hotmail.com
> > says...
> > > > Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government
> > > > without legalized weed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Obviously there is a whole range of choices.
> >
> > The apostle doesn't seem to think so... if he is representative of the
> > legalization movement then that is worrisome.
> 
> Oh? perhaps if you had *any* critical thinking skills you wouldn't think so,
> though they don't teach that in school so it's understandable.....

Given the fact that your own postings replete with simplistic ideas 
amply demonstrate that you don't even realize the implications therein, 
let alone that of other's postings, I'm not too worried about your 
opinions of my intellectual skills. For a while I thought it might be 
worth tolerating your juvenile behaviour, the substitution of swearing 
for analysis and so on and try to educate you a bit but it's just not 
worth it.

> > Oh? perhaps if you had *any* critical thinking skills you wouldn't think
so,
> > though they don't teach that in school so it's understandable.....
>
> Given the fact that your own postings replete with simplistic ideas
> amply demonstrate that you don't even realize the implications therein,
> let alone that of other's postings, I'm not too worried about your
> opinions of my intellectual skills. For a while I thought it might be
> worth tolerating your juvenile behaviour, the substitution of swearing
> for analysis and so on and try to educate you a bit but it's just not
> worth it.

Hmm, many people feel simplistic ideas are usually the correct ones, Physics
is certainly an example of that.


;-)