BS: Free speech, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:23 PM

"Cuban law defines "social dangerousness" as behavior contrary to "communist morality," and police use it to detain offenders before they have a chance to commit a crime.
...
The government often applies the "social dangerousness" charge in cases of public drunkenness or as a way to keep large groups of unemployed Cubans - or those simply skipping work - from congregating on city streets during business hours. It is also applied to cases of drug addiction and "anti-social behavior.""


Wrongthinking is doubleplus ungood...

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 04:02 PM

Hope they don't water board him!

Is there--that you know of--a place to send an e-mail? I'd like to register a protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:50 PM

Didn't want to start a new thread without cookie...


Jailed Cuban punk rocker to stand trial Friday

HAVANA (AP) - Cuba has ordered jailed punk rocker Gorki Aguila, an outspoken critic of Fidel Castro and the communist government, to stand trial on Friday for "social dangerousness," a charge that could carry up to four years in prison.

Authorities arrested the 39-year-old lead singer of Porno para Ricardo at his Havana home on Monday, shortly after the band had completed work on a new album. Cuban law defines "social dangerousness" as behavior contrary to "communist morality," and police use it to detain offenders before they have a chance to commit a crime.

Performing songs with angry lyrics that poke fun at or openly insult Fidel Castro and his brother Raul, who became Cuba's president in February, Porno para Ricardo is banned from official Cuban airwaves.

The government often applies the "social dangerousness" charge in cases of public drunkenness or as a way to keep large groups of unemployed Cubans - or those simply skipping work - from congregating on city streets during business hours. It is also applied to cases of drug addiction and "anti-social behavior."

But Aguila works for Cuba's film institute and was doing nothing out of the ordinary when police came and took him away, his father Luis said Wednesday.

The arrest has touched off an avalanche of criticism on blogs in Cuba and the United States. Musicians on and off the island also sent e-mails decrying the case. Aguila remains in police custody but has been well-treated and is in good spirits, his father said.

Elizardo Sanchez, head of the independent Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, released a statement Wednesday saying legal protocols should mean the trial will be held in public. He said Aguila has asked "diplomatic observers" to attend, apparently hoping they will be allowed to get a glimpse of a legal system seldom seen by foreigners in this closed society.

Sanchez's statement said that after investigating, the commission determined that "Gorki Aguila has not committed any specific crime as defined by the current criminal code."

The Cuban government has not commented.

Ciro Diaz, guitarist for the band whose name means "Porno For Ricardo" in English, said "these kinds of trials are very biased. It's difficult for someone to be absolved."

"A lawyer can do very little because there's no evidence of criminal activity presented, only what the police say," said Diaz, who plans to attend the trial.

Diaz said there were rumors months ago that the police would break up a concert and that Aguila's neighbors complained of excess noise during rehearsals.

"We've finished our new album. We don't know if this is because of that or if it could be something that's been cooking for months," Diaz said.

He said the band is working to upload its latest album to the Internet.

Aguila was arrested and sentenced to prison in 2005 on drug charges, which he denied, saying Cuban authorities entrapped him. His band accused the government at the time of trying to keep Porno para Ricardo from appearing in Habana Blues, a 2005 documentary about a flourishing underground music movement on the island.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: heric
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

wow.

I thought jobs were plentiful up there. Don't these people have any work to do?

Hypothetical: "I agree with current Catholic doctrine on homosexuality."

Pay a fine.

"Homosexuality is normal and natural."

"No, it's not."

Pay a fine?

I'm sure homophobes are not an "identifiable group." We could safely disparage them, and incite . . . , without running afoul of the law?

I suppose this councilman made his comment during official proceedings, which changes things - but still. "Inciting hatred . . . in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace" is not that ambiguous to reasonable people. (Bureaucrats are an identifiabe group so I will say no more.) sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

I don't agree with it, but here is a summary of hate provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

""Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada's Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn't enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the code exactly, and if they did it deliberately.
"In most cases, hate propaganda communicated through the internet is an offence under the Criminal Code. Amendments to the Code, made under the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, further clarify measures and offences regarding Internet hate crimes.
Section 319: Advocating Genocide.
...defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group"- persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. ... imprisonment up to 5 years, deportation.
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
...
"To contravene the Code, a person must:
-communicate statements,
-in a public place,
-incite hatred against an identifiable group,
-in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
"Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting..., statements means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures and signs or other visible representations.

Canada's Bil C-250 amended the Hate Crimes Act to include sexual orientation.

Indian leader Ahenakew was convicted for telling a reporter that Jews were a "disease," but the conviction was overturned (2002) and a new trial ordered. It is doubtful that the trial will take place.
In British Columbia, a Catholic city councilor has been ordered to pay $1000 fine because he said a homosexual's lifestyle was "not normal and not natural."

The Code, originally proposed to punish hate crimes and anti-holocaust talk, is now being applied to all sorts of statements.

The holocaust denier, 83 year-old Eric Zundel, was deported from Canada after a conviction for racism, and sentenced to five years in prison in Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:59 PM

I've said what I have to say. Since my specific point is not being addressed...except by Q, I will bow out.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:54 PM

Oh nice try, but it still doesn't change my postition on the matter. As is stating the cut and paste job, In Canada such a proceeding is evidently unremarkable...exactly

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:50 PM

Here is what this thread is actually about:


Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?

Last Updated: Friday, June 13, 2008 | 6:54 PM ET
By Neil Macdonald CBC News

The bookshop across the street from my office here in Washington is once again offering America Alone, Mark Steyn's 2006 polemic about the Muslim diaspora in the West. But it now carries this splash on the cover: "Soon to be banned in Canada."

Inside the latest edition, Steyn, a conservative New Hampshire-based columnist who writes regularly for a number of Canadian publications, advises the reader: "If you're browsing this in a Canadian bookstore, you may well be holding a bona fide 'hate crime' in your hand."

That is a bit of self-promotion, of course, designed to sell even more copies of a book that is already a New York Times bestseller. It also happens to be true.

Steyn, at the moment, is effectively being tried, by a quasi-judicial panel in Vancouver, for insulting Islam. Normally, that's the sort of proceeding you'd expect to hear about in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not the West. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, in the cause of protecting minorities, asserts its right to judge and even restrict speech.

Currently, it is hearing a complaint about Steyn's book from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry is going after both Steyn and Maclean's magazine, which excerpted his book when it was published two years ago.
The complaint states that the article "discriminates against Muslims on the basis of their religion. It exposes Muslims to hatred and contempt due to their religion." Elmasry complains that Steyn's book tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad.

In Canada, such a proceeding is evidently unremarkable. With the exception of Maclean's and the National Post, the two national outlets that Steyn writes for, coverage in the Canadian media has been notably limited.

Here in the U.S, though, where freedom of expression and the public right to know is taken very seriously, it is front-page news when an organ of government — a neighbouring Western government at that — hauls a journalist before its bar to judge his writings. ...{see link in initial post for whole story}

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:37 PM

I wish to add to my 30 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM post...

Many, many more Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims at this point in the world's history than non-Muslims being killed by Muslims. But I guess that's ok. They're only Muslims, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

On the subject of the "post cited", I still fail to see what it has to do with anything I've said.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

Many, many more Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims at this point in the world's history than non-Muslims being killed by Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 03:07 PM

Please tell that to the next Muslim you encounter. It seems to be perfectly alright for you to attack Islam and it's adherents collectively ( sort if one's a terrorist, they are all to be tarred with the same brush), but when someone calls you into question all of a sudden it's something totally different. What's good for the goose is good for the gander comes immediately to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

Well, Hon. Sec., you have been here three whole days and you have the banned art of personal attack down cold. Lovely.

Hate to tell you but that niche was filled a long time ago and there is a waiting list. Try another act, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:47 PM

Muslim clerics reflect the views of their constituents. Most are moderate, and express moderate views, but Al Sadr and his Shia activists get the headlines in Iraq.

The Pushtun peoples of the 'frontier' states of Pakistan and adjacent Afganistan, primitively biblical but overlain by Muslim religion in their beliefs, feel under attack. The government in Kabul, an enclave with different beliefs, does not represent them. The government in Pakistan does not represent them.
Their young join the Taliban.

All of this has less to do with Muslim belief than it does with preservation of culture, yearning for self-rule, and anger and frustration at domination from outside.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:45 PM

I personally think that this person, pdq, is as much a racist and bigot as he/she accuses Muslims of being. That's putting it as bluntly as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:35 PM

"Jordan where tolerance for non-Muslims has dropped drastically"


Jordan ( Transjordan) was created with the provision that NO Jews were allowed to settle there. Hardly tolerant...

Please review the history of the Mandate Palestine territories, from 1921 to 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

"The Muslims in Spain sometimes had their mosque adjacent to a synagogue (Toledo, Spain)..."

Well how very nice of them Muslims.

Perhaps one could find some outrage in the fact that Islamic militants marched across much of Europe in an effort to make Islam the dominant faith

The Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal were not separated yet) was occupied for 800 years and the native people were subjugated, raped, robbed and terrorized. Outrage at historical atrocities seems to be directed at certain favored people and not at others.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:26 PM

One...more...time.

"The post cited" asserted that MOST of the free, public attempts by moderate Muslims to combat extremism happen in countries NOT populated by Muslim majorities, when what is NEEDED is for Muslim clerics WITHIN those countries to take the lead. Respected Islamic leaders must clarify to impressionable youth that the Koran does NOT guarantee paradise ..or virgins...for killing just ANY non-Muslims thru suicide.

   I further muse that moderates may not feel safe doing so in various countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria...etc.

Now...this in no way denigrates those Muslims in other countries who DO try to calm things....they just are not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:09 PM

Looking at history, the Ottomans in Constantinople-Istanbul and their empire not only tolerated but encouraged settlement by Greek Orthodox and Jewish businessmen.
The Muslims in Spain sometimes had their mosque adjacent to a synagogue (Toledo, Spain) and Jews prospered under their rule. In the diaspora when the Sephardic Jews and Muslims were expelled, many of the Jews kept their Muslim style names-- Abu-..., etc. Some of these Jews are still in Morocco, a Muslim country.
The Coptic Christians did well in Muslim Egypt.

Muslim intolerance developed slowly, building as their territories came under foreign domination, and some very peculiar land divisions were made, throwing diverse groups together (Afganistan, Iraq, etc.).
Their societies were under pressure.

The land grabs and mistreatment of Muslim (and Christian) Palestinians by the Israelis, aided by Zionist money and settlers from the United States, Canada and Europe, destabilized much of the Middle East. Lebanon, a once prosperous country, with large Christian elements, has become divided and chaotic.

Militants, angry, frustrated, and (in the case of Palestinian Muslims) dispairing of ever being free, multiplied rapidly.

Now Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, North Africa, Nigeria, China, England (as well as in Iran, Syria and Jordan where tolerance for non-Muslims has dropped drastically) are being infected.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 01:08 PM

"...there would be a hell of a lot more Jews and other non-Muslims being killed by Muslims than there are..."

Nice to see that you approve of keeping the slaughter down to a "reasonable number". How kind of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:52 PM

Any time someone characterizes an entire group on the basis of what some members of the group do or say, that person is practicing racism and bigotry him or herself.

27 percent of the world's population is a lot of people. If all Muslims (or even the majority of Muslims) were bigoted towards non-Muslims (and Jews in particular), and if the majority of Muslims were practicing violent Jihad, there would be a hell of a lot more Jews and other non-Muslims being killed by Muslims than there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:07 PM

Oh now THIS is hilarious "I stand by my contention that followers of Islam are bigots" I know of many many Christians who're exactly the same way, funny how it works out. So...get off your moral high horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:48 AM

I stand by my contention that followers of Islam are bigots. Most countries that they dominate have driven all Jews out. Last time I heard, the capital of Pakistan had two very old Jewish men who were too poor to move away. Iraq and many other Islam-dominated countries have no Jews. They would likely be killed on sight.

This trait would be easier to ignore if the Muslims were not 27% of the world's population. I would like to see all religions practiced in each and every country, if that is what the people want. Secular governments are needed, but the sad reality is that things are going the wrong way.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:08 AM

Correction to my last post. I see that I should have used the word "bigoted" rather than "racist".

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:05 AM

Speaking only for myself, I have not been calling any religious groups any names. And I don't approve of anyone else doing so, either. If I see or hear someone calling any religious groups names, I speak up about it.

We don't really know what percentage of Muslims are racist, and for anyone to suggest that the behavior of governments is an indication of how the citizens of any particular country feel, is, in itself, a bit racist. On the other hand, if we are going to call all Muslims racist because some Muslims are racist (or call all Muslims violent because some Muslims are violent), we also will have to apply that (rather racist) standard to ourselves, whoever we are and wherever we live. If there are any members of any groups to which we belong who are racists or who are violent, then that means we ourselves are racist and/or violent. If we used that standard, all people in the US would be considered racist and/or violent.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

There are close to 1.8 billion Moslems in the world, about 27 percent of the world's population. If only a majority can descriminate and only a majority can be racist, a common belief among in the US by those who belive in the Civil Rights Movement, then Muslims are bigoted against non-Moslems. So, let us all be fair and start calling them names also.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Wacky Bennett
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:24 AM

I'm afraid, CarolC, that without context, what you say doesn't make much sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 10:11 AM

Unfortunately, this is one of the times when not being able to cite a post creates confusion about what I am talking about. The "cited" post that I was obliquely referring to to in my last post can, in this particular case, be deduced from the placement of the posts. My post and the post with the cited content are the only two posts that reference Muslims on this page of the thread (page 3 if you're going front to back).


I already addressed (on 24 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM) the earlier point that has been referenced since my last post. Here is what I said when I did that...

Of course non-violent Jihad is the more common form. Jihad is a practice, not just an idea. There are close to a billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority of those people are not practicing armed or violent Jihad. If Jihad is a central tenet/practice in the Muslim faith, this means that most of the (almost) billion Muslims in the world are practicing the non-violent form of Jihad.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:01 AM

"...it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superceded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars...and by Muslim apologists..."   (D. Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 165f)

That is from Wolfgang's earlier post. You can go back to the original of 19 JUN 1:43 PM if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 11:33 PM

I see no relevance of the cited post to any of the posts that I have made on the subject of Muslims speaking out against violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 04:25 PM

I approve heartily of the effort the Imam is making and the example he is setting....in Canada.

I refer you again to my post of 19 June, 6:04PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:20 PM

Harking back to one of the topics in this thread earlier on, here's a good article about Muslims speaking out against violence...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080628/national/cda_day_imam_walking

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:52 PM

www.leftlanenews.com/video-revolutionary-water-based-power-for-cars.html


Go there!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 03:02 PM

www.leftlanenews.com/video-revolutionary-water-based-power-for-cars.html
cut and paste this video, and watch it. guess who bought the rights for this??
Also, as you may or may not know, the dollar is supposed to be de-valued, after the election(no matter who wins)..I guess the rush is on to convert liquidity into hard assets, before then, Like refineries and such, so once again, the 'little people' are once again leveraged upon, and still stuck with paying even higher yet, while many of the people cannot barely afford to put food on the table...but I guess as long as some oil shill can explain it away, SO HE CAN FEEL comfortable, I guess its ok, right???

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

I watched on the news, an oil exec 'explain' that.."what do you mean? The stock market shows an 8 gain, while the oil companies show 7%"..and no one challenged that bold face lie, and since the market fell another 1.3&, because of the cost of the oil,...and their profits. By the way, you didn't address my other issues!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:15 PM

That $143 billion the oil companies took is returned in large part to the investors- who are the ones who really own the oil companies! Most of the rest goes to maintenance and exploration.

Some 55 million Americans invest in mutual funds, most of which own oil company shares or have arms in the futures market. Some 15% of Americans have IRAs, many of which invest in oil company shares. Some 23% of individual investors have oil and gas shares. Many invest in union funds, which invest in part in oil (example, Ontario Teachers Union, which not only is widely invested in stocks and bonds but controls blocks of urban areas in Toronto, New York and elsewhere).

In other words, the majority of the industry's shareholders are average middle-class Americans.

Corporate management, on average, holds only 1.5% of the oil companies that they run. It is the votes of the shareholders who determine the policies of companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon-Mobil, and others not controlled by government.

(Saudi Aramco is the largest government-controlled operation).

If the government taxes "excess profits," who does that really hurt? The investor!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

Well, with the 5 big major oil companies posting PROFITS of $143 Billion(!) in the last quarter, of last year..how do you say it is US that is driving the cost up???....The economic stimulus package was $200 billion, ....wow, what a co-incidence again!..We are headed for a depression, as this country had before(but worse)...and a depression is not that there is no money....its just shifting into fewer hands, with the bulk going to the wealthier, and both you and I know this to be true. Leading the pack, are the oil companies...and if anyone thinks that the oil companies are more interested in THIS country, than the are about their global profit economics, they must be asleep at the wheel. The boundries that make up sovereign countries(ours included) are meaningless to international predatory 'investors'...wouldn't you say??...unless they have a military that can help them achieve their goals!...and thats about all they support us for....America, where you can rent a military, and profit while doing that too!..Its sad, truly sad, that it has gone this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

The major oil reserves in the Dakotas are tied to the Bakken Formation, the same as touted in Saskatchewan.
These oil shales need crude oil prices around $150/barrel before they become profitable to produce. That price is almost here.
Regardless of the amounts, one must be prepared for continuing high petroleum and gas prices.

The U. S. Geological Survey estimate of 400 billion barrels includes portions of the Formation that will be difficult to reach.
Estimates of this sort are always 'guesstimates.' In the Williston Basin area, an article in The Oil & Gas Journal estimates 3-4 billion bbls. recoverable; associated with the oil shales are some reservoirs with liquid hydrocarbons and gas, but nothing spectacular.

Several regions have large deposits of this type, including Australia, Venezuela, China, Colorado, Morocco, etc.

If large areas are brought into production, investor pressure on prices would weaken, but some 10 years' lead-in is needed before large volumes enter the picture.

People blame speculators for price increases in the futures market. Anyone who has savings with any interest-paying institution (banks, credit and retirement funds, etc.), or invests in mutual funds, as well as in industrial stocks and bonds- not just oil company issues or futures- will have part of that money invested in oil. In other words, we are the ones driving the prices, which are still based on supply and demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Def Shepard
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM



I am considerably well read on the mater and thus I will stick by my original post...oh, by the way, given you posting name are you Oglala or Lakota?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:13 PM

Me?..I play guitar, bass, keyboards/piano, sound engineer, arranger/composer, laser engineer, marriage and family counselor, writer(screenplay), and soundtrack for film, though at present, I'm working on a new piece of music, that tells a story vividly, using no words..(even though I wrote some, for a female vocalist, should I find one with a suitable voice) Also doing a benefit concert for a xcharitable organization, that raises financial assistance, food, medical for needy people in the community...among some other stuff...
Some one on this forum heard the piece(so far) that I was working on...seemed to knock his socks off...he posted some stuff about it on another thread(can't remember which one)..His forum name is Cecil, with a capital 'c', not the lower case....thanks1...Love to yak with other musicians..and..anything I can do to help..let me know!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:58 PM

I play autoharp & dulcimer and about 15 types of recorders and whistles...when I'm not busy keeping an eye on silliness down here below the line. (Was involved yesterday in helping document old copies of Richard Dyer-Bennet recordings)

and you?

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:45 AM

Ooops my mistake, pardon me, it was 'Q' the oil guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:26 AM

And one more question...Who and what kind of instrument or musical involvement do you all play???...('you all'..jeeez)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:22 AM

Oh, and did I mention that they have known about those deposits since the mid-fifties??? So, Bill, the oil guy, explain.......(Hint:I already know the answer)...Sorta like those pesky SUVs heatin' up that ol' ocean down south, isn't it???

P.S However, I do really think a lot of people own SUVs who don't really need them, but its a status thing, you know, people putting on airs of being 'wealthy' like those big oil company guys, and the like.

And diesel, less refining than gas....higher??

Oh well, the thread said 'free speech'...and I still haven't got started yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:12 AM

Well, I guess the oil thing was, at least addressed, Global warming thing, well, I guess we'll leave that one alone, huh?..By the way, now that they're jacking up the cost of oil, the public is turning toward drilling here, in the continental U.S.,...and being as their are deposits, in the Dakotas that rival Saudi Arabia, I wonder who will provide the drilling equipment..Halliburton??..Oh! What as complete surprise co-incidence!!..My my!! So, who gets the royalties for that??..The U.S?...we the people??....oooops, forgot to mention, the fed used it for 'collateral'. Shucks!.Missed out again!! Good thing we have great leaders looking out for us! Actually, I think we have the best politicians money can buy!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:27 AM

Amos, I think I posted at the same time you were posting your question. That dinosaurs had anything to do with oil deposits is nonsense, of course.

The immense volume of microfloras and faunas make them the main source, supplemented by degrading plant material (not as rich a source of protohydrocarbons, however). Every other living thing buried in the sediments is minimal in its contribution.

(This thread has gone in several directions- free speech, eh?)


(Hmmm, now what asylum did guest from... escape from? Trolls are not being properly locked up lately)

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:22 AM

D'jour? Merde, ca nous avons renseigne depuis plus que quarante ans!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:15 AM

It's the theory d'jour

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:59 PM

Q:

Off hand, do you have a likely explanation for the wide-spread concept that deposits of oil are the remains of actual dinosaurs? It is silly on the face of it, but it has been part of the mythology since before my time and I recall being fed it as a child (the story, not the hydrocarbons).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech, eh?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:53 PM

Bill D is close to correct.

The microfloras and microfaunas, plus degraded plant material, are the main sources of the organic matter in the sediments. Rapid burial of organic-rich sediments, avoiding oxidation of these materials, and with the right temperature-time relationships following burial, hydrocarbons are formed. If there is sufficient pressure to move the hydrocarbons to adjacent porous sediments (hopefully connected to the source bed), these porous sediments (the reservoir) may contain sufficient volumes of hydrocarbons to make production possible.

If temperatures and pressures have been insufficient to convert the hydrocarbons to a liquid stage and express them to porous sediments, and the organic matter or proto-hydrocarbon is very abundant, the proto-hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons remain in or close to the source; one then may have reserves in oil sands or oil shales.

If temperatures and pressures become very high, the liquid hydrocarbons may be lost, but often dry gas is formed and preserved.
Areas near mountain building, or buried very deeply, are most likely to lose their liquid hydrocarbons.

Those of us who have worked in petroleum research and exploration are very familiar with these processes, which must be taken into account when looking for possible new oil areas.