Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.electronics > #32511 > unrolled thread
| Started by | F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-09 21:52 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-15 11:14 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 390 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.electronics
SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 03:31 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 07:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 15:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 19:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 20:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 21:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 21:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies pedro <me@privacy.net> - 2017-02-12 09:28 +0800
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 21:54 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 07:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:49 +1300
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 17:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 17:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 19:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 20:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 03:12 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 05:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:25 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 09:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 15:01 -0800
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 14:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 19:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-12 04:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 09:38 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 11:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 12:09 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 13:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 14:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 15:08 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-13 18:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 18:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-13 19:41 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-13 20:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 21:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-13 22:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:25 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 06:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 11:54 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 12:27 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 14:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 14:15 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 16:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 17:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 16:11 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 17:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 19:33 +1000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 21:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 19:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-15 14:47 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 11:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 20:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies HD <herpem@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-14 20:01 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 21:18 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-14 22:43 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-15 06:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 13:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-15 14:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-15 23:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 08:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 15:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 04:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 08:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 11:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:48 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-17 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:23 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 08:43 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 15:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 09:03 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 20:30 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 10:16 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-18 11:54 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@your.scary.shadow.edu> - 2017-02-18 23:55 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 14:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 16:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 17:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-20 04:16 +0000
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-20 16:18 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 18:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-23 04:37 +0000
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-23 15:27 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-24 04:42 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-20 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 13:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 16:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 16:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 17:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 23:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 15:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 16:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 17:41 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 17:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:25 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 08:31 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 11:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:07 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 13:52 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 16:38 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 15:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 16:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 17:10 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 20:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 21:01 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-02-16 23:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-02-16 22:02 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 09:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-17 11:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-17 10:36 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-02-17 13:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-17 13:24 +1000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:29 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-16 11:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 05:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-16 11:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 11:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 11:48 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 12:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:03 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 10:20 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:43 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 11:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:21 +1100
Re: Cats felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:20 +1100
Re: Cats Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-18 11:53 +0000
Re: Cats felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 23:47 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 00:07 +1100
Re: Cats Peter <noemail@pigpond.com> - 2017-02-19 10:23 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:47 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:09 +0000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:37 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 08:46 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-19 09:27 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-19 09:25 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-19 18:52 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 14:02 +0000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:49 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 09:58 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:20 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:16 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:39 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:16 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-20 02:21 +0000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 14:28 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 14:26 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 17:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:03 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 12:06 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:38 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:03 +0000
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 17:45 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:26 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-19 14:32 +1000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:57 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:04 +0000
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-19 18:46 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:16 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:37 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:42 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:23 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-20 09:18 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:48 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-20 16:25 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 17:08 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-20 16:21 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 10:31 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 12:37 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 18:04 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-20 16:12 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-21 10:10 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:33 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-21 11:15 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:44 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:42 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 00:54 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:21 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-23 09:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:10 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 10:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:27 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:28 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 11:29 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 19:43 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 19:53 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-20 20:26 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 20:42 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-23 09:56 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 23:59 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-21 00:39 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:50 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 01:46 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:30 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:52 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 18:07 +1100
Re: Cats Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-23 04:10 +0000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 16:26 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-25 10:41 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 16:06 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-25 21:36 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 08:57 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-26 18:01 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 10:41 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:50 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:52 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:33 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 00:58 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:31 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-22 09:29 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:26 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:44 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:55 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:45 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 13:07 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:39 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 14:55 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 15:19 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 17:34 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-22 17:47 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 18:04 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 18:56 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-22 21:54 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 18:55 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:17 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:32 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 15:00 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:19 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-23 00:29 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:14 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-23 00:30 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 15:43 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:23 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:35 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:36 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:38 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 15:49 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-01 16:11 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:05 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-01 23:06 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:16 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-02 08:13 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 12:49 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 14:26 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-03 10:48 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 11:16 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-03 10:35 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-03 14:52 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-03-02 14:22 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 18:03 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:12 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-28 09:46 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:57 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:40 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:56 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:39 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 16:38 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:28 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 18:06 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-27 18:52 +1000
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 06:14 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-28 17:43 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:25 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:52 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:47 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:46 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:23 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:19 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:57 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:46 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-21 12:14 +1000
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 18:10 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 01:00 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:33 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 09:28 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:08 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:30 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:18 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-12 10:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:07 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-13 10:54 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-13 00:34 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-13 14:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 15:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-13 15:36 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-13 15:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-15 11:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:19 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-15 10:37 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 07:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-11 07:08 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 08:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-09 22:17 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 10:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 10:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-10 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Tony <nomail@nospam.com> - 2017-02-10 08:46 +0800
Re: SA Greenies ellefranqq@gmail.com - 2019-03-15 19:06 -0700
Re: SA Greenies FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-16 17:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 12:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-23 12:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 12:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 12:42 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 16:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 22:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 18:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 22:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:01 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-12 08:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:03 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-11 16:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-13 15:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 17:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-13 21:07 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:14 +1100
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 07:33 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Cats |
| Message-ID | <-6-dnevQ5diQOTHFnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #32910 |
On 22/02/2017 1:00 AM, F Murtz wrote: > de chucka wrote: >> snip >>>> what right do you have to trap them? >>> >>> He is also putting out baits to entice his neighbors cat to enter his >>> property, needs his arse sued off by a lawyer. >> >> 2 paracetamol tablets in the bait is effective but illegal >> > There is something else in common use but I won't mention it as it may > give cat haters ideas. But most people have paracetamol around the house. I wouldn't suggest it as it is a very cruel way to get rid of cats
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-21 11:45 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Cats |
| Message-ID | <15OdnYps0IIpEDbFnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #32878 |
On 20/02/2017 7:43 PM, felix wrote: > On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 11:29 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 20/02/2017 11:28 AM, felix wrote: >>> On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 9:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 19/02/2017 12:06 PM, felix wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 10:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 18/02/2017 9:17 PM, felix wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 7:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, if you are REALLY so fucking concerned about birds (I >>>>>>>> bet >>>>>>>> you're not), then you should be killing cats. Cats kill 10,000 >>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>> more birds than wind turbines do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats >>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>> to the pound when I catch them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> what a prick you are! it's not illegal to own a cat. do you also run >>>>>>> elderly drivers off the road coz they're too slow? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Thanks to NSW state law, I am entitled to exterminate any cats I >>>>>> find on my property. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't know that >>>> >>>> **Yep: >>>> >>>> http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/8444158c-3268-4730-ab8e-eaf50faf4bc2/1998-87.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Page 23. >>> >>> One would assume that since you are capable of quoting the act, you are >>> also capable of reading it. It does NOT give you 'cart blanche' a right >>> to kill cats on your property, viz... >>> >>> Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 [NSW] >>> Part 4 Responsibilities for control of cats >>> >>> (3) If a cat that is not under the effective control of some competent >>> person enters any >>> inclosed lands within the meaning of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act >>> 1901 and >>> approaches any animal being farmed on the land, the occupier of the land >>> or any >>> person authorised by the occupier can lawfully injure or destroy the cat >>> if he or she >>> reasonably believes that the cat will molest, attack or cause injury to >>> any of those >>> animals. >>> >>> (4) An authorised officer who finds a cat attacking or harassing an >>> animal (other than >>> vermin) within a wildlife protection area (as defined in section 30 (1) >>> (b)) can >>> lawfully injure or destroy the cat if there is no other reasonably >>> practicable way of >>> protecting the animal. >>> >>> (5) A person who takes action under the authority of this section that >>> results in the injury >>> to or death of a cat must: >>> (a) take reasonable steps to ensure that an injured cat receives any >>> necessary >>> treatment, and >>> (b) report the matter to an authorised officer (unless the person is an >>> authorised >>> officer) and comply with such reasonable directions as the authorised >>> officer >>> may give for the purpose of causing the cat to be returned to its owner >>> or taken >>> to a council pound, and >>> (c) take reasonable steps to inform the owner of the cat. >>> >>> (6) An authorised officer is not to give a direction under this section >>> for the purpose of >>> causing a cat to be taken to a council pound unless the authorised >>> officer is satisfied >>> that the owner of the cat cannot be identified. >>> >>> (7) Nothing in this section authorises a contravention of the >>> >>> (8) The authority conferred by this section to destroy a cat extends >>> only to authorising >>> the destruction of the cat in a manner that causes it to die quickly and >>> without >>> unnecessary suffering. >>> .................................................. >>> >>> firstly the property must comply with the meaning of inclosed land as >>> prescribed by the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, secondly the cat >>> has to be threat to a 'farmed animal', thirdly you need to comply with >>> the directions in section (5), and lastly nothing may be done that >>> contravenes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. >>> >>> do you have any farmed animals on your property? does it constitute >>> 'inclosed land'? if not, then you have no right to kill or injure any >>> cat on your premises. and if you do so, I would suggest you would be >>> subject to penalties under the provision of cruelty to animals >>> legislation >> >> **You are correct. However, the local animal control officer provided >> me sufficient information to deal with all that. Either way, I don't >> kill them. I catch them and send them to the pound. >> >> > > what right do you have to trap them? He is doing a public service by getting them returned to their amazingly irresponsible ownersa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoadgi6.vv4.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32741 |
felix wrote: > Trevor Wilson wrote: > > felix wrote: > > > Trevor Wilson wrote: ----snip---- > > > > What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work. > > > > > > when the wind blows, and not cost effective > > > > Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades. > > except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a very large carvon footprint. ----snip---- > > > but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke > > > in no time > > and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot.. That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure. ----snip---- > > Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without foundation > > if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would be > triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales would not be required for balancing the budget. Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell; what then? Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egpd2aFe4i2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32760 |
On 17/02/2017 8:28 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > felix wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> felix wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work. >>>> >>>> when the wind blows, and not cost effective >>> >>> Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades. >> >> except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds > > I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that > those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials > that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that > those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in > mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a > very large carvon footprint. **Possibly. Research in the US suggests a payback period as short as 8 months: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm > > ----snip---- > >>>> but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke >>>> in no time >> >> and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot.. > > That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure. **LOL. > > ----snip---- > >>> Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without foundation >> >> if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would be >> triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter > > If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales > would not be required for balancing the budget. > > Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately > and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately > and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our > national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell; > what then? **Indeed. It is insane to kill the cow, yet Labor and Lieberals have been doing it for years. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoagord.d4m.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32768 |
Trevor Wilson wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > felix wrote: > > > Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > felix wrote: > > > > > Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work. > > > > > > > > > > when the wind blows, and not cost effective > > > > > > > > Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades. > > > > > > except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds > > > > I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that > > those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials > > that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that > > those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in > > mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a > > very large carbon footprint. > > Possibly. Research in the US suggests a payback period as short as 8 > months: > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm That's about *energy* payback, not CO2. The only mention of CO2 that I saw is that they have essentially zero emissions, which is true, but not the point I addressed. My concern with them is the large carbon footprint (not the energy consumption) of mining, refining, and manufacture. The energy cost and the carbon emissions are related, but the devil is in *how* they're related. And because no-one talks about this point, I'm suspicious about it. > > > > > but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke > > > > > in no time > > > > > > and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot.. > > > > That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure. > > LOL. One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall And if you go chasing rabbits and you know you're going to fall Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar gas given you the call Call Alice when she was just small When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go And you've just had some kind of mushroom and your mind is moving low Go ask Alice I think she'll know When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead And the White Knight is talking backwards and the Red Queen's off her head Remember what the dormouse said Feed your head Feed your head > > > > Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without > > > > foundation > > > > > > if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would > > > be triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter > > > > If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales > > would not be required for balancing the budget. > > > > Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately > > and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately > > and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our > > national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell; > > what then? > > Indeed. It is insane to kill the cow, yet Labor and Lieberals have > been doing it for years. I think it's also criminal: they tell us that this country's a democracy. If that's true, there's no such thing as "government property": it's ours; without our permission, what they're doing is theft, and the buyers are receivers of stolen goods. And how about this? QANTAS was a magnificent cash cow for decades: milions of dollars every year into consolidated revenue; then Keating sold it. Similarly the Commonwealth Bank (Hawke was PM at the start of th proces, but Keating was the Treasurer, and carried it forward and completed it after he became PM). How the fuck was he able to tout himself as "the greatest treasurer in the world" and still keep a straight face? Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 21:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egqm2qFlctdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32760 |
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 8:28 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > felix wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> felix wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: > ----snip---- > >>>>> What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work. >>>> when the wind blows, and not cost effective >>> Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades. >> except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds > I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that > those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials > that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that > those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in > mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a > very large carbon footprint. > > ----snip---- > >>>> but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke >>>> in no time >> and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot.. > That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure. > > ----snip---- > >>> Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without foundation >> if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would be >> triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter > If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales > would not be required for balancing the budget. > > Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately > and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately > and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our > national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell; > what then? I know. it's not good, but it's all due to labor governments running up massive debt. Howard took eleven years to pay of Keating's $96 billion debt, and then Krudd and Gillard put us back in the poo again in next to no time > > Ned -- http://thereligionofpeace.com http://www.barenakedislam.com/ http://www.siotw.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoagpei.d4m.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32794 |
A felix wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately > > and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately > > and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our > > national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell; > > what then? > > I know. it's not good, but it's all due to labor governments running up > massive debt. It's not that simple. The Laborals take turns running up financial debt (Labor) and social debt (Liberal) with no serious effort to meet each other part way and balance budgets *without* gutting disadvantaged people. > Howard took eleven years to pay of Keating's $96 billion > debt, and then Krudd and Gillard put us back in the poo again in next to > no time Rudd used the Howard surplus to fend off the consequences of the GFC. Gillard is the one who sold out on the Mining tax. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58a50d7b$0$59622$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #32707 |
Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 15/02/2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/02/2017 12:24 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>> On 14/02/2017 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/02/2017 11:53 AM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>> Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13/02/17 13:44, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:09:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:24:48 +1100, Jeßus <j@j.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:00:01 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Repairs to Basslink cable were happenining and the hydro dams >>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting loow. But the survived >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That Basslink cable is one of the dumbest ideas ever. >>>>>>>>>>>> Personally >>>>>>>>>>>> speaking, I'd like to see it chopped up into a thousand pieces >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten about. Tasmania would be, on the whole, far better >>>>>>>>>>>> off >>>>>>>>>>>> without it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well tasmania needs 100Mw generator without it. >>>>>>>>>>> Latest tech Wind Generation could do this? >>>>>>>>>>> http://reneweconomy.com.au/super-conductor-turbines-could-slash-australian-wind-energy-costs-84828/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://is.gd/sbtNM1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tasmania is perfectly capable of generating more power than it >>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>> with just hydro and wind alone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That was true before they had a ten-year drought. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was all the fault of the liberals :) and AGW that the liberals >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> non greens caused :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Idiot. AGW has caused the drought in Tasmania. A fault in the >>>>>>> Basslink >>>>>>> cable caused the other part of the problem. It could be said that, >>>>>>> perhaps, Tasmania should consider another back-up system, should >>>>>>> both >>>>>>> problems occur again. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Wind generators on the west coast would be the most likely source. >>>>>> The >>>>>> west coast is the most consistently windy part of the state due to >>>>>> the >>>>>> Roaring Forties which blast onto the coast there. I used to work on >>>>>> the >>>>>> west coast of Tasmania some 4 decades ago and the most consistent >>>>>> features of life there was the incessant rain and the equally >>>>>> incessant >>>>>> wind. They measure rainfall over there in metres. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **That would be unacceptable to Murtz. He has a pathological and >>>>> irrational hatred of any form of renewable energy system. >>>>> >>>> More Unprovable crap from the omniscient Trevor I have never said any >>>> such thing. >>> >>> **Lying cunt. Many times over many threads, you have expressed your >>> hatred of the Greens and renewable energy. You have consistently >>> expressed your banal view that coal and nukes are fine and that AGW does >>> not exist. You seem to forget that the crap you write is available for >>> all to see. >> >> Just put up your evidence that I hate renewable energy then we will see >> who is the lying c*** > > **Examine all your posts in the threads you started. You hate renewable > energy and love coal and nukes, despite the very serious drawbacks > associated with those sources. Looks like you have been caught out again you can not show that I hate renewable energy or love coal and nukes.Please give any instance of where I have said I hate renewable energy and love coal and nukes We know who is the liar. You can remove nukes from the equation because,although they work they are not for AU and I do not love them but they are an alternative I do not love coal but until a reliable cheaper energy comes along,they fill a gap,same with other non renewables,If you remove all non renewables from the equation we would come to a halt,the existing systems with existing technology can not work without them, it is just a case of using the cheapest and workable combinations and work towards making renewables work efficiently,someday we will make a breakthrough. > > >> Renewable energy is good if it works, my problem is with it when it is a >> waste of time or does not work efficiently,Coal is fine as a stop gap >> till the bugs are worked out in renewables. > > **What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work. Solar PV works. > Geo-thermal works. Solar/thermal works. They all work. They all deliver > energy at competitive prices. So much so, that no one will invest of > coal-fired power stations any longer. No insurance company on the planet > will insure a nuclear reactor. Wanna guess why? > >>> >>> >>> I have a view that reliance on renewables to the exclusion of >>>> any other methods when it is obvious that the current state of >>>> renewable >>>> energy generation is not enough except in some rare situations is >>>> folly. >>> >>> **Only because your kind continues to to support coal-fired power. >>> Australia could easily transition to fully renewable energy within a >>> couple of decades. >>> >>>> Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim for but I >>>> was >>>> pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the point >>>> yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which SA has not >>>> allowed for. >>> >>> **And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the Lieberal Party >>> of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you understand >>> and acknowledge that? >>> >>> >> I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere bit by >> bit when I would rather it not > > **And those sell-offs were fought against by the GREENS. The guys you > hate. You are an irrational idiot. You refuse to acknowledge the truth > when it is presented to you. > > As far as green are concerned the problems are the loud vociferous activists with the silly ideas that make up most of their political party, real greens I have no problem with (farmers etc) and a high percentage of normal ecologically inclined Australians who quietly get on with their business and have absolutely no truck with the clowns in the political parties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 10:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eg9kqtF8hvhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32600 |
On 12/02/2017 9:38 AM, Je�us wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:40:52 +1100, Trevor Wilson > <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: > > >> * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. > > Ehh??? **Dozens of Diesel generators were pressed into service, at huge expense. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-22/tasmanias-energy-crisis-no-end-in-sight/7347602 -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeßus <j@j.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 11:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gkav9cdsv6t3ao070vgh75a14c38m6qjab@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32606 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:20:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >On 12/02/2017 9:38 AM, Je?us wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:40:52 +1100, Trevor Wilson >> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >> >> >>> * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. >> >> Ehh??? > >**Dozens of Diesel generators were pressed into service, at huge expense. > >http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-22/tasmanias-energy-crisis-no-end-in-sight/7347602 Yes. Thus, Tasmania did not lose power for months.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <589fed9a$0$18108$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #32595 |
Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power etc, >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for backup >>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages things >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and it is >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>> >>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>> >>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >> >> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. > > **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. > Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, that > qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the nation. If > you are (now) talking about which state has the most unreliable power > TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to say, since NSW's > biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the Hunter) was asked > to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have had the most > unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. The word currently was only for you as my statement without it was correct I was talking about now NOT historically and the important bit to me was the cost, you seem to put immense importance to unreliable completely ignoring the cost. > > Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the > facts put as many facts as you like, the debate is my statement which was correct at this point in time, you are the one wandering off in time quoting historical problems in fact Tasmania till recently has one of the best systems > > * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. That makes their power system quite > unreliable. A day or two is fine, but not months. > * Electricity assets were sold off by various state governments (the > Libs in SA) and that action has brought us to the perilous position we > are in today. > * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred > towards) are the only major political party which has consistently > fought against selling off electricity assets in every state. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 10:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7qsg3$iai$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32613 |
On 12/02/2017 4:07 PM, F Murtz wrote: > Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power etc, >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for >>>>>>>>>>>>> backup >>>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages >>>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and it is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>>> >>>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>>> >>>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >>> >>> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. >> >> **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. >> Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, that >> qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the nation. If >> you are (now) talking about which state has the most unreliable power >> TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to say, since NSW's >> biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the Hunter) was asked >> to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have had the most >> unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. > > The word currently was only for you as my statement without it was > correct I was talking about now NOT historically and the important bit > to me was the cost, you seem to put immense importance to unreliable > completely ignoring the cost. >> >> Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the >> facts > > put as many facts as you like, the debate is my statement which was > correct at this point in time, you are the one wandering off in time > quoting historical problems in fact Tasmania till recently has one of > the best systems Murtz, try using your brain sometime and stop always trying to change the goalposts when you get caught out being sloppy in how you think and what you write. You started this thread with this piece of idiocy: "This SA green power supply works well does not it?" and now you're whining like a toddler because you didn't put enough effort in to posting a comment that wasn't idiotic right from the start of the thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ördög <devil@hell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a3nkfo.piu.17.13@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #32627 |
Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> live on stage: > On 12/02/2017 4:07 PM, F Murtz wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have shut down a coal fired generator and rely on other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> states for backup and if the wind does not blow or they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a storm that damages things their setup does not work >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>>>> and is attempting to run their power supply along green lines >>>>>>>>>>>> and it is not working so far. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most >>>>>> unreliable. >>>>> >>>>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >>>> >>>> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. >>> >>> **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. >>> Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, >>> that qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the >>> nation. If you are (now) talking about which state has the most >>> unreliable power TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to >>> say, since NSW's biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the >>> Hunter) was asked to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have >>> had the most unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. >> >> The word currently was only for you as my statement without it was >> correct I was talking about now NOT historically and the important bit >> to me was the cost, you seem to put immense importance to unreliable >> completely ignoring the cost. >>> >>> Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the >>> facts >> >> put as many facts as you like, the debate is my statement which was >> correct at this point in time, you are the one wandering off in time >> quoting historical problems in fact Tasmania till recently has one of >> the best systems > > Murtz, try using your brain sometime and stop always trying to change > the goalposts when you get caught out being sloppy in how you think and > what you write. You started this thread with this piece of idiocy: "This > SA green power supply works well does not it?" and now you're whining > like a toddler because you didn't put enough effort in to posting a > comment that wasn't idiotic right from the start of the thread. *No, South Australian blackouts were not caused by renewables* Published on 29/09/2016, 5:12am "http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/29/renewable-energy-scapegoated- south-australian-blackouts/" "Media and political claims that province’s high proportion of wind energy is to blame for power outages are completely unfounded" When the sun is shining and the breeze trims the blades of the turbines, it’s easy to forget that Australia remains a country with a deep native suspicion of renewable energy. How else to explain the extraordinary, unfounded response to a traumatic Wednesday for South Australians when a huge storm ripped through state and all the lights went out? Before residents’ power was even returned politicians and journalists were lining up to suggest, with no evidence, that South Australia’s high concentration of renewable energy was in some way to blame for the crisis...." ~~~~ OK, I know it is _old news_...but it is so typical of the LNP creeps pushing their fossil fuel centric propaganda. Even though the public service has provided a precise report on the blackout event and its actual causes Turnbull came drumming the beat and pushing the lies next morning unashamedly. Hence I wonder how many shares he, his wife and his party mates own in the mining and energy generation sectors. Yep, Trumbull may have dazzled some among the voters but he is just pushing the same despicable lieberal policies Tony Abbott had cooked up before him. Mr Harbourside Mansion can't wash himself squeaky clean from the doings of his party and pretend to by our moral leader...if he was not a such a typical bloody hypocrite he would resigned from that party long ago and for all I care returned to his business of manufacturing loot for his own exclusive benefit to hell with everyone else in the country. -- Ördög "Ut sementem feceris, ita metes"(Cicero)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 14:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egcogcFrd0cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32595 |
On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power etc, >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for >>>>>>>>>>>> backup >>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages >>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and it is >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>> >>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>> >>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >> >> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. > > **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. > Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, > that qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the > nation. If you are (now) talking about which state has the most > unreliable power TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to > say, since NSW's biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the > Hunter) was asked to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have > had the most unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. > > Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the > facts: > > * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. That makes their power system quite > unreliable. A day or two is fine, but not months. > * Electricity assets were sold off by various state governments (the > Libs in SA) and that action has brought us to the perilous position we > are in today. > * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred towards) there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch of loopey nut cases > are the only major political party which has consistently fought > against selling off electricity assets in every state. > -- http://thereligionofpeace.com http://www.barenakedislam.com/ http://www.siotw.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeßus <j@j.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 15:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <0ac2acl0jcu6thv4obfius5rrfc2a2vdif@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32633 |
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:45:55 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >> * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred towards) > >there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch >of loopey nut cases Yeah, those lentil-eating commies should be put down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 15:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <58a145e2$0$51703$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #32638 |
"Jeßus" <j@j.net> wrote in message news:0ac2acl0jcu6thv4obfius5rrfc2a2vdif@4ax.com... > On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:45:55 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >>On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>> * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred >>> towards) >> >>there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch >>of loopey nut cases > > Yeah, those lentil-eating commies should be put down. Don't insult lentils, they are much better than greenies aka snot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 15:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egcslmFs2k6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32633 |
On 13/02/2017 2:45 PM, felix wrote: > On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power etc, >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for >>>>>>>>>>>>> backup >>>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages >>>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and it is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>>> >>>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>>> >>>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >>> >>> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. >> >> **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. >> Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, >> that qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the >> nation. If you are (now) talking about which state has the most >> unreliable power TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to >> say, since NSW's biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the >> Hunter) was asked to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have >> had the most unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. >> >> Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the >> facts: >> >> * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. That makes their power system quite >> unreliable. A day or two is fine, but not months. >> * Electricity assets were sold off by various state governments (the >> Libs in SA) and that action has brought us to the perilous position we >> are in today. >> * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred >> towards) > > there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch > of loopey nut cases > **And yet, the Greens were the only major political party which tried to stop electricity privatisations. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eghkjqFre3uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32633 |
On 13/02/2017 2:45 PM, felix wrote: > On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power etc, >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for >>>>>>>>>>>>> backup >>>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages >>>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and it is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>>> >>>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>>> >>>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >>> >>> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. >> >> **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. >> Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, >> that qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the >> nation. If you are (now) talking about which state has the most >> unreliable power TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to >> say, since NSW's biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the >> Hunter) was asked to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have >> had the most unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. >> >> Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the >> facts: >> >> * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. That makes their power system quite >> unreliable. A day or two is fine, but not months. >> * Electricity assets were sold off by various state governments (the >> Libs in SA) and that action has brought us to the perilous position we >> are in today. >> * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred >> towards) > > there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch > of loopey nut cases **OK, so you would rather vote for the bunch of arseholes that put SA and all the other states into the position they are today? IE: Very rapidly rising electricity prices and falling reliability. You're an idiot. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eghl5pFri3iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32694 |
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 11:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 13/02/2017 2:45 PM, felix wrote: >> On Sunday, 12 Feb 2017 4:40 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/02/2017 8:56 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/02/2017 4:40 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/02/2017 12:49 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/02/2017 7:44 PM, F Murtz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:23:24 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:57:51 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:52:04 +1100, F Murtz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <haggisz@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This SA green power supply works well does not it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does the 'SA Greenies' or 'green' fit into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The greenies have made a system that relies on wind power >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shut >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down a coal fired generator and rely on other states for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wind does not blow or they have a storm that damages >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup does not work well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, who are these 'greenies' you speak of? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The south Australian government is inclined to greenie views >>>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to run their power supply along green lines and >>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> working so far. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You sure they're not commies too? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, just inclined to green views,so far it has cost SA the most >>>>>>>>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Far from it. That honour belongs to Tasmania. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tasmania is not the most expensive SA is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I was referring to the unreliable part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was referring to the most expensive and currently most unreliable. >>>>> >>>>> **Goalpost change, duly noted. >>>> >>>> No goalpost change, statement was "so far it has cost SA the most >>>> expensive and unreliable power system in Aus . "which it is. >>> >>> **You just inserted the word "currently". That is a goalpost change. >>> Based on last year's outage, which lasted several MONTHS in Tassie, >>> that qualifies Tasmania as having the least reliable power in the >>> nation. If you are (now) talking about which state has the most >>> unreliable power TODAY, then it may well be SA, though it is hard to >>> say, since NSW's biggest power consumer (the aluminium smelter in the >>> Hunter) was asked to power down. Had it not done so, then NSW may have >>> had the most unreliable power supply CURRENTLY. >>> >>> Don't play idiotic semantic games with me. You will lose. Here are the >>> facts: >>> >>> * Tasmania lost power for MONTHS. That makes their power system quite >>> unreliable. A day or two is fine, but not months. >>> * Electricity assets were sold off by various state governments (the >>> Libs in SA) and that action has brought us to the perilous position we >>> are in today. >>> * The Greens (which you seem to have an insane, irrational hatred >>> towards) >> >> there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch >> of loopey nut cases > > **OK, so you would rather vote for the bunch of arseholes that put SA > and all the other states into the position they are today? nope. but the reality has been that only Liberals or Labor are able to form government. that is changing now, fortunately > IE: Very rapidly rising electricity prices and falling reliability. > > You're an idiot. > > anyone who concludes on the basis of assumption is an idiot, in this case you -- http://thereligionofpeace.com http://www.barenakedislam.com/ http://www.siotw.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 10:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <58a3a2d5$0$57955$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #32694 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:eghkjqFre3uU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> there's nothing irrational about despising the Greens. they are a bunch >> of loopey nut cases > > **OK, so you would rather vote for the bunch of arseholes that put SA and > all the other states into the position they are today? IE: Very rapidly > rising electricity prices and falling reliability. > > You're an idiot. In Qld the labor mob used a drought to raise electricity prices 14.2% in one go. Dought ended shortly thereafter. Did prices go down to reflect this, NO. Using a drought as an excuse for a money grab when they don't pay for the water, is well enter own words here................ > > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics
csiph-web