Jack
Forum
Planet Ear
The specs are out there, and have been for a long time.
1. Range of 300+ miles.
2. Cruising speed of 80+ mph.
3. Many, many convenient refueling/recharging stations EVERYWHERE. (Task to be finished in 5 min or less.)
4. Economically feasible, stylish, high top end speeds.
5. Able to transport 6, tow a 5th wheel and/or the largest camper shell and/or carry and launch a boat. Must meet or exceed performance standards of vehicles currently on the market.
Design and produce that and YOU own the market. It will be developed by private industery in concert with government grants.
>>By lv2read (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 03:59)
I see you are a fan of science fiction then lv2read ;)
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 04:15)
What's more to the point is your proposed wonder vehicle is probably going to be no better in terms of carbon emmisions than your current petrol guzzlers. Rather than converting chemical energy from gas fairly directly to kinetic energy of the vehicle you'll probably first use your carbon chemical energy to create steam (lossy inefficient) then to kinetic energy of a tubine (with it's associated friction) then to displacing charge . Then in the vehicle you'll generate heat in the internal resistance of your cell and in the motor before you finally get your vehicle moving... Call yourself an engineer? Hmmmmmm.
Nope, I think more and more Los Angeleans'll be catching the bus, trains and trams more in future.... ;)
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 04:29)
Deaf Ear
Let me see......because the technology isn't available now....it never will be. It's good that Bill Gates has a different mindset.
<<<I think more and more Los Angeleans'll be catching the bus, trains and trams more in future.... ;)>>>
Laughable.
I believe that within twenty years or so 25-45% of the workforce may work on a company network out of their homes thus reducing the weekly traffic load to that of 50 years ago. Am not sure but I've heard a 5-10% reduction in traffic volume would end traffic congestion (except due to accidents) AND eliminate the need for carpool lanes. And that way we can still frivem and you may walk, ride or run. And you were saying........
>>By lv2read (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 05:19)
Planet Ear
More to the point?? Please, the same goes for you as Tchock, you upset the revolutionary cause when you act, speak or write in a stupid manner.
Have you considered the possibility of 200-300 sq ft of solar arrays somehow affixed to the car. Minor problems with substrate material such as temperature gradients surely could be derived through analysis. But, OMG actual testing disprooves analysis all the time. But, people like yourself (chasing windmills) would take on 'rubbish' such as THIS. Right, the solar array drivel is nonsense much as what you were trying to say earlier. Doesn't sound good, does it? WE are tiring of your nonsense. Hint...hunt. The technology (and attendant parameters) is not present on the landscape. So, contain your drivel and, please, join the big people on this board.
Please refresh my memory....how well do you know mg?
>>By lv2read (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 05:36)
Aw lv2read I'd be embarrassed too if I'd forgotten about needing electricity for my imaginary electric car.
I've never mentioned windmills.
You'd get a 5-10 % reduction in traffic right away if 1 in 20 Los Angeleans caught the bus.
Bill Gates innovate? LOL! MS Windows was "inspired " by Apple products, who developed the idea from Xerox concepts that never really got of the ground.
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 10:12)
Yep JJ the issues concerning races, racism, integration are tricky and often frustrating. We have problems here in the UK just as everyone else does.
London is a very very mixed society which is something I personally love about the place. I live in a terraced house divided into 2 flats. The family to my left are Anglo-Malaysian, to the right Pakistani, the people downstairs Turkish. A Greek cuts my hair. My current songwriting partners are Anglo-Nigerian, Anglo-American and Anglo-Iranian. My first call bassist is Anglo Jamaican. first-call keyboardist American, drummers English and Malay. My recent clients have been Jewish, English, Dutch, Chinese, Welsh. Right now I think a Russian is cleaning my window. My local music shop Polish-owned. My best friend from University married a Mexican. I went to a gay guys house-warming party last weekend. You get a picture I'm sure...
I suppose that sort of situation does lead to a climate where one doesn't feel inclined to "sound off" about race/sexual preference because almost certainly you will have someone come back with "actually my partner/friend/colleague is such and such and they're not at all like that". Maybe after a while you actually find yourself re-evaluating whether stereotypes really make a lot of sense here....
I would accept that's perhaps a rather rose-tinted or aspirational view but it seems to me a healthy and reasonable aspiration.
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 13:18)
Planet Ear
Anglo Malay and Angle Nigerian don't resonate with me. In London, what are the population percentages for the following groups: Caucasian, Black Asian and Mexican (in America referred to as White/Hispanic), And are those groups fairly evenly distributed about the metropolis?
>>By lv2read (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 14:12)
>Just wanted to say that PE's analogy of an "heterosexual male" committing a crime really got me thinking. My logic might be a bit flawed when it comes to race and crime. I love being proven wrong and will reconsider my conclusions.
JJ, regardless of anything I may have said about you, I totally respect you for that. No one else on this board, regardless of their view war/peace left/right or whatever, has EVER admitted that they might be wrong. Good on you.
And I agree, race is a really complicated issue. Like PE I enjoy living in such a multi-cultural place. There is a racist sub-culture in London who read the Daily Mail and go on about 'pakis' and immigrants and I hate that sub-culture. Talking purely about my own country, in fact just London, I think perhaps the reason the whole thing is, as you say, confusing is simply that there is still racism in the media and probably if I'm honest, among politicians. Half of what we're being told is that racism is wrong and evil and the other half is that Britain should stay British and by letting all different nationalities into our country we're somehow losing our Britishness.
As for gun crime, well... this is where BiaM might call me a lilly-livered criminal-lover, but I think the cause of gun-crime amongst black communities probably is that they are, socioeconomically, below the rest of society. I'm not saying no black person in my country has prospects or opportunities, but there IS a massive class divide. And when the media highlights this class divide it makes it worse, because many young black people seem to take pride in their ghetto background. And really, why shouldn't they? Everyone should be able to take pride in something, and if you keep alienating and oppressing a group of people they're not just gonna fade into the background, they're gonna reject mainstream society's values.
Of course I wouldn't want my view on this - which are essentially just a theory - to interfere in the justice system. If you shoot someone you should go to jail, regardless of socioeconomic background. Likewise if I got mugged by anyone, black or white, I would be angry and (unless the mugger had a gun) I would try to defend myself and not feel guilt or remorse about using violence. But the class divide that's causing all this crime should still not be there and is still evidence that racism is alive and well in the 21st century.
Just my view.
L2R, I notice you didn't say anything in response to my gargantuan post earlier...
>>By Flagg (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 14:29)
lv2read - urban sprawl.
That would another depressing affect of cities - another story however.
If your transport system was so superior - then it would of course have several suburban bus stations, train stations etc.
Half an hour to get to work by car.
I will assume this includes all the starting & stopping that occurs in over congested roads.
Average speed of say 40mph - t - s/v = 0.5/40 = 20 miles.
So a train takes 2hrs to travel 20 miles ???
I don't think so. I takes two hours to travel the 120 miles to home - that includes a long stop at one or two stations along with several other small stations & of course having to stop for other trains on the track as well as other delays that the train network seems to find.
By "most people" do you mean the people living in your suburbain area???
Because there is a heck of a lot of people who live in the city..........they can take the bike can they not ??? Or they could walk - or take the trains themselves.
What exactly is the relevence of this ???
<And people worldwide relocate to Southern California.....NOT Scotland. >
Another stab in the dark at a "where i live is better than where you are" kinda insult ????
<If you were an American, do you think that the Global Warming fixes might be unfairly trained on our way of life.>
Oh I'm sorry, lv2read. So the rest of the human race is allowed to suffer so you can while away your precious life in comfort & luxury ???? How about we write to George Bush saying "Ok, so you can go Green - just leave Southern California out of it." What nonsense. How selfish could you possibly get ???
Regarding cars........................
yes - i'm sure there is a solution to travelling without killing the planet. Electricity in a car? Well if you move a coil of wire inside a magnet................................
<It will be developed by private industery in concert with government grants.>
Here's an idea - howzbout the government pays for it all - wouldn't that be nice ???
Here's another idea. How about you legislate that ALL cars should have the new engine (whatever it may be) installed in it. No alternatives. No oil guzzlers - nothing. Just good clean energy. And no, lv2read, it wouldn't mean we're in a communist state where choice is lacking......... it would just mean that all transportation meets a basic requirement- that it doesn't pollute the atmosphere - all the stylishness & appeal your Jaguar or whatever will remain in tact. Don't worry.
You have forgotten to take into account that it is not just going to work that causes traffic congestion. You live in surburbia - right???? I bet you have to drive into town or one of these out of town places to go shopping right ??? I bet it's miles away. The one up where I live is scarily big - but that's tiny compared to anything American. The frightening thing is how jam-packed it is. Wouldn't it be nice if you could just walk to the shops ???
(Of course for large shopping - such as food, I can excuse people for taking the car..........I mean not everyone is capable of lugging 10 bags up the road by themselves......)
<25-45% of people working from home>
And thus the segregation from society really starts to take off.
You know you've not actually made one suggest which would make any change to your way of life???
It's all on your terms - how to maintain your way of life.
Regarding wind turbines.
Actually I said they were highly inefficient. The difference is with you - I look to try & improve it- not write it off as another failure.
Were you so stressed over how global warming is being so self-centred that it's threatening your way of life you felt you just HAD to write some drivel yourself, insulting one of the people on here?? I guess it was my turn (again).
a) I never mentioned solar pannels I don't think..........apologies if I'm wrong.
b) I never mentioned solar pannels on cars
Right - now that we've got the obvious sorted out................
By using a RANGE of different renewable technologies, your precious demand for electricity could be met. You'll just have to compromise until it's all built, sorry about that.
Scientific American said that about 15 000 times more energy comes in annually from the sun than all the energy in all the reserves of coal, oil, gas & nuclear combined. Sun energy = every renewable energy save tidal (that's the moon).
Surely you wouldn't agree with this magazine - I mean it as your favourite word in its name !!!!!
By the way, lv2read. Even if Global Warming doesn't exist (like hell it doesn't), then where are grandchildren & great grandchildren going to get their energy from in 50 years time ???
Also, I'd like to point out that planet's ear seems to function quite normally. It is you that appears to be a little hard of hearing..............
>>By Tchock (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 14:35)
If it turns out there is no way that renewable energy can be as efficient as non-renewable - or if we just don't get our act together in time - then the human race is going to slip back in terms of the luxuries it has available to it, that much is sure. I'm told lots of people believe mankind is just about at its peak right now. We can predict advances in technology like the idea of record labels disappearing and music being available all the time as pure data, but when the fossil fuels run out none of that is gonna be possible - unless we find a real alternative.
>>By Flagg (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 14:50)
>>>> Planet Ear
Anglo Malay and Angle Nigerian don't resonate with me. In London, what are the population percentages for the following groups: Caucasian, Black Asian and Mexican (in America referred to as White/Hispanic), And are those groups fairly evenly distributed about the metropolis?
As a freelance researcher/analyst I used to get around £500 a day, because I'm pretty damn good. You've steadfastly either ignored all the free info and analysis I've given you, insulted my both integrity and my intelligence, rarely if ever given an answer that hasn't been been erroneous, superficial, or misleading. Now it appears you want me to do YOUR research for you! If you're making me a professional offer that's fine otherwise I suggest you try Google when you've run out of Kleenex!
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 18:48)
Deaf Ear
What? Are we getting a little emotional here? Are you implying that everyone should understand the terms Angle-Nigerian and Anglo-Malay. You don't have to clarify what you said---I think that you are stupid regardless. How do you like that??
Well I didn't mean it, but I am tryimg to demonstrate something. Namely, you mistakenly believe that your experiences and understandings as universal or known to all. I, rather politely, requested a clarification.
You have no doubt impressed Tchock...I am sure. Niy 500 pounds per day for what???? You're talking crazy now; I'd suggest that you take a laxative.
>>By lv2read (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 19:22)
You very rudely and arrogantly demanded a rather non-trivial set of stats and geographical analysis. You didn't ask for a clarification of the terms I used you simply stated the information I gave "didn't resonate". You have access to a computer, thus you should be able to access Google. If you don't also own an English dictionary take a hike to your local library.
Unlike you I don't make up stats or facts off the top of my head and don't wish to start now thanks.
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 20:34)
I think nearly everyone on this board could do with looking at an English dictionary now and then. Maybe an English usage dictionary too. And learning some grammar.
>>By Flagg (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 20:46)
An example:
You told us:
"The specs are out there, and have been for a long time.
1. Range of 300+ miles.
2. Cruising speed of 80+ mph.
3. Many, many convenient refueling/recharging stations EVERYWHERE. (Task to be finished in 5 min or less.)
4. Economically feasible, stylish, high top end speeds.
5. Able to transport 6, tow a 5th wheel and/or the largest camper shell and/or carry and launch a boat. Must meet or exceed performance standards of vehicles currently on the market.
Design and produce that and YOU own the market. It will be developed by private industery in concert with government grants."
Perhaps you could go back to your source for this spec and tell us which government department has produced this spec and how much funding has been allocated for the grants?
>>By planet ear (Friday, 17 Nov 2006 20:47)
Planet Ear
That is the vehivle that we have now...except, of course for the 0 emissions. If an automobile is designed to that specification, the American (if not worldwide) consumer will purchase it straight away. I did not intend to mislead---sincere regrets.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 00:21)
L2R would you answer my question: if an automobile is never designed to that specification, would you personally be willing to make do with a less powerful car or even no car at all?
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 01:20)
Flagg
L2R would you answer my question: if an automobile is never designed to that specification, would you personally be willing to make do with a less powerful car or even no car at all?>>>
If produced to those specs, there would be zero emissions, so the only decision would be can I, or will I, purchase the car and be able to operate it. Strictly personal choice....I'm married to my cars.
No car at all....No.
Tchock writes of walking to the department store, shops etc. Never. In a crazy sort of way, in California you are what you drive. Very, very nice cars/SUVs are within the reach of the middle class here...I enjoy watching the beauties in their Beemer Convertibles, or someone cruising down the road in a Dodge Viper.....with Metallica blasting from their stereos. I also enjoy flying and boating and seriously doubt that I'll have to forfeit those avocations.
The underground aquifers (sp??) are finite without a doubt. The Global Warming debate is nowhere near resolution, but that does not mean that we should not endeavor to protect the environment.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 03:44)
>In a crazy sort of way, in California you are what you drive ... I enjoy watching the beauties in their Beemer Convertibles, or someone cruising down the road in a Dodge Viper
I guess I can respect that. But if governments don't start taking global warming seriously soon (and they don't take it seriously, no matter what they say) then eventually that Californian lifestyle is going to have to change. I don't know the timescale but I doubt it would be in your lifetime, so no, you personally probably won't have to give up these passions. It's my generation that is really gonna experience the effects in 40 or 50 years. By that time it will either have been dealt with or it won't, and the world we live in will be one of two things. It's entirely up to the governments.
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 10:03)
Good response....very good response. It is always the younger members of society that are most open to change, and also the most impressionable.
Protecting the environment is everyones' responsibility. Smog has been reduced in Los Angeles drastically over the years, which demonstrates that strides can be made with little or no sacrifice in lifestyle. I did NOT like the overall downsizing of cars as it gave me fewer choices for myself, and I ended up paying 7 to 8 times as much for what I 'wanted.' But I'll survive just fine.
Technology will solve (or resolve) the challenge. This is off topi, but I predict that your 'great grandchildren' will not know of cancer, arthritis, heart bypass surgery or a host of other calamities that afflict us now. And queueing (up) in gas lines will seem unusual to them. How can you be NOT optimistic??
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 12:06)
I can not be optomistic because, although I think you're right about technology, I don't trust the people in power to use that technology quickly, efficiently and responsibly. If we get our act together now then yes, there's a bright future for my great grandchildren. If we don't then the world will be a totally different place for them.
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 15:43)
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns /climate/big_ask/thom_yorke.html
delete spaces.
He says what I've been trying to say.
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 15:50)
Flagg, "I don't know the timescale but I doubt it would be in your lifetime" - that is rubbish, it's happening already or do you think the ice melts cause someone is pissing on it?? ;-)
L2R you say it's everyones responsibility to protect the environment but you are 'married to your cars' - that's saying everyone should do something but it must not effect “my” lifestyle, it does not work that way. Of course it IS the general attitude of the larger part of the polluters. And don’t get me wrong, I’m just as guilty as (most) anyone else.
For Europe:
[1] Ocean Forces Threaten Our Climate
"In the case of the North Atlantic, heat is carried northward and eastward by the Gulf Stream. This current warms the coast evenly through the year, in winter as well as summer. Averaged over a year, the Gulf Stream provides Western Europe with a third as much warmth as the Sun does.
This ocean warmth is so important to Europe that climatologists are seriously concerned about the stability of the Gulf Stream. If it switched off, Europe would be plunged into a mini-Ice Age. And current studies suggest that the unseen river in the North Atlantic is dangerously fickle.
[2] the US & Worldwide:
The profound impact rising temperatures have had in the Arctic provides a window into a future we may all experience. With continued warming, we can expect more extreme heat and drought, rising sea levels, and higher-intensity tropical storms. At risk are our coastal property and resources, the livability of our cities in summer, and the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries.
AN INCREASE OF A FEW DEGREES WON'T SIMPLY MAKE FOR PLEASANTLY WARMER TEMPERATURES around the globe. Even a modest rise of 2°- 3°F (1.1°-1.7°C) could have dramatic effects.
Scientists predict that continued global warming on the order of 2.5°-10.4°F over the next 100 years (as projected in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report) is likely to result in:
* a RISE IN SEA LEVEL between 3.5 and 34.6 in. (9-88 cm), leading to more coastal erosion, flooding during storms, and permanent inundation
* SEVERE STRESS on many forests, wetlands, alpine regions, and other natural ecosystems
* GREATER THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH as mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects and rodents spread diseases over larger geographical regions
* DISRUPTION OF AGRICULTURE in some parts of the world due to increased temperature, water stress, and sea-level rise in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh or the Mississippi River delta.
For L2R:
[3] CALIFORNIA Global Warming Impacts 2/2006 (if nothing is done about it)
90% loss in Sierra snow pack
22-30 inches of sea level rise
3-4 times as many heatwave days in major urban centers
2.5 times the number critically dry years
4-6 times as many heat-related deaths in major urban centers
20% increase in electricity demand
Increase in days meteorologiclaly conducive to ozone formation
The more global warming emissions are reduced, the less severe the impacts will be.
California has a choice: continue contributing to an alarming rate of global warming by emitting large quantities of global warming pollutants from its cars, electricity plants, and factories, or lead the nation and the world in slowing global warming by making significant cuts in emissions.
How much would global warming emissions have to be reduced to ensure that we stay in or below the lower warming range?
If the industrialized world were to follow California’s lead of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and the industrializing nations followed thereafter, global emissions would remain in or below the lower emissions scenario, thus increasing the likelihood that California and the world would be on track to avoid the more severe impacts.
California’s Responsibility to Act
CALIFORNIA IS THE 12TH LARGEST SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD, EXCEEDING MOST ENTIRE COUNTRIES. California has a responsibility to reduce its global warming emissions, and by doing so can lead the United States, and the world, in developing the innovative policies and technologies needed to avoid the most dangerous impacts of global warming.
Two independent teams of the state’s top economists calculate that significantly reducing global warming emissions can boost the state’s economy by billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs in the coming decades.
Sources:
[1]
http://www.firstscience.com/site/
articles/gribbin.asp
[2]
http://www.ucsusa.org/
global_warming/science/
[3]
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_california/
ca-global-warming-impacts.html
>>By Lynn (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 17:12)
Lynn and Flagg
I repeat.....there is no unaminity of opinion on Global Warming, with many believing that the phenoma is self correcting. With the technological increases of just the past three or four years, how can you NOT be optimistic.
No, we Californians will not stop building, expanding, prospering. Our cars are getting larger, faster, and more fuel efficient. No, we are way to spread out to be served by mass transit. And because we are so spread out, you can easily spend two hours on a bus going 15 miles or less. It could result in 203 bus transfers and intermediate waiting ti,e of 30-45 minutes per bus----I'm told. Mass transit WON'T happen here. Impossible.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 17:50)
>> with many believing that the phenoma is self correcting
LOL, I've not heard this one before!! Exactly WHAT is being corrected by doing nothing???
>> "No, we californians" ...
how can you say we are ALL responsible for protecting the environment if "we Californions" do not take responsibility? That is like smoking cigarettes in a small room with a vulnerable infant who has asthma and say "I know it's killing you, but it's impossible to stop smoking and I won't go outside because it's freezing cold out there"
>>By Lynn (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 18:01)
Hello folks I have been away fro a while, popped back a couple of times but didnt really have time or inclination to post
reading through the last few pages I do now though and if I cover old ground, which I will, i apologise but I'll do it anyway :-)
now what JJ wrote about african and iraqi savages monkeys etc.... was it racism? is he racist?
one definition of racism is thus :-
Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
The term racism is sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group (ethnocentrism), fear of difference (xenophobia), views or preferences against interbreeding of the races (miscegenation), and nationalism, regardless of any explicit belief in superiority or inferiority embedded within such views or preferences. Racism has been used in attempts to justify social discrimination, racial segregation and violence, including genocide.
Was JJ suggesting any of the above? no he wasnt he was stating an opinion about African and Iraqi peoples, somewhaat in-eloquently and the terms he used were inflammatory perhaps, but I happen to agree with the principles behind what he was saying.
Does that make me a racist? do I hate, despise feel superior to or fear black/brown/yellow skinned people, no I dont. Do I think that the level of violence, extreme violence, within black African and Iraqi communities (the 'races' identified in JJ's post), violence which is being perpetrated by citizens of the same National identity against fellow citizens of the same national identity but a differing tribe or caste is savage, yes I certainly do. in fact under the definitions above both the African and Iraqi tribes are far more racist than JJ will ever be.
Obviously not every single citizen of these nations are violent towards each other, but if these attacks are perpetuated on a daily basis as currently in Iraq (or previously in S Africa, Rwanda, Angola etc etc.) then I would say that the Iraqis are hardly the 'peace loving' people that L2BS (nice one PE) constantly says they are (where on earth did you get that stale quote from anyway L2R? didnt come from that moron Bush's mouth did it?)
I personally think that the mindset of these people towards other castes are more in line with Hitlerism than the the British BNP. Hitler was prepared to commit genocide, I dont quite think the BNP are prepared to do that. However I do believe that the sunnis, shiites, (hutus, tutsi's remember them?) would be more than happy to wipe each other off the face of the map to gain social/economic superiority
So the uproar against JJ's post is because these savages have different coloured skin ergo he must be a racist, he was referring to their nationalities/tribes/castes and i happen to agree with him, if so then I must under your terms (Flagg, tchock) be racist to.
I have stated that i dont hate people of skin shades other than my own, i have no earthly reason to, but I do think the Iraqis and certain black african nations are murdering hate filled savages so am i a racist too?
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 19:40)
>I repeat.....there is no unaminity of opinion on Global Warming, with many believing that the phenoma is self correcting.
There is never unaminity of opinion on anything is there? As I've said, the *vast majority* of the science community believes in it. How can you pin your hopes on the minority?
Again, if you know of any credible scientific theory that can disprove global warming, I'm all ears.
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 19:54)
>>> It could result in 203 bus transfers and intermediate waiting ti,e of 30-45 minutes per bus----I'm told.
By the voices in your head or some more widely respected source?
>>By planet ear (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 20:09)
Yes, I believe it is racist to say, as JJ did, that everyone in Iraq is a murderous savage or everyone in Africa is a cannibal.
Actually I think I'm pretty much with JJ on not interfering in other countries' problems - it was his comments on Iraq and Africa that disgusted me.
>>By Flagg (Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 20:21)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS