GE 8mm camcorder has snow in picutre, help w/diagnosing pr..

Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
developed severe horizontal lines or snow.

Some observations regarding this malady:

-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
computer
-It's visble in Rec mode.
-It's visible in play mode when not playing
-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
composite out when playing.
-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began

Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
auto & manual focus.

Thanks for any assistance
49 answers Last reply
More about camcorder snow picutre diagnosing
  1. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dG6wd.855$yK.276@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today,
    suddeny
    > developed severe horizontal lines or snow.
    >
    > Some observations regarding this malady:
    >
    > -It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to
    the
    > computer
    > -It's visble in Rec mode.
    > -It's visible in play mode when not playing
    > -Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
    > problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
    > composite out when playing.
    > -It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began
    >
    > Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd
    really
    > like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has
    both
    > auto & manual focus.
    >
    > Thanks for any assistance
    >
    >
    >

    Virtually any compact camcorder of that age will be suffering from failing
    surface mount electrolytic capacitors. Often virtually every one is bad,
    replacement is possible but usually runs a couple hundred bucks.
  2. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:46:33 GMT, "Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Have a GE CG818 8mm camcorder. It's worked like a champ until today, suddeny
    >developed severe horizontal lines or snow.
    >
    >Some observations regarding this malady:
    >
    >-It's visible both through the viewfinder and from the composite out to the
    >computer
    >-It's visble in Rec mode.
    >-It's visible in play mode when not playing
    >-Banding *not* visible when playing a tape that was recorded before this
    >problem developed. Picture is fine in the viewfinder and through the
    >composite out when playing.
    >-It's visible on tapes recorded since problem began
    >
    >Any guesses what kind of component might be causing this problem? I'd really
    >like to salvage this camera since it's worked great, is simple, yet has both
    >auto & manual focus.
    >
    >Thanks for any assistance
    >
    >
    The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
    3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
    heads cleaned by hand.

    hank
  3. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "No One" <noone@nohwehre.com> wrote

    > The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
    > 3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
    > heads cleaned by hand.
    >
    > hank
    >

    WHAT!!!
    Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
    intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
    I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video tape
    heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off hours, if
    not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
    Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
    cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
    chamois stick. It is time well spent.

    Bill F.
    www.billfarnsworthvideo.com
  4. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...
    >
    > "No One" <noone@nohwehre.com> wrote
    >
    >> The heads are probably clogged up, run a cleaning cassette for about
    >> 3 minutes. Or take it to someone that knows how to do it and have the
    >> heads cleaned by hand.
    >>
    >> hank
    >>
    >
    > WHAT!!!
    > Look folks. Those dry cleaning cassettes are NOT, nor have they EVER been,
    > intended to be used for any more than TEN SECONDS at a time. And as far as
    > I'm concerned they are nothing more than a short cut to hell for video
    > tape heads. Three minutes of running a dry head cleaner will take off
    > hours, if not ALL of the life you have left on the heads.
    > Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
    > cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
    > chamois stick. It is time well spent.
    >
    > Bill F.
    > www.billfarnsworthvideo.com
    >
    I think some manufacturers say to only run them for FIVE SECONDS at a time.
  5. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...

    > Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
    > cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
    > chamois stick. It is time well spent.

    What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
    the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
    to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    to the axis of the drum.

    Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
    problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great. An
    RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
    practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's something
    to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
    outdated.
  6. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Doc" wrote ...
    > What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
    > the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,

    Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
    I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.

    > and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
    > the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    > to the axis of the drum.

    The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
    consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
    without significant risk.
  7. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Doc" <docsavage20@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:p6Yxd.5958$Z47.4214@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:xjOxd.3084$h.3060@trnddc04...
    >
    > > Figure out how to open the recorder and give your cameras a good wet
    > > cleaning with a good video head cleaner and a lint free cloth or quality
    > > chamois stick. It is time well spent.
    >
    > What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean the heads, moisten
    > the cloth in clear acetone, and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular
    > to the axis of the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    > to the axis of the drum.
    >
    > Since the camcorder is still useful in play mode, how I've "cured" the
    > problem is to find 2 more 8mm camcorders in a pawn shop that work great.
    An
    > RCA and a Sony Handy Cam. Got 'em both for $65. Geez, I thought I
    > practically stole the other one 5 years ago for $75. Hey, there's
    something
    > to be said for using technology that's on the downhill side of being
    > outdated.
    >
    >

    That and the surface mount capacitors in those things are time bombs, even
    sitting unused they'll fail after a shelf life of 5-10 years in most cases,
    making older ones simply not worth much.
  8. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    [Veronica]

    > "Doc" wrote ...
    >> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
    >> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
    >
    > Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
    > I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
    >
    >> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
    >> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    >> to the axis of the drum.
    >
    > The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
    > consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
    > without significant risk.
    >
    >
    Use a cotton bud.
    --

    <http://www.theweddingphotographers.com>
  9. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Unspam" wrote ...
    > [Veronica]
    >
    >> "Doc" wrote ...
    >>> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
    >>> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
    >>
    >> Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
    >> I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
    >>
    >>> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
    >>> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    >>> to the axis of the drum.
    >>
    >> The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
    >> consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
    >> without significant risk.
    >>
    >>
    > Use a cotton bud.

    Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
    specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
    "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
    RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
    being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
    are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
    do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
  10. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    [Veronica]

    > "Unspam" wrote ...
    >> [Veronica]
    >>
    >>> "Doc" wrote ...
    >>>> What I was told by a video repair guy was that to clean
    >>>> the heads, moisten the cloth in clear acetone,
    >>>
    >>> Keep the acetone away from any of the plastic parts!
    >>> I wouldn't even trust it on the video head drum.
    >>>
    >>>> and lightly rub across the heads perpendicular to the axis of
    >>>> the drum but never rub up and down, i.e. never rub parallel
    >>>> to the axis of the drum.
    >>>
    >>> The standard head/drum cleaning procedure. Alas many (most?)
    >>> consumers are not sensitive enough to the cautions to do this
    >>> without significant risk.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> Use a cotton bud.
    >
    > Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
    > specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
    > "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
    > RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
    > being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
    > are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
    > do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
    >


    Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
    give way to your superior knowledge.
    --

    <http://www.theweddingphotographers.com>
  11. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Unspam" wrote ...

    >> Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
    >> specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
    >> "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
    >> RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
    >> being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
    >> are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
    >> do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
    >
    > Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went
    > digital, but I give way to your superior knowledge.

    They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
    for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just
    fine. For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
    fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the
    tape path of rotary-head machines.

    But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
    many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just
    because of the risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.
  12. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:10slq31no3lud45@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Unspam" wrote ...
    >
    >>> Actually, the "chamois-like" cleaning wands were created
    >>> specifically because "cotton bud"s (or cotton swabs, or
    >>> "Q-tips", a US brand-name) are SPECIFICALLY *NOT*
    >>> RECOMMENDED for cleaning rotary heads. The reason
    >>> being that the sharp little pieces that you are trying to clean
    >>> are quite likely to snag and retain cotton fibres which will
    >>> do more harm than whatever crud you were trying to remove.
    >>
    >> Hmmm, they worked in Abbey Road for years until they went digital, but I
    >> give way to your superior knowledge.
    >
    > They weren't using recorders with rotary heads "in Abbey Road
    > for years". For analog, linear machines (i.e. audio), they are just fine.
    > For that matter, if you are careful to inspect for stray snagged
    > fibres, cotton swabs are just fine for the non-moving parts of the tape
    > path of rotary-head machines.
    > But using them on rotary heads is just inviting disaster. And
    > many pro video users advocate avoiding them altogether just because of the
    > risk from stray fibres that you may not notice.

    You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...

    Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

    Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
    freon...etc, etc, etc.

    Then there is the "light application of a thumbnail to the upper drum"
    trick.

    Seriously though...dense cotton cloth or chamois stick, DEnatured alchohol
    (the 70% stuff has too much water content...heads can rust, believe it or
    not), and just hold the alchohol soaked cloth/chamois against the heads
    while you carefully turn the drum with your finger.

    DO NOT scrub up and down (you can snap a head off) or side to side (you can
    knock the heads out of alignment.) Just hold the cloth in line with the
    heads while turning the drum and check the cloth/chamois each time. It
    should show less and less crud after each pass and eventually come up clean.

    Jay Beckman
    Old Freelance Tape - EVS - Profile Op/Editor
    Chandler, AZ
  13. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
    > You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
    > machines...

    > Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!

    > Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
    > will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.

    In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
    greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
    Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
    correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

    I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
    we'll never know.
  14. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
    >> You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...
    >
    >> Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
    >
    >> Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you have
    >> freon...etc, etc, etc.
    >
    > In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more greenhouse
    > gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
    > electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to observe
    > that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
    >
    > I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
    > know.

    True, true...

    However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
    tails or third ears...

    Freon did have it's dark side.

    Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear (and
    even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in nature.

    Merry and Happy...

    Jay B
  15. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote ...
    [re: Freon]
    > However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow
    > second tails or third ears...

    The MSDS doesn't mention anything like this.

    "Reproductive data on rats show no change in reproductive performance."

    "In animal testing, this material has not caused permanent genetic
    damage
    in reproductive cells of mammals (has not produced heritable genetic
    damage)."

    > Freon did have it's dark side.

    If you compare the MSDS, it is roughly equivalent to alcohol.
    Actually, I am at far greater risk from alcohol (or those who
    have consumed it) than from Freon.

    http://msds.dupont.com/msds/pdfs/EN/PEN_09004a2f8000789b.pdf
  16. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
    > > You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2"
    > > machines...
    >
    > > Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
    >
    > > Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds
    > > will let you have freon...etc, etc, etc.
    >
    > In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
    > greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
    > Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
    > correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
    >
    > I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but
    > we'll never know.


    Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    large hole above the arctic. There's modern equivilants that work nearly as
    well and don't cause such a problem.
  17. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:09:32 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
    >greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using
    >Freon to clean electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically
    >correct to observe that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.

    Freon <> greenhouse gasses. Learn what you're talking about before
    speaking.

    By the way, this year's ozone hole over the Antarctic will set a new
    record. What part of that involves being "politically correct"?

    Learn science, it's good for you.

    Mike
  18. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:A_Dyd.999$yW5.486@fed1read02...
    > "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    > news:10sm2etkdqaae8c@corp.supernews.com...
    > > "Jay Beckman" wrote ...
    > >> You could always try doing it the way we used to clean 2" machines...
    > >
    > >> Just squirt the freon in there while it's on the air!
    > >
    > >> Provided of course you HAVE a 2" machine...and the feds will let you
    have
    > >> freon...etc, etc, etc.
    > >
    > > In a few hours, Mt. St. Helens just north of town here put more
    greenhouse
    > > gasses into the atmosphere than 1000 years of using Freon to clean
    > > electronic parts. But, alas, its no longer politically correct to
    observe
    > > that Freon was such a great cleaner/solvent.
    > >
    > > I suspect that it would work equally well for DV, et.al. but we'll never
    > > know.
    >
    > True, true...
    >
    > However, I don't think that Mt St Helens caused lab rats to grow second
    > tails or third ears...
    >
    > Freon did have it's dark side.
    >
    > Considering the construction "quality" of some of today's consumer gear
    (and
    > even some "pro" gear) Freon may just be a little too "industrial" in
    nature.
    >
    > Merry and Happy...
    >
    > Jay B
    >

    True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it illegal
    for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
    who
    is responsible though ...
    (check out the Mt. St. Helens cam -- cool pix and they have some
    short movies of some of the past "eruptions")
    http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

    mikey
  19. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    >
    > True, but the tree huggers are trying to get a law passed to make it
    illegal
    > for Mt. St. Helens to give off any more gas .. still trying to figure out
    > who
    > is responsible though ...


    Huh? Is it "tree huggers" or just someone trying to be cute? There was a
    reasonably well publicized gag a few years ago where someone was pushing for
    a ban on "di-hydrogen monoxide" and actually succeeded in getting a
    ridiculous number of signatures.
  20. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    >
    > Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    > large hole above the arctic.

    Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    due to natural forces.

    Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?
  21. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    >>
    >> Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    >> large hole above the arctic.
    >
    >Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    >and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    >due to natural forces.

    You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
    few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
    I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
    the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
    been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.

    It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
    to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
    have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
    concept of a round earth.

    Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
    Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
    current trend is way outside the norm.

    Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
    the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
    there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

    >Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?

    Ozone is created normally in the upper atmosphere from the ionization
    of O2 by the solar wind.

    Ozone in the lower atmosphere, from automobile exhaust, etc, makes its
    way to the upper atmosphere only very slowly.

    -
    -----------------------------------------------
    Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
    Madison, WI 53711 USA
    -----------------------------------------------
  22. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:Snmzd.12790$Z47.11041@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    > >
    > > Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of
    the
    > > large hole above the arctic.
    >
    > Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    > and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    > due to natural forces.
    >
    > Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?
    >
    >

    Ozone is caused by diatomic oxygen molecules being busted apart by shortwave
    UV light, they then recombine into Ozone (O3).

    I can't *prove* that freon "caused" the ozone hole any more than I can
    personally "prove" that the earth is round or that the moon is not made of
    cheese, but it's widely accepted to be a substantial contributor. Yeah
    there's a lot of BS environmental hysteria out there but there's some
    substance to some of it. A quick google search brings up hundreds of links
    to various reading. If the internet is not considered a trustworthy source
    there's plenty of respected scientific books and magazines with coverage of
    the subject at most libraries.

    Since the manufacture of CFC's was banned in the US the world has not fallen
    apart, technology has come to the rescue and developed suitable substitutes.
  23. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
    wrote:

    >You might want to read several articals in Physics Today in the last
    >few years. I'm only familiar with those because that's one I get, but
    >I'm sure that there are other scientific journals that have detailed
    >the chemistry that is responsible for these reactions. The process has
    >been well known in the scientific community for more than 20 years.
    >
    >It remains a political question mark simply because it is inconvenient
    >to some parts of the political spectrum, mostly the same people that
    >have trouble with evolution, the heliocentric solar system, and the
    >concept of a round earth.
    >
    >Ozone concentrations over both poles has been tracked for many years.
    >Naturally there is a normal variation from year to year, but the
    >current trend is way outside the norm.
    >
    >Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
    >the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
    >there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.

    It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
    We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
    is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
    We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
    over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
    rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
    Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
    time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
    But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
    period is simply bad science.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  24. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:jlnts05c3s6bcrk1lidun5r4aq677s248n@4ax.com...
    | On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
    | wrote:
    |
    ....
    | >Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
    | >the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
    | >there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.
    |
    | It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
    | We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
    | is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
    ....

    But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
    it's part of a normal cycle.

    N
  25. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:

    >
    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:jlnts05c3s6bcrk1lidun5r4aq677s248n@4ax.com...
    >| On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:41:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
    >| wrote:
    >|
    >...
    >| >Ozone concentrations over the north pole have also been tracked for
    >| >the same amount of time, but until recently there was never a "hole"
    >| >there. Now we have an annual hole. This is a distinct change.
    >|
    >| It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
    >| We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
    >| is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
    >...
    >
    >But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
    >it's part of a normal cycle.
    >
    >N
    >
    What incomng wave would that be?
    What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
    somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
    Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
    the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
    makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
    to scare people into your view.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  26. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    James wrote:
    > "James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    >
    >>Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    >>large hole above the arctic.
    >
    >
    > Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    > and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    > due to natural forces.
    >
    > Science quiz, do you know where ozone comes from?
    >
    >

    You might try these sites to start with:

    http://www.uneptie.org/ozonaction/compliance/ozonews/02Oct15.html
    http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/609/consumers/cons2.html
    http://www.ausetute.com.au/cfcozone.html

    After that there are literally hundreds of Scientific papers on the
    subject. This is why refrigerator companies eventually replaced the CFCs
    they used in the cooling systems of fridges and why there are so many
    controls on the methods used in the production of Printed Circuit
    boards, for example

    I suspect that you must be the only person left in the free world that
    doesn't know that chlorofluorocarbons (of which Freon is a major member
    of the group)have been primarily responsible for the hole in the Ozone
    Layer - which incidentally didn't exist prior to 1976.
  27. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:psmus0ps9u966vrlkelk69mbmoln4mchbt@4ax.com...
    | On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:

    | >But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
    | >it's part of a normal cycle.
    | >
    | What incomng wave would that be?

    I'm sorry. I thought you were aware of the concepts of 'Ocean', 'Beach' and
    'Wave. My bad for assuming that your intelligence was above that of a Jell-O
    pudding.


    | What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
    | somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
    | Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
    | the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
    | makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
    | to scare people into your view.
    |
    | --
    | Bill Funk
    | Change "g" to "a"
  28. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    news:15rus017vlhev9eq4bbsal5tutnsr0h9l4@4ax.com...

    > It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

    Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject. If
    you can tear yourself away from that tree you're hugging, put on your
    Birkenstocks and look around, you'll find plenty of dispute on the topic.
  29. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:23:47 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:

    >
    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:psmus0ps9u966vrlkelk69mbmoln4mchbt@4ax.com...
    >| On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:43:16 GMT, "NSM" <nowrite@to.me> wrote:
    >
    >| >But when the incoming wave is 50 feet high it's not a good time to assume
    >| >it's part of a normal cycle.
    >| >
    >| What incomng wave would that be?
    >
    >I'm sorry. I thought you were aware of the concepts of 'Ocean', 'Beach' and
    >'Wave. My bad for assuming that your intelligence was above that of a Jell-O
    >pudding.

    I am aware of such things. I'm trying to understand where this 50 foot
    wave would come from.
    Do you expect me to believe that a hole on the ozone layer would
    somehow cause a 50 foot wave?
    If so, would you please explain the mechanics behind this?
    >
    >
    >| What does this mean? That you think there's going to be a 50 foot wave
    >| somewhere caused by a hole inthe ozone layer?
    >| Let's at least *try* to maintain some sort of level of sanity here;
    >| the type of chicken-little hyperbole you are trying to pass off only
    >| makes you look like you don't understand the situation, and are trying
    >| to scare people into your view.
    >|
    >| --
    >| Bill Funk
    >| Change "g" to "a"
    >

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  30. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:28 -0800, Mike Kohary <no@spam.please>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    >>>
    >>> Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    >>> large hole above the arctic.
    >>
    >>Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    >>and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    >>due to natural forces.
    >
    >It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.

    Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    the model says it *can* happen.
    And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  31. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    news:q17vs0940vmvdcjb3gekui7iqn483tlvv4@4ax.com...

    > >Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.
    >
    > It's not in dispute in the scientific community.

    Ah, Mike Kohary, official voice of "The Scientific Community". And pray
    tell, what is your official place in "The Scientific Community"? Looking at
    your website - electric guitar, computer programming, video game nerd,
    drinker of Samuel Adams, film buff - but gotta be honest chief, your
    scientific credentials don't quite jump out from the page. Amazing that
    there's no links, not even a mention of any interest or training in
    environmental or any other science, chemistry, physics etc. considering this
    keen interest/knowledge you seem to claim.

    Couldn't be that you're simply spouting emotional rhetoric could it?
  32. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:59:43 -0800, Mike Kohary <no@spam.please>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:12:45 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:00:28 -0800, Mike Kohary <no@spam.please>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:06:26 GMT, "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:dfEyd.2120$1U6.132@trnddc09...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Freon isn't a greenhouse gas, it reacts with ozone and is the cause of the
    >>>>> large hole above the arctic.
    >>>>
    >>>>Kindly demonstrate proof that use of freon "caused" the hole in the ozone,
    >>>>and that it wasn't already there and doesn't fluctuate in size on it's own
    >>>>due to natural forces.
    >>>
    >>>It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.
    >>
    >>Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    >>While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    >>the model says it *can* happen.
    >>And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    >>a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    >>havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    >
    >The scientific literature says otherwise.

    No, the scientific literature that *you* read and give credence to
    says so.
    How long have we been monitoring the ozone layers?
    How long have they been there?
    What was their behaviour before we started monitoring them?
    Any breakdown in answering those questions (especially the last) means
    we just don't know what he current behaviour means. We only know what
    it *is*. We don't know *why* it is. We *think* we may know one way it
    could be this way, but without a better understanding of the nature
    and history of the nature of the layers, we can not, with any
    certainty at all, say *why* certain behaviour in them exists.

    Some literature says it's out fault. This is a politically correct
    attitude, and it *might* be right. The problem is we just don't
    *know*.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  33. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    news:q17vs0940vmvdcjb3gekui7iqn483tlvv4@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:32:06 GMT, "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    >>news:15rus017vlhev9eq4bbsal5tutnsr0h9l4@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>> It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.
    >>
    >>Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.
    >
    > It's not in dispute in the scientific community.
    > --
    Mike...we're in the playoffs...step away from the trollls......step away
  34. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    Fitpix wrote:
    > "Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    > news:q17vs0940vmvdcjb3gekui7iqn483tlvv4@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:32:06 GMT, "James" <muzician21@xyahoo.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Mike Kohary" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
    >>>news:15rus017vlhev9eq4bbsal5tutnsr0h9l4@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>It's not a fact in dispute - go look it up for yourself.
    >>>
    >>>Not unless by "in dispute" you mean there's disagreement on the subject.
    >>
    >>It's not in dispute in the scientific community.
    >>--
    >
    > Mike...we're in the playoffs...step away from the trollls......step away
    >
    >
    'Tis the season to be Troll-y,
    Trala lala la, lala la la..."

    then there's always the evergreen favourite, "Jingle Trolls"
    or "Good King Wenceslas last Trolled out.."
  35. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:58:51 -0700 Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
    >We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
    >is that it's a change in extremely recent history.

    It's true that the observation time is negligible in terms of the
    earth's age. I'll grant you that. If you feel that only observation
    over a significant portion of the earth's age will convince you, then
    we will have to agree that you will never be convinced.

    >We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
    >over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
    >rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
    >Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
    >time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
    >But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
    >period is simply bad science.

    It's important to recognize that in addition to the ozone
    concentrations, the fluorocarbon compound concentrations have also
    been followed. The chemistry is known and the reaction rates are
    known. We also know when Freon first entered the lower atmosphere, and
    the rates of diffusion to the upper atmosphere have been calculated
    and verified.

    The half-life of the fluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere is
    extremely long, but it can be calculated, and the calculations agree
    with the observed concentrations. The body of evidence is complete and
    consistent. To my knowledge, all the debate on this topic withing the
    scientific community was settled many years ago.

    The claim that this may just be a normally occuring anomaly would be
    reasonable if we didn't have additional data to support the
    conclusions, but this is not the case. The claim of "bad science" is
    really just the pot calling the kettle black. The science has all been
    done; the fight is all in the political arena. Unfortunately, the
    current political climate is more comfortable with faith than facts.

    -
    -----------------------------------------------
    Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
    Madison, WI 53711 USA
    -----------------------------------------------
  36. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:36:39 +0000 Carl <carl@nospam.please> wrote:

    >I suspect that you must be the only person left in the free world that
    >doesn't know that chlorofluorocarbons (of which Freon is a major member
    >of the group)have been primarily responsible for the hole in the Ozone
    >Layer.

    I wish this were correct, but unfortunately there are still a large
    number of people out there who just can't believe that there could
    possibly be anything we could do to the earth that would upset any of
    Mother Nature's normal balances.

    Most of the time this just takes the form of, "My father did this, and
    so did his father and his father before him. It didn't have any effect
    then so there's no reason to think that it should have any effect
    now."

    Unfortunately, there are just a lot more of US here now, so our
    collective effects are compounding, plus we come up with more and
    different ways to alter the environment every year. Freon has only
    been around something like 50 years, so my great-grandfather never
    used it.

    -
    -----------------------------------------------
    Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
    Madison, WI 53711 USA
    -----------------------------------------------
  37. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    >
    > Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    > While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    > the model says it *can* happen.
    > And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    > a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    > havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    >
    > --


    Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the other
    hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why chance
    it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer, or
    that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off nothing
    but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of evidence
    to the contrary, why chance it?
  38. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:50:52 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:58:51 -0700 Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
    >>We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
    >>is that it's a change in extremely recent history.
    >
    >It's true that the observation time is negligible in terms of the
    >earth's age. I'll grant you that. If you feel that only observation
    >over a significant portion of the earth's age will convince you, then
    >we will have to agree that you will never be convinced.

    What fails to convince me that *this* is being caused by *us* is that
    we have no idea of whether *this* is a one-tme thing, or a common
    cycle,and, if it *is* a common thing, what caused it the other times.
    To simply go to a new area, observe somehting that's happening, and
    assume that *you* caused it is pretty arrogant, IMO.

    >
    >>We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
    >>over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
    >>rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
    >>Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
    >>time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
    >>But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
    >>period is simply bad science.
    >
    >It's important to recognize that in addition to the ozone
    >concentrations, the fluorocarbon compound concentrations have also
    >been followed. The chemistry is known and the reaction rates are
    >known. We also know when Freon first entered the lower atmosphere, and
    >the rates of diffusion to the upper atmosphere have been calculated
    >and verified.

    All this is true.
    However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
    the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
    the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
    *possible* reality.
    Since the model can't take into account any previous occurrances, we
    can only observe the change, and *postulate* what's actually causing
    it.
    >
    >The half-life of the fluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere is
    >extremely long, but it can be calculated, and the calculations agree
    >with the observed concentrations. The body of evidence is complete and
    >consistent. To my knowledge, all the debate on this topic withing the
    >scientific community was settled many years ago.

    Then you simply do not see that the body of evidence is so skimpy that
    we don't even know if this has happened before. Without that
    knowledge, we can't say this is a *unique* happening, and that we are
    responsible for it.
    >
    >The claim that this may just be a normally occuring anomaly would be
    >reasonable if we didn't have additional data to support the
    >conclusions, but this is not the case. The claim of "bad science" is
    >really just the pot calling the kettle black. The science has all been
    >done; the fight is all in the political arena. Unfortunately, the
    >current political climate is more comfortable with faith than facts.

    But it *is* the case. We simply do ot have enough data to say what is
    causeing he hole. We only havbe data from the very recent past, and
    that's just not enough to say even whether or not holes have occurred
    before, much less why this one is occurring.
    The evidence we have is enough to model a *possible* reason, but not
    enough to say whether this hole is even unique.
    The science has *not* been done; *some* science has been done. There
    has not been enough observation done to know whether the hole is
    unique or part of a not yet understood cycle.
    >
    >-
    >-----------------------------------------------
    > Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
    > Madison, WI 53711 USA
    >-----------------------------------------------

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  39. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
    <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    >> While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    >> the model says it *can* happen.
    >> And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    >> a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    >> havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    >>
    >> --
    >
    >
    >Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the other
    >hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why chance
    >it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer, or
    >that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off nothing
    >but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of evidence
    >to the contrary, why chance it?
    >
    I truly wish it were as simple as that.
    Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
    disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
    down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
    warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
    people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
    when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
    Freon is only a small part of this.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  40. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:e853t0dnfn5m2ub6sidd6b3q2hlqp33prs@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
    > <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    > >> While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    > >> the model says it *can* happen.
    > >> And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    > >> a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    > >> havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >
    > >
    > >Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
    other
    > >hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
    chance
    > >it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer,
    or
    > >that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
    nothing
    > >but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
    evidence
    > >to the contrary, why chance it?
    > >
    > I truly wish it were as simple as that.
    > Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
    > disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
    > down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
    > warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
    > people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
    > when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
    > Freon is only a small part of this.

    I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting on
    their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused more
    that one disaster in the past.
    me
  41. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:e853t0dnfn5m2ub6sidd6b3q2hlqp33prs@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
    >> <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    >> >> While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    >> >> the model says it *can* happen.
    >> >> And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
    >> >> a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    >> >> havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
    >other
    >> >hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
    >chance
    >> >it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer,
    >or
    >> >that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
    >nothing
    >> >but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
    >evidence
    >> >to the contrary, why chance it?
    >> >
    >> I truly wish it were as simple as that.
    >> Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
    >> disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
    >> down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
    >> warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
    >> people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
    >> when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
    >> Freon is only a small part of this.
    >
    >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting on
    >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused more
    >that one disaster in the past.
    >me
    >
    And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    to do the *right* thing.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  42. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    > >news:e853t0dnfn5m2ub6sidd6b3q2hlqp33prs@4ax.com...
    > >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
    > >> <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    > >> >> While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    > >> >> the model says it *can* happen.
    > >> >> And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other
    than
    > >> >> a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    > >> >> havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> --
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
    > >other
    > >> >hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
    > >chance
    > >> >it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin
    cancer,
    > >or
    > >> >that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
    > >nothing
    > >> >but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
    > >evidence
    > >> >to the contrary, why chance it?
    > >> >
    > >> I truly wish it were as simple as that.
    > >> Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
    > >> disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
    > >> down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
    > >> warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
    > >> people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
    > >> when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
    > >> Freon is only a small part of this.
    > >
    > >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting
    on
    > >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
    more
    > >that one disaster in the past.
    > >me
    > >
    > And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    > Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    > to do the *right* thing.

    When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest a
    *lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    Thank You,
    me
  43. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:11:13 -0700 Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >All this is true.
    >However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
    >the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
    >the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
    >*possible* reality.

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that theory is nice, but
    it isn't convincing until you have an observation that proves it.
    Certainly yours would be the most convincing senario, but I wonder if
    you are willing to be consistent with this attitude.

    Take natural radiation, do you feel that spontaneous fission is an
    unproven theory just because no one has ever actually been watching a
    particular atom when it broke up?

    Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one? Has anyone?

    Relativity predicts that my yardstick will look 18" long to you if I
    pass you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Do you
    choose to postpone your belief until this particular experiment is
    done?

    How do you feel about E-M waves? Ever seen one? Maxwell's equations
    make a lot of predictions which we can verify, but we still can't
    actually see a radio wave.

    Or how about the politically dangerous ground of evolution? No one has
    ever actually watched while one species evolve into another. There's
    plenty of other evidence, but again we find the scientific community
    united in favor, while some non-science people argue against it.

    Each of these items is something which has been explained by some
    theory to most people's satisfaction, and yet none of these particular
    things has ever actually been directly observed. In spite of a lack of
    direct observational data, there is enough corroborating evidence that
    most of us believe that we understand these things and believe the
    theory to be correct.

    I agree that the natural occuring variation fuzzes up the cause of the
    observed ozone hole, but the science is clear that ozone depletion is
    an expected consequence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmsophere. The
    observed rate of depletion is consistent with the predictions. There
    IS some undertainty in the predictions, simply because very small
    changes in the reaction rates have large consequences over 100 years.

    I still suggest that you look around and see who is still arguing
    about this topic. I don't think you will find any disagreement within
    the scientific community. The objections are all political. While the
    scientists are certainly willing to continue to take data forever, the
    actual problem is a social one and the only solution will have to be a
    political one.

    Right now, the easy way out is to just say that we don't have enough
    data and leave it at that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on
    your point of view, this can go on forever.

    The real problem with waiting is that the time constants of ozone
    depletion are so long that it may already be too late to do anything
    about it. Even if we stopped all of these emissions right now, ozone
    depletion will continue over the next 100 years. The rate of depletion
    will still slowly increase for 20-50 years as Freon from the lower
    atmosphere slowly diffuses upwards and only later will the rate of
    depletion start to decline.

    None of the living things on this planet have evolved to cope with the
    amount of UV that they might be exposed to. Sure, we can all wear
    hats, but what if our wheat won't grow in this environment? Fish can
    hide in the deep water, but what will they eat? What will we breathe
    if our green plants don't survive?

    Alarmist? Sure, but not too unrealistic. We're all interdependent in
    ways that most of us don't comprehend, and it might just be a little
    change like this which would push us all over the edge, not with a
    bang, but a wimper.

    -
    -----------------------------------------------
    Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
    Madison, WI 53711 USA
    -----------------------------------------------
  44. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:00:29 -0600, Jim Adney <jadney@vwtype3.org>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:11:13 -0700 Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>All this is true.
    >>However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
    >>the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
    >>the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
    >>*possible* reality.
    >
    >If I understand you correctly, you are saying that theory is nice, but
    >it isn't convincing until you have an observation that proves it.
    >Certainly yours would be the most convincing senario, but I wonder if
    >you are willing to be consistent with this attitude.

    What I'm saying is that the data we have is incomplete.
    If we are to postulate that an observed phenomenom is caused by a
    certain action, we need to first make sure that the phenonemon is
    actually happening for the reasons we *think* it's happening.
    Especially when that phenonemon is something that we know is part of a
    system that we haven't been observing for very long.
    Imagine landing on Mars, and finding a dead animal 50 feet away from
    the landing site. Did the landing cause the death?
    >
    >Take natural radiation, do you feel that spontaneous fission is an
    >unproven theory just because no one has ever actually been watching a
    >particular atom when it broke up?

    Bad analogy. It's been observed long enough to understand the physics
    involved.
    >
    >Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one? Has anyone?

    I haven't seen China, either. But I believe it exists.
    >
    >Relativity predicts that my yardstick will look 18" long to you if I
    >pass you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Do you
    >choose to postpone your belief until this particular experiment is
    >done?
    >
    >How do you feel about E-M waves? Ever seen one? Maxwell's equations
    >make a lot of predictions which we can verify, but we still can't
    >actually see a radio wave.
    >
    >Or how about the politically dangerous ground of evolution? No one has
    >ever actually watched while one species evolve into another. There's
    >plenty of other evidence, but again we find the scientific community
    >united in favor, while some non-science people argue against it.
    >
    >Each of these items is something which has been explained by some
    >theory to most people's satisfaction, and yet none of these particular
    >things has ever actually been directly observed. In spite of a lack of
    >direct observational data, there is enough corroborating evidence that
    >most of us believe that we understand these things and believe the
    >theory to be correct.

    And yet, for some reason, no one is trying to get us to disrupt our
    economy over these things.
    >
    >I agree that the natural occuring variation fuzzes up the cause of the
    >observed ozone hole, but the science is clear that ozone depletion is
    >an expected consequence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmsophere. The
    >observed rate of depletion is consistent with the predictions. There
    >IS some undertainty in the predictions, simply because very small
    >changes in the reaction rates have large consequences over 100 years.

    We can *model* such changes. We can't determine from those models that
    this is *why* it's happening.
    Why did the ice ages of former times go warmer? We don't know. But we
    are told we know why *this* warming period is happening: it's *our*
    fault, becasue some model says it *can* happen a certain way. Yet,
    it's happened before, and it certainly *didn't* happen the way the
    models say it *can* happen.
    Models are not perfect, they are only tools.
    >
    >I still suggest that you look around and see who is still arguing
    >about this topic. I don't think you will find any disagreement within
    >the scientific community. The objections are all political. While the
    >scientists are certainly willing to continue to take data forever, the
    >actual problem is a social one and the only solution will have to be a
    >political one.

    Wrong. Those who rely on models simply can not apply the models to
    reality, they can only say that the model represents one way it can
    happen.
    >
    >Right now, the easy way out is to just say that we don't have enough
    >data and leave it at that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on
    >your point of view, this can go on forever.
    >
    >The real problem with waiting is that the time constants of ozone
    >depletion are so long that it may already be too late to do anything
    >about it. Even if we stopped all of these emissions right now, ozone
    >depletion will continue over the next 100 years. The rate of depletion
    >will still slowly increase for 20-50 years as Freon from the lower
    >atmosphere slowly diffuses upwards and only later will the rate of
    >depletion start to decline.
    >
    >None of the living things on this planet have evolved to cope with the
    >amount of UV that they might be exposed to. Sure, we can all wear
    >hats, but what if our wheat won't grow in this environment? Fish can
    >hide in the deep water, but what will they eat? What will we breathe
    >if our green plants don't survive?
    >
    >Alarmist? Sure, but not too unrealistic. We're all interdependent in
    >ways that most of us don't comprehend, and it might just be a little
    >change like this which would push us all over the edge, not with a
    >bang, but a wimper.

    Extinction happens all the time, and it's not our fault. More than 80%
    of all species went extinct before we existed. We just aren't the bad
    guys all the time.
    The earth's different systems are not understood well at all. ANy
    scientist who says they are is just flat lying.
    I remember in the 70s when we were told a new ice age was imminent;
    now it's global warming. Well, which is it? Global warming has
    happened before, without us even being here. We simply do not know
    why. But we are being told we know why *this* global warming is
    happening; it's our fault. Isn't that just a little arrogant? To
    assume that *we* are causing something that's happened before without
    our even being here?
    Sort of like floating down a river on a raft, and, noticing the
    drawbridge is opening, assuming it's opening for you.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  45. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:e853t0dnfn5m2ub6sidd6b3q2hlqp33prs@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
    >> >> <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Actually, it *is* in dispute.
    >> >> >> While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
    >> >> >> the model says it *can* happen.
    >> >> >> And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other
    >than
    >> >> >> a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
    >> >> >> havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> --
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
    >> >other
    >> >> >hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
    >> >chance
    >> >> >it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin
    >cancer,
    >> >or
    >> >> >that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
    >> >nothing
    >> >> >but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
    >> >evidence
    >> >> >to the contrary, why chance it?
    >> >> >
    >> >> I truly wish it were as simple as that.
    >> >> Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
    >> >> disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
    >> >> down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
    >> >> warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
    >> >> people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
    >> >> when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
    >> >> Freon is only a small part of this.
    >> >
    >> >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting
    >on
    >> >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
    >more
    >> >that one disaster in the past.
    >> >me
    >> >
    >> And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    >> Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    >> to do the *right* thing.
    >
    >When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    >world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest a
    >*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    >Thank You,
    >me
    >
    Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
    yet.
    When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  46. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:f8n7t0hctl7osjene8c1e7ood4ofp6okkb@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    > >news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    > >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
    sitting
    > >on
    > >> >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
    > >more
    > >> >that one disaster in the past.
    > >> >me
    > >> >
    > >> And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    > >> Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    > >> to do the *right* thing.
    > >
    > >When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    > >world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest
    a
    > >*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    > >Thank You,
    > >me
    > >
    > Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
    > yet.

    When did I say it's your fault?

    > When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

    Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
    ;-)
    me
  47. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:f8n7t0hctl7osjene8c1e7ood4ofp6okkb@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
    >sitting
    >> >on
    >> >> >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
    >> >more
    >> >> >that one disaster in the past.
    >> >> >me
    >> >> >
    >> >> And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    >> >> Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    >> >> to do the *right* thing.
    >> >
    >> >When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    >> >world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest
    >a
    >> >*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    >> >Thank You,
    >> >me
    >> >
    >> Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
    >> yet.
    >
    >When did I say it's your fault?

    Read what yopu wrote.
    By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
    fault.
    >
    >> When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?
    >
    >Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
    >;-)
    >me
    >
    Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
    know.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  48. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:bin8t0ll7gtsdbi10svna6oe4mvghtbs5a@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    > >news:f8n7t0hctl7osjene8c1e7ood4ofp6okkb@4ax.com...
    > >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    > >> >news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    > >> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
    > >sitting
    > >> >on
    > >> >> >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has
    caused
    > >> >more
    > >> >> >that one disaster in the past.
    > >> >> >me
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    > >> >> Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    > >> >> to do the *right* thing.
    > >> >
    > >> >When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    > >> >world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will
    rest
    > >a
    > >> >*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    > >> >Thank You,
    > >> >me
    > >> >
    > >> Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
    > >> yet.
    > >
    > >When did I say it's your fault?
    >
    > Read what yopu wrote.
    > By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
    > fault.

    No fault intended. Your posts indicated that even if you don't know what to
    do then you certainly know what not to do.

    > >> When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?
    > >
    > >Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
    > >;-)
    > >me
    > >
    > Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
    > know.

    I couldn't have said it better myself. I favor letting those who know make
    the decisions as opposed to those who don't. I believe you've already stated
    which group you're in. ;-)
    me
  49. Archived from groups: sci.electronics.repair,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,alt.photography (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:00:20 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

    >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >news:bin8t0ll7gtsdbi10svna6oe4mvghtbs5a@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:f8n7t0hctl7osjene8c1e7ood4ofp6okkb@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    >> >> >news:1396t0d6qdc5dqegi3ikjj9gj7pou8qhll@4ax.com...
    >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
    >> >sitting
    >> >> >on
    >> >> >> >their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has
    >caused
    >> >> >more
    >> >> >> >that one disaster in the past.
    >> >> >> >me
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
    >> >> >> Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
    >> >> >> to do the *right* thing.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
    >> >> >world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will
    >rest
    >> >a
    >> >> >*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
    >> >> >Thank You,
    >> >> >me
    >> >> >
    >> >> Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
    >> >> yet.
    >> >
    >> >When did I say it's your fault?
    >>
    >> Read what yopu wrote.
    >> By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
    >> fault.
    >
    >No fault intended. Your posts indicated that even if you don't know what to
    >do then you certainly know what not to do.

    Well, yeah, I guess so.
    I know not to do something that will have lasting negative effects on
    the off chance that it *might* fix something.
    >
    >> >> When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?
    >> >
    >> >Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
    >> >;-)
    >> >me
    >> >
    >> Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
    >> know.
    >
    >I couldn't have said it better myself. I favor letting those who know make
    >the decisions as opposed to those who don't. I believe you've already stated
    >which group you're in. ;-)
    >me
    >
    Yep. I'm in the group that knows what we don't know, as opposed to the
    group who thinks that because we know something, we know all we need
    to know.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Video Camcorders Graphics