Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the mean time that is one helluva shitpot full of pollution.On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:54:17 -0700, linnix wrote:
That's probably both oil and gas. So, 25% or around 40,000 barrels of
oil per day. It will run out in around 130 years.
The field size estimate I have seen was 50 million barrels (up to 100 mil)
At 40000 bbl/day it should empty out in about 4 years.
Reread it. You started the insults and name calling.On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.
Maybe you are right. I am certainly tired of reading his incessant loveOn Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
Don't feed "krw". He went over the edge long ago.
...Jim Thompson
You *must* enjoy it.On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:42:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
Don't feed "krw". He went over the edge long ago.
...Jim Thompson
Maybe you are right. I am certainly tired of reading his incessant love
spats with AlwaysWrong.
Liar. You're the one who started putting words in my mouth. I called you onOn Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:13:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.
Reread it. You started the insults and name calling.
Evidence for your latest claim not found.On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:54:59 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:13:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.
Reread it. You started the insults and name calling.
Liar. You're the one who started putting words in my mouth. I called you on
it, liar.
Your impressive search skills can't go back three days and a half dozen postsOn Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:33:42 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:54:59 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:13:22 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:36:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:31:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:48:17 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:05:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:08:44 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.
The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.
Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit on
compensatory damages. The $75M limit seems to be on punitive damages
above and beyond compensatory damages. Read it.
Obviously you haven't read it yourself. You're could be a candidate for
Congress.
BTW learn to solder and build some kits.
Jealous? Thought so.
How could i be jealous of someone who hasn't done something i have done?
Become a total asshole? No, you're right, I haven't done that.
Gosh, that is normally on the way being the raging maniac that you are;
how did you skip that step? I guess you take lessons from AlwaysWrong
from the extended conversations you have with him.
You're the one who started with the crap, asshole. I see you wish to continue
it, like your friend AlwaysWrong.
Reread it. You started the insults and name calling.
Liar. You're the one who started putting words in my mouth. I called you on
it, liar.
Evidence for your latest claim not found.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!
Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.
krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.
<Complete bullshit. The subject was their compensatory damages. You keptTrue, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.
If you actually read the text of the statute there is no limit onYou're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.
And your cheap shots, including the names you refer to folks as, arecheap shot, and an outright lie worthy of DimBulb
What you so richly deserve, DimBulb. Nothing less. Are you feelings hurt,On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:50:56 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
cheap shot, and an outright lie worthy of DimBulb
And your cheap shots, including the names you refer to folks as, are
what exactly?
.... but that was an estimate from BP, and they aren't necessarily good atOn Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:23:04 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
przemek@tux.dot.org> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:54:17 -0700, linnix wrote:
That's probably both oil and gas. So, 25% or around 40,000 barrels of
oil per day. It will run out in around 130 years.
The field size estimate I have seen was 50 million barrels (up to 100
mil) At 40000 bbl/day it should empty out in about 4 years.