142 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
142 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
From fork-admin@xent.com Tue Sep 24 23:31:48 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36DC16F03
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:31:47 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:31:47 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
|
|
(8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OJD0C18266 for <jm@jmason.org>;
|
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:13:00 +0100
|
|
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
|
|
with ESMTP id 19D072940D3; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
|
|
Received: from mail.evergo.net (unknown [206.191.151.2]) by xent.com
|
|
(Postfix) with SMTP id CB2E42940C8 for <fork@xent.com>; Tue,
|
|
24 Sep 2002 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
Received: (qmail 30166 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 19:11:52 -0000
|
|
Received: from dsl.206.191.151.102.evergo.net (HELO JMHALL)
|
|
(206.191.151.102) by mail.evergo.net with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 19:11:52 -0000
|
|
Reply-To: <johnhall@evergo.net>
|
|
From: "John Hall" <johnhall@evergo.net>
|
|
To: "FoRK" <fork@example.com>
|
|
Subject: RE: liberal defnitions
|
|
Message-Id: <000d01c263fe$3df8be30$0200a8c0@JMHALL>
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
|
|
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
|
|
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
|
|
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
|
|
Importance: Normal
|
|
In-Reply-To: <ILEHJNJFPDLMDEKNIAKCEEJOCAAA.geege@barrera.org>
|
|
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
|
|
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
|
|
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
|
|
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
|
|
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
|
|
<mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|
|
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
|
|
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:11:52 -0700
|
|
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0
|
|
tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
|
|
version=2.50-cvs
|
|
X-Spam-Level:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read the article. I'm afraid I don't understand how the transmission
|
|
prices could have hit $50/tcf.
|
|
|
|
But I'm also really leery of telling a pipeline company they have to run
|
|
a pipeline at a higher pressure and that they should forego maintenance.
|
|
We had a big pipeline explosion up here awhile ago.
|
|
|
|
So maybe the judge has a point. We'll see as the appeals work its way
|
|
out.
|
|
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
|
|
> From: Geege Schuman [mailto:geege@barrera.org]
|
|
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:16 AM
|
|
> To: johnhall@evergo.net
|
|
> Subject: RE: liberal defnitions
|
|
>
|
|
> from slate's "today's papers": The New York Times and Los Angeles
|
|
Times
|
|
> both lead with word that
|
|
> a federal judge ruled yesterday that the nation's largest
|
|
> national gas pipeline company, El Paso, illegally withheld gas
|
|
> from the market during California's energy squeeze in 2000-01.
|
|
> The judge concluded that El Paso left 21 percent of its capacity
|
|
> in the state off-line, thus driving up the price of gas and
|
|
> helping to induce rolling blackouts.
|
|
>
|
|
> and this is the product of overregulation?
|
|
>
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
|
|
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of
|
|
John
|
|
> Hall
|
|
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:57 PM
|
|
> To: FoRK
|
|
> Subject: liberal defnitions
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> Depends on how much over spending vs. how much (and what type) over
|
|
> regulation.
|
|
>
|
|
> The biggest problem with over regulation is the costs can be
|
|
invisible.
|
|
> It also has the ability to single out particular people, while over
|
|
> spending spreads the damage more evenly. Rent control would be an
|
|
> example of a regulation solution that is in general worse than
|
|
spending
|
|
> tons of money on public housing.
|
|
>
|
|
> As for the definition of a liberal being someone who seeks to impose
|
|
> both, I find no fault in that definition whatsoever. The opinion that
|
|
> EITHER we are spending too much OR we have too much regulation is
|
|
pretty
|
|
> much anathema to liberal politics.
|
|
>
|
|
> Finally, those who argue that there are private replacements for much
|
|
> government regulation are not saying that a state of nature (no
|
|
private
|
|
> replacements, no government regulation) is better than government
|
|
> regulation itself.
|
|
>
|
|
> And in my experience people who label themselves 'Green' (which does
|
|
not
|
|
> include everyone who loves trees and thinks smokestacks are ugly) is a
|
|
> watermelon.
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> > -----Original Message-----
|
|
> > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
|
|
> Geege
|
|
> > Schuman
|
|
> >
|
|
> > funny. i read it as green = red, as in accounting, as in fiscally
|
|
> > irresponsible. which do you think is the worse indictment -
|
|
> > overregulation
|
|
> > or overspending? there are many (dickheads) who buy into the
|
|
> > neo-conservative media's (fox's) definiton of "liberal" as "one who
|
|
> seeks
|
|
> > to
|
|
> > impose both."
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|