Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Oooops there goes another one

Reply
Thread Tools

Oooops there goes another one

 
 
monkeywintest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010


Meat Plow wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:56:29 -0400, joevan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
> >>
> >>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/r...il-mexico.html

> > You probably heard it but all 13 on the rig were off and just one
> > injured. There seems to be some confusion among the news media but it
> > is maybe a gas rig not for oil. It is in 240 feet of water and not a
> > floating rig. TIAFN

>
> Not much info when I read the article. Just said platform exploded in the
> gulf.
>


I understand it to pump oil to land from tankers. But not paying
attention to this such, that BP spill is still an ongoing nightmare
for me
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Yetto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010
Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> writes and having writ moves on.
>On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 00:32:30 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:


>>Nonsence.


>Indeed.


>><Wanders off mumbling about uninformed kids that don't know what they're
>>talking about who can't be bothered to trim posts.>


>For a troll, you talk a lot of **** about everyone else.


No, he writes *nonsence*.

Mike "or something like it" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:31:12 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>joevan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/r...il-mexico.html
>>>> You probably heard it but all 13 on the rig were off and just one
>>>> injured. There seems to be some confusion among the news media but
>>>> it is maybe a gas rig not for oil. It is in 240 feet of water and
>>>> not a floating rig. TIAFN
>>>
>>>According to CNN, it's in 2,500' of water and several miles offshore.
>>>There's also an oil slick 1 milex100' at last report.

>>
>> The platform is in about 340 feet of water and about 100 miles south of
>> Louisiana's Vermilion Bay. Its location is considered shallow water,
>> much less than the approximately 5,000 feet where BP's well spewed oil
>> and gas for three months after the April rig explosion.

>
> You know I had heard originally that it as in 2500 feet of water. Then
> when i went back to the OC site and they said it was in 340 feet.


Yup. I read that in the article. Haven't been back to check for editing,
though.



--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
 
Reply With Quote
 
Meat Plow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:27:56 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:31:12 +0000, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>joevan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/r...il-mexico.html
>>>>> You probably heard it but all 13 on the rig were off and just one
>>>>> injured. There seems to be some confusion among the news media but
>>>>> it is maybe a gas rig not for oil. It is in 240 feet of water and
>>>>> not a floating rig. TIAFN
>>>>
>>>>According to CNN, it's in 2,500' of water and several miles offshore.
>>>>There's also an oil slick 1 milex100' at last report.
>>>
>>> The platform is in about 340 feet of water and about 100 miles south
>>> of Louisiana's Vermilion Bay. Its location is considered shallow
>>> water, much less than the approximately 5,000 feet where BP's well
>>> spewed oil and gas for three months after the April rig explosion.

>>
>> You know I had heard originally that it as in 2500 feet of water. Then
>> when i went back to the OC site and they said it was in 340 feet.

>
> Yup. I read that in the article. Haven't been back to check for editing,
> though.


In another post I described how natural gas is usually in an atomized
form when the well is considered strictly gas. Along with the methane
there are other hydrocarbons and salt water. This is piped off to a
separator tank where gravity allows the mist and vapors to fall out of
the mixture. From what I read after I posted that brief description, this
is the area the explosion occurred. I used to own some land wells back in
the 90's. These were all combination oil/gas producers. The oil was a
light crude that looked like foam if you let it escape from the well
head. It traveled into a horizontal tank separator where periodically the
oil/brine mixture reached a level that a float valve allowed it to dump
out of the tank under pressure and up a line into the storage tank. The
gas came out of the top and into a manifold and then a meter chart into a
distribution line but still not fit for home use. It traveled to a drip
tank where it was allowed to accumulate and then off to a filter/dryer
and then to a compressor and off to a plant for more processing before it
was suitable for home use. It was all a pretty interesting operation. But
as production declined so did profits. And maintenance costs kept rising
and in the end I was operating in the red and decided to get out while I
could break even.



--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
 
Reply With Quote
 
user51
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010
Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.or
g:

> Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> writes and
> having writ moves on.


<snip>

>>For a troll, you talk a lot of **** about everyone else.

>
> No, he writes *nonsence*.
>
> Mike "or something like it" Yetto


Yes, and you write "non sequitor", you phony (or something like
it).

--
Any Yetto activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Yetto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2010
user51 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
>Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) al-september.or
>g:


>> Evan Platt <evan@*******************************> writes and
>> having writ moves on.


><snip>


>>>For a troll, you talk a lot of **** about everyone else.

>>
>> No, he writes *nonsence*.
>>
>> Mike "or something like it" Yetto


>Yes, and you write "non sequitor", you phony (or something like
>it).


Allow me to correct your straw man. The "non-sequitor" is
derived from your dishonest snipping.

Mike "you sock-puppet or something like it" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2010
Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

<snip>

>>>>For a troll, you talk a lot of **** about everyone else.
>>>
>>> No, he writes *nonsence*.
>>>
>>> Mike "or something like it" Yetto

>
>>Yes, and you write "non sequitor", you phony (or something
>>like it).

>
> Allow me to correct your straw man. The "non-sequitor" is
> derived from your dishonest snipping.


Right.

Here, your /entire/ post.

Please indicate with "===>" where you spelled 'ad hominem' and
'non-sequitur' correctly, and where /I/ ***changed that*** by
repeatedly cracking all the Usenet servers on the planet and
modifying your post, Mr. Mike "yes, it's spelled ad homenim,
several times in one post, too!" Yetto.

==================

Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Subject: Re: changing color of text for names of folder/document
present on the Desktop
From: Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)>

chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
> Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed)-

september.org:
>
>> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
>>> Café Publico <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:i1gj8n$dv7$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:wVP_n.70569$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On 7/12/2010 9:31 PM, chuckcar wrote:
>>>>>> John<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in

news:V2O_n.17193$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, can I just increase the size of text for names

of
>>>>>>> folder/document present on the Desktop?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Display properties/Appearance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, this assumes you're using one of: windows
>>>>>> 95,98,98se,XP,vista,7. Which you don't actually say and

your
>>>>>> newsreader seems to run under NT
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, will try that out. Yes, I should have mentioned

the target
>>>>> machine is running Win XP.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you've got some special edition of XP, I think

you'll be
>>>> disappointed with chucktard's advice. You'll find that

there is no
>>>> way to change the text color for labels on the desktop . .

..
>>>>
>>> In fact I just checked and this is the first time your nick

has
>>> appeared here *ever*.
>>>

>>
>> In stead of checking Café Publico's bonafides why didn't

you
>> check your facts? Is it because the non-issue could be

resolved
>> by sticking with your original statement, but your advice

would
>> have collapsed?
>>

> Check *what*? the fact that you can change the background

colour of the
> desktop?


Yes, exactly. You made a claim, it was refuted and your next
contribution to the discussion was an ad homenim attack.

> Or do you mean the colour of the text? FCS! Do *try* to put

some
> thought into your replies before you hit send.


I did. Then I pointed out your logical fallacies. You made an
ad homenim attack, an appeal to authority and then claimed to be
that authority (essentially a tautology). This didn't take all
that much thought, but the process of ratiocination *was* used.

> I showed the OP where exactly any such changes can be made. As
> for showing some *other* person with very questionable motives
> how to use a mouse, not a chance.
>


Another ad homenim along with a non-sequitor, well played.

> As for proving the "legitimacy" of someone clearly trolling,
> that is the last of my worries and should be yours as well.
> Casting doubt on such nonsence should be the first. And that

is
> precisely what I did do.
>


You have just pointed out why your posts always draw a response.
Your erroneous advice is often quite dangerous and begs doubt to
be cast upon it.

Mike "precisely what I did" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.

==================

> Mike "you sock-puppet or something like it" Yetto


Your idiotic middle names are getting rather tiresome. Why did
you have to crawl in here? Go back to your circle-jerk pals at
n.s.r., please.

Also, re: your stupid version of "you wrote":

A.

writ1 (rit) n.

1. a. a sealed document, issued in the name of a court,
government, sovereign, etc., directing an officer or official to
do or refrain from doing some specified act. b. (in early
English law) any formal document in letter form, under seal, and
in the sovereign's name.

2. something written; a writing: sacred writ. [bef. 900; ME, OE,
c. OHG riz stroke, ON rit writing, Go writs serif; akin to
WRITE]

writ2 (rit) v. Archaic.a pt. and pp. of WRITE.


B.
archaic (r kik) adj.

1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period;
antiquated: archaic ideas.

2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but
rare in present-day usage except to suggest an older time: used
in this dictionary to indicate a word not current since c1900.

3. forming the earliest stage: an archaic period of technology.

4. primitive; ancient: an archaic form of animal life. [182535;
(< F) < Gk archaks antiquated, old-fashioned = archa (os) old
+ -ikos -IC] archaically adv.


--
Any Yetto weasel activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
scrutiny.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
usa.com mail says oooops sorry. richard Computer Support 3 12-10-2009 02:32 AM
Canon A75 -- oooops DSegal1027 Digital Photography 3 04-18-2004 03:44 AM
Using One XSLT and multiple XML Problem (One is XML and another one is XBRL) loveNUNO XML 2 11-20-2003 06:47 AM
is there a binary NG that goes along with this one? Bay Area Dave Digital Photography 7 09-27-2003 01:11 PM
Passing value from one script on one page to another script on another page. Robert Cohen ASP General 3 07-15-2003 01:46 PM



Advertisments