Oooops there goes another one

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Meat Plow

    joevan Guest

    On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    wrote:

    >Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >
    >http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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
     
    joevan, Sep 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:56:29 -0400, joevan wrote:

    > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>
    >>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.



    --
    Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010
    #3
  4. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:59:24 +0000, 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 <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>
    >>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.


    Also most all gas well produce oil along with other materials. At best it
    comes out of the ground in a mist then piped of to a gravity separator
    tank where the mist settles in the bottom and the gas goes out the top.
    The tank has a dump valve that moves the condensed liquids out when the
    level in the separator reaches a set limit.



    --
    Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010
    #4
  5. Meat Plow

    chuckcar Guest

    joevan <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>
    >>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Sep 2, 2010
    #5
  6. Meat Plow

    joevan Guest

    On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >joevan <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>
    >>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.
     
    joevan, Sep 2, 2010
    #6
  7. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:

    > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <> wrote:
    >
    >>joevan <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.



    --
    Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010
    #7
  8. Meat Plow

    olfart Guest

    "Meat Plow" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>joevan <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.
    >
    >
    >

    That's because the Crap News Network as well as many others make up whatever
    they think will attract viewers, before they ever know any facts.

    there's no oil slick either according to latest reports.
     
    olfart, Sep 2, 2010
    #8
  9. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:00:51 -0400, olfart wrote:

    > "Meat Plow" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:04:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>joevan <> wrote in
    >>>>news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > That's because the Crap News Network as well as many others make up
    > whatever they think will attract viewers, before they ever know any
    > facts.
    >
    > there's no oil slick either according to latest reports.


    Well good I had my fingers crossed this wasn't going to turn
    into another fiasco. Especially when they are still working
    on the Macando site. It's far from being over if you still
    follow the ROV videos. There's some shit leaking down there
    on or around the BOP that they have been monitoring. And one
    meter on a manifold on the BOP still said 4000 PSI. If that's
    pressure from the well head the well has not been killed yet.



    --
    Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 2, 2010
    #9
  10. Meat Plow

    chuckcar Guest

    "olfart" <> wrote in
    news:c1890$4c801de4$471e0dd3$:

    >
    > "Meat Plow" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:20:20 -0400, joevan wrote:
    >>
    >>

    > That's because the Crap News Network as well as many others make up
    > whatever they think will attract viewers, before they ever know any
    > facts.
    >
    > there's no oil slick either according to latest reports.
    >
    >


    Nonsence. CNN *showed* it. From a helicopter one would guess.

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

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Sep 3, 2010
    #10
  11. 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 <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    > >>
    > >>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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
     
    monkeywintest, Sep 3, 2010
    #11
  12. Meat Plow

    Mike Yetto Guest

    Evan Platt <> writes and having writ moves on.
    >On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 00:32:30 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >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 shit 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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Sep 3, 2010
    #12
  13. Meat Plow

    Aardvark Guest

    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 <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>joevan <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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
     
    Aardvark, Sep 3, 2010
    #13
  14. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    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 <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>joevan <> wrote in
    >>>>news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Offshore oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rig-264775-oil-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
     
    Meat Plow, Sep 3, 2010
    #14
  15. Meat Plow

    user51 Guest

    Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    news:-september.or
    g:

    > Evan Platt <> writes and
    > having writ moves on.


    <snip>

    >>For a troll, you talk a lot of shit 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.
     
    user51, Sep 3, 2010
    #15
  16. Meat Plow

    Mike Yetto Guest

    user51 <> writes and having writ moves on.
    >Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    >news:-september.or
    >g:


    >> Evan Platt <> writes and
    >> having writ moves on.


    ><snip>


    >>>For a troll, you talk a lot of shit 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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Sep 3, 2010
    #16
  17. Meat Plow

    thanatoid Guest

    Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    news:-september.org:

    <snip>

    >>>>For a troll, you talk a lot of shit 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 <>

    chuckcar <> writes and having writ moves on.
    > Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    > news:-

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

    news:V2O_n.17193$:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 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.
    ar•cha•ic (är k‚ik) 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. [1825–35;
    (< F) < Gk archaïkós antiquated, old-fashioned = archaî (os) old
    + -ikos -IC]— ar•cha‚i•cal•ly adv.


    --
    Any Yetto weasel activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
    scrutiny.
     
    thanatoid, Sep 4, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pundit

    Is there any advantage one over another?

    Pundit, Aug 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    563
    Hamman
    Aug 18, 2004
  2. Bay Area Dave

    is there a binary NG that goes along with this one?

    Bay Area Dave, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    381
  3. DSegal1027

    Canon A75 -- oooops

    DSegal1027, Apr 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    679
    DSegal1027
    Apr 18, 2004
  4. billo
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    601
    billo
    Nov 22, 2008
  5. richard

    usa.com mail says oooops sorry.

    richard, Dec 9, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    368
    richard
    Dec 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page