Green Building

[Pat]

Here's an interesting article from the local paper.

I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.

I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".


http://www.salamancapress.com/articles/2008/06/12/news/doc48517814e4a23363931187.txt

Local developer using “green” building techniques at new condos


ELLICOTTVILLE �” “Because your home shouldn’t make you sick,” was a
reason given for the building of Village Place condos in Ellicottville
which will be constructed with a green philosophy, using many
environmentally friendly and energy saving techniques.

These environmentally friendly condos are the next project of
Ellicottville Developer John Northrup.

The concept of building with “green” initiatives started on the East
Coast and is being utilized throughout the industry with increased
frequency across the nation.

The Village Place development is the first of its kind in
Ellicottville and on the leading edge of green technology.

Village Place will be comprised of 8 condo buildings housing 16
duplexes in the heart of the village with careful thought given to
placement to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

“Our mission is to use methods that protect, preserve and promote the
integrity of the environment,” said John, who listed his intentions to
minimize slope and soil disturbance and manage storm water.

Building of Village Place will utilize resource efficiency to reduce
the quantity of materials and waste. A goal will be to enhance
durability and reduce maintenance. Waste materials will be recycled
during construction.

Village Place homes will incorporate an air sealing package to reduce
infiltration. The heating, ventilation and air conditioning will be
designed and installed with sealed ducts to reduce leakage. Energy
Star labeled mechanical exhaust will be installed in every bathroom
and ducted to the outside.

All water heating, lighting and appliances will be energy efficient.

“All interior building products will use organic compounds,” said
John’s wife Anne.

“Carper, carpet pad and floor coverings will be installed with
adhesives that hold ‘Green Label’ air quality testing program,” she
said.

A choice can be made for low or no VOC (volatile organic compounds)
indoor paint and sealants.

Gold status has been achieved for this project. In order to get gold
status, 395 points must be attained and currently Village Place has
457 points.

Northrup building projects began in 1981 with Alpine Meadows, a joint
venture with Bud Timkey and Tom O’Rourke. Following ventures included
Wild Flower, in 1984 and townhouses at Snow Pine and Fox Ridge in 1987
followed by the Woods.

John is a son of former Ellicottville Mayor Edna Northrup and the late
Dr. G. W. Northrup, both of whom are credited with being among the
founders of the successful ski industry in Ellicottville.

The sight for Village Place has been prepared and construction will
start soon.

Included with the many Standard features include three bedroom, two
baths, gourmet kitchen, cathedral ceilings, gas fireplace and attached
garage, each built with environmentally green maintenance free
exteriors. Further details about Village Place are available at

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:70df9f0d-8be3-4e51-95fa-***@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.

I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.

I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

----------------------------

That is pretty funny. Especially the cathedral ceilings.

:-)

But I guess if people are determined to live in a wasteful way, it's better
that they waste less rather than more.

[gruhn]

That is pretty funny.  Especially the cathedral ceilings.

Saw a presentation at school last year. Guest lecturers. Bow and
scrape at their awsomeness. Look at the efficient little wood stove
(or something) they used. They are so cool. Bow and scrape.

In a twenty foot tall heavily glazed living room. Right on brother.

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

Would you prefer if they wasted their money in an energy inefficient
manner?

R

[Pat]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green".  Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not.  I don't care what
other people do with their money.  But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron.  It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

Would you prefer if they wasted their money in an energy inefficient
manner?
R

I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner". I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green". It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner". I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green". It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event. One step at a time, Pat.

On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma? If not, do.

R

[t***@bellsouth.net]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".  I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green".  It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event.  One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma?  If not, do.
R

That book should satisfy Pat.
T

[Pat]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".  I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green".  It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event.  One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma?  If not, do.
R

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.

Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner". I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green". It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event. One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma? If not, do.

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.
Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

Please note that I did not give you a choice. Read it! You can thank
me later.

R

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner". I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green". It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event. One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma? If not, do.

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.
Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

Please note that I did not give you a choice. Read it! You can thank
me later.

Does he need you to give him one in order to have one?

[RicodJour]

On Jun 14, 9:29 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner". I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green". It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event. One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma? If not, do.

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.
Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

Please note that I did not give you a choice. Read it! You can thank
me later.

Does he need you to give him one in order to have one?

That's his choice.*

R

* I'll tell him later if it's an unacceptable choice.

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".  I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green".  It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event.  One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma?  If not, do.

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.
Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

Please note that I did not give you a choice.  Read it!  You can thank
me later.
R- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think you'll have to read it to me. I don't see it on CD. But if
you want to read it and send the the CD I'll have a listen. Reading 2
CDs right now. I can fit the new one in pretty soon. Almost done
with one of the books.

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat
I think you'll have to read it to me. I don't see it on CD. But if
you want to read it and send the the CD I'll have a listen. Reading 2
CDs right now. I can fit the new one in pretty soon. Almost done
with one of the books.

Why do you only listen, Pat? Listening is so slow.

R

[Pat]

I think you'll have to read it to me.  I don't see it on CD.  But if
you want to read it and send the the CD I'll have a listen.  Reading 2
CDs right now.  I can fit the new one in pretty soon.  Almost done
with one of the books.

Why do you only listen, Pat?  Listening is so slow.
R

It's a combination of factors: a reading disability; lots of technical
reading at work; no time; really long work hours; and lots of time in
the car. To me, reading in not enjoyable but listening (while
driving) is pretty good. I guess it's compensation for my reading
disability and ADD.

Besides, who has time to read? Maybe if I cut down to a 60 hour
week ....

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I think you'll have to read it to me. I don't see it on CD. But if
you want to read it and send the the CD I'll have a listen. Reading 2
CDs right now. I can fit the new one in pretty soon. Almost done
with one of the books.

Why do you only listen, Pat? Listening is so slow.

It's a combination of factors: a reading disability; lots of technical
reading at work; no time; really long work hours; and lots of time in
the car. To me, reading in not enjoyable but listening (while
driving) is pretty good. I guess it's compensation for my reading
disability and ADD.
Besides, who has time to read? Maybe if I cut down to a 60 hour
week ....

And you want to hear _my_ voice while you're driving? One of two
things would happen. You'd either fall in love with the dulcet tone
and timbre of my vocal cords and start stalking me, or you'd
accelerate and head for a bridge abutment. I don't like either of
those outcomes.

R

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".  I like that they are being
energy efficient; but to me it isn't "green".  It's sort of like being
a vegatarian who only eats greens -- but since cows just eat greens,
then it's okay to eat cows because it's just greens that have been
processed.

Lifestyle changes come in small increments unless there's some
catastrophic event.  One step at a time, Pat.
On the topic of the food chain - have you read The Omnivore's
Dilemma?  If not, do.
R

Lately my reading list is more like NYS DHCR's Capital Program Manual,
Capital Funds Application, etc. with a few USDA Rural Development
documents thrown in.
Otherwise, I only read things that come on CD.

And how green is that, givent hat a CD requires not only energyand
petrochemicals to produce, but also, requires an electrical device to be
read?

We all live in the proverbial glass houses when it comes to degrees of
greeness versus degrees of wastefulness.

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

Would you prefer if they wasted their money in an energy inefficient
manner?
R

I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".

So if we all went back to living like our ancestors living with very little
energy use just growing food, then that would be the best situation? Of
course humanity would not be able to reach anywhere near our capabilities,
just living a minimal existence with great hardship in an extremely
difficult life.

There would also be accepting a very short life with a 50% chance of dying
before age 20 and only about a 2% chance of making it to 40 as was the life
of our ancestors and present people living in a primitive life.

Well those conditions are not what I consider a worthy goal. We can
develop technology that does not increase CO2 or pollution while we keep
improving life span and a better existence. I think that is a far better
goal for humanity. The losers can go back to a primitive, miserable life
that they idolize. The rest of us want nothing to do with their
gullibility and hatred of innovation.

[RicodJour]

Post by Pat

Post by RicodJour

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

Would you prefer if they wasted their money in an energy inefficient
manner?

I would prefer a more energy efficient way of wasting money, but to me
-- and maybe it's just me -- "Green" implies "not wasting" as opposed
to "wasting in an efficient manner".

Pat, I realize your quote ended here, but Jaqo May can't figure out
how to quote. Sorry.

Post by Pat
So if we all went back to living like our ancestors living with very little
energy use just growing food, then that would be the best situation? Of
course humanity would not be able to reach anywhere near our capabilities,
just living a minimal existence with great hardship in an extremely
difficult life.

If you are the alternative, I'll take whatever doesn't make you.

Post by Pat
There would also be accepting a very short life with a 50% chance of dying
before age 20 and only about a 2% chance of making it to 40 as was the life
of our ancestors and present people living in a primitive life.

You are a maroon. Life expectancy went down due to the technology.
Agriculture is technology. Building houses is technology. Lack of
sanitation and living in tight quarters is technology. And please
don't give me any, oh, that was then, crap. Look out your window,
you'll see a brown smog ring around the city wherever you live. Give
me your zip code and I'll find a Super Fund cleanup site within ten
miles of you.

Post by Pat
Well those conditions are not what I consider a worthy goal. We can
develop technology that does not increase CO2 or pollution while we keep
improving life span and a better existence. I think that is a far better
goal for humanity. The losers can go back to a primitive, miserable life
that they idolize. The rest of us want nothing to do with their
gullibility and hatred of innovation.

We can click our heels three times and land in Kansas, Dorothy.

It's not a question of whether we can develop technology that will be
better for us and for the planet, but whether we can stop idjits like
you from destroying it first.

R

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour
You are a maroon. Life expectancy went down due to the technology.
Agriculture is technology. Building houses is technology. Lack of
sanitation and living in tight quarters is technology. And please
don't give me any, oh, that was then, crap. Look out your window,
you'll see a brown smog ring around the city wherever you live. Give
me your zip code and I'll find a Super Fund cleanup site within ten
miles of you.

Your view is exactly the opposite of what is shown in history

With all your imagined dangers to life span, the life span has been
increasing for decades. It may start dropping again in the future, but
from obesity, not technology or pollution. The very short life spans are
now with the jungle tribes where there is essentially no technology.

They are living in a very natural life which in your view probably consider
good. Of course your view leads to a short life, poor health most of the
person's life, and very boring life according to what they have told people.

Post by RicodJour
It's not a question of whether we can develop technology that will be
better for us and for the planet, but whether we can stop idjits like
you from destroying it first.

You have presented nothing to justify your comments. You have just
presented a lot of lies.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
You are a maroon. Life expectancy went down due to the technology.
Agriculture is technology. Building houses is technology. Lack of
sanitation and living in tight quarters is technology. And please
don't give me any, oh, that was then, crap. Look out your window,
you'll see a brown smog ring around the city wherever you live. Give
me your zip code and I'll find a Super Fund cleanup site within ten
miles of you.

Your view is exactly the opposite of what is shown in history

Still waiting for the zip code, Sparky. I have no idea where you
live, but I'll find a Super Fund site near you.

As far as history goes, you have exactly zero understanding.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021101070028.htm
An excerpt:
"The rise of towns and cities during industrialization took a serious
toll on health, but new evidence establishes a very long trail of poor
health that followed the collective pre-Columbian efforts in creating
modern civilization, Steckel said. He co-edited a book that looks at
health trends in the Western Hemisphere throughout the last seven
milennia.

According to some archaeologists, the urban revolution began long
before Europeans settled the Americas. Sophisticated cities flourished
and expanded throughout North and South America once people mastered
agriculture. Researchers believe that indigenous people began
domesticating crops more than 5,000 years ago.

The current research suggests that the overall health of the average
person declined with the development of agriculture, government and
urbanization."

Post by Jack May
With all your imagined dangers to life span, the life span has been
increasing for decades. It may start dropping again in the future, but
from obesity, not technology or pollution. The very short life spans are
now with the jungle tribes where there is essentially no technology.

The life span went down when people turned to agriculture and living
in large groups for obvious reasons. Oh. Sorry. You can't spot
obvious - let me know if you need some reading material. The life
span has started going up relatively recently, and that's all you're
focusing on as you are a clueless super hero - Myopic Man! Able to
ignore blatant facts with an angry shake of his pointed head. Myopic
Man! And who, disguised as a rational man, fights a never ending
battle against truth, logic and the lucid mind.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3471026
So how do you explain that? The US is 41st in longevity. Why doesn't
all of that spiffy technology and great health care provide longer
life spans? From that article:
"A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9
years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades
earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census
Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health
Statistics.

Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and
Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to
the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and
Singapore."

I guess Andorra has some hot ass technology, huh? Maybe they've got
CERN's new diagnostic imager? This from the CIA's site:
"Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and
furniture." Hmmm. That doesn't _appear_ to be high tech at all.
Maybe they have really advanced cigarettes and high tech furniture?

You are 'solving' your simple linear equation, and calling it good.
The only problem is that the world is more chaotic and you don't have
the wattage to realize it. You don't have the breadth of knowledge
you purport to have.

Post by Jack May
They are living in a very natural life which in your view probably consider
good. Of course your view leads to a short life, poor health most of the
person's life, and very boring life according to what they have told people.

A simple life is a boring life? You're simple, is your life boring?

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
It's not a question of whether we can develop technology that will be
better for us and for the planet, but whether we can stop idjits like
you from destroying it first.

You have presented nothing to justify your comments. You have just
presented a lot of lies.

Au contraire, mon ferret, you conveniently ignore common knowledge so
you won't have to examine your world view. That's a defense
mechanism.

You've heard - I'm sure you've never read him - of the philosopher,
Ludwig Wittgenstein? You should change your name to Ludicrous Witless-
stein. You could be the poster boy for the absurd.

R

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 17, 10:25 pm, RicodJour <***@worldemail.com> wrote:
...

Post by RicodJour
Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and
Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to
the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and
Singapore."
I guess Andorra has some hot ass technology, huh? Maybe they've got
"Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and
furniture." Hmmm. That doesn't _appear_ to be high tech at all.
Maybe they have really advanced cigarettes and high tech furniture?

Andorra also has the lowest murder rate in the world,
which should contribute to life expectancy.
Smoking good quality tobacco helps too, done properly.
Ken

[RicodJour]

Post by Ken S. Tucker
...

Post by RicodJour
Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and
Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to
the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and
Singapore."
I guess Andorra has some hot ass technology, huh? Maybe they've got
"Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and
furniture." Hmmm. That doesn't _appear_ to be high tech at all.
Maybe they have really advanced cigarettes and high tech furniture?

Andorra also has the lowest murder rate in the world,
which should contribute to life expectancy.
Smoking good quality tobacco helps too, done properly.

And I'd tend to think that Andorrans (weren't they the blue aliens on
Star Trek?) don't have the let's-poison-them-slowly mentality of US
tobacco.
The ingredients as per Lorillard, manufacturer of Newport cigarettes
among numerous others:
http://www.lorillard.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Lorillard_Ingredients_.pdf

R

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Ken S. Tucker
...

Post by RicodJour
Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and
Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to
the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and
Singapore."
I guess Andorra has some hot ass technology, huh? Maybe they've got
"Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and
furniture." Hmmm. That doesn't _appear_ to be high tech at all.
Maybe they have really advanced cigarettes and high tech furniture?

Andorra also has the lowest murder rate in the world,
which should contribute to life expectancy.
Smoking good quality tobacco helps too, done properly.

And I'd tend to think that Andorrans (weren't they the blue aliens on
Star Trek?)

Andorra is a collector item for HAMS.
Maybe they have one guy there who hardly
talks to anybody.

Post by RicodJour
don't have the let's-poison-them-slowly mentality of US
tobacco.
The ingredients as per Lorillard, manufacturer of Newport cigarettes
among numerous others:http://www.lorillard.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Lorillard_Ingredients_...

Dang, those "Newports" almost sound good for ya...
beet juice and all. I didn't see tobacco listed ???

There's a big f**kin' difference between smoking
tobacco and smokin' cigarettes. I get the cleanest
tobacco I can find then roll my own filtered cigs,
using off the shelf tubes.
In the US I found a nice cig called Magma, but they're
hard to find, so I just bring my own tobacco.
It's legal to grow tobacco, so I was thinking of growing
my own.
I need the nicotine hit. I was a 2 pot a day coffee
drinker for the caffeine but my stomach gave out
and I started getting dry heaves...ugh, so I had to
quit coffee, and I get 2 cups of tea a day now.
Ken

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.

Except that it's better to have it 'green' if they're going to have it
anyway. Techincally, vacationing at all is not 'green'. Neither are
televisions or refridgerators or internal combustion engines. But people
arent' going to give it all up anytime soon, so, if they're going to
do/have it anyway, might as well make it all as 'green' as possible.

Post by Pat
I don't care if people have vacation condos or not. I don't care what
other people do with their money. But making it green just seems like
an oxymoron. It's sort of like saying "I'm wasting energy in a more
energy-efficient manner".

The 'moron' part comes in when people assiduously do all they can to
*avoid* being at all environmentally aware. As above, if ppeople are going
to do and have a modern lifestyle, it's laudible if they try to do so in a
somewhat responsible manner.

[RicodJour]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.

Except that it's better to have it 'green' if they're going to have it
anyway. Techincally, vacationing at all is not 'green'.

I've been on camping and bike touring and canoeing trips where it's
very green and green, or, was that Greene & Greene?

R

[Kris Krieger]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Pat
Here's an interesting article from the local paper.
I don't want tol bust on these guys in particular, but if you have a 3
bedroom, 2 bath, grourmet kitchen VACATION CONDO, isn't it; by it's
very nature; not "Green". Just the whole concept of a vacation condo
seems "un-green" to me.

Except that it's better to have it 'green' if they're going to have it
anyway. Techincally, vacationing at all is not 'green'.

I've been on camping and bike touring and canoeing trips where it's
very green and green, or, was that Greene & Greene?
R

Did you ride a Greene bicycle to get there and was it made in a Greene
factory ;) ?

[gruhn]

Post by Kris Krieger
to do and have a modern lifestyle, it's laudible if they try to do so in a
somewhat responsible manner.

Such that what is "responsible" is defined by the Right People.