ahahahaha... awe, awe, Lopez got your goat, huh... ahahaha
------ Poster "Awe ****" is operating here under the alias of
"Bush's Fascist Grandpa Prescott Sold Thyssen's Coal to Auschwitz to Burn
Jews" cranked himself in
.102...
"raylopez99" wrote in
ups.com:
In more recent times, crop failures in Cuba caused by hurricanes a few
years ago and North Korea this year were responsible for civil uprest.

["Awe ****"] (google/groups --[ + "Awe ****" ]-- it's
fun!!
Yeah, I read that in National Enquirer, that Fidel Castrol was overthrown
and now they are a capitalist
democracy with Diebold Voting Machines.. I was also facinated by the
overthrow of Kim Jing II. I forgot the
name of the guy that replaced him? Do you have the name handy?

[Prof. Lopez]
Who knows, perhaps this year's typhoons will do to to Kim Jong Il what
the Bush administration cannot--overthrow him.
"Blame" it on global warming.
RL

["Awe ****"]
This Posting by Ray Lopez is an advertisement sponsored by EXXON
RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews flame-bait,
to conceal the archived pattern
that he only posts to disrupt discussions in topic areas where fatcat
corporations pay saboteurs to disrupt
and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuss the issues that the
corporations do not want discussed.

===========

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am

So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...44c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm

CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am

Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...be8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a

You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm

Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am

But I am a troll.

RL

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm

Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost incidental,
but I do learn a few things.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm

and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...b1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am

I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm

Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am

Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research has
received $1,309,523 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has received
$1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received $1,112,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received
$90,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has received
$380,250 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has received
$210,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received $185,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University has
received $295,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205 Columbia,
MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has received
$10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.


"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articl...shingtonSlept/
"... But if the deniers appear to have lost the scientific argument,
they prolonged the policy battle, delaying actions to reduce emissions
when such cuts mattered most. "For 25 years, people have been warning
that we had a window of opportunity to take action, and if we waited
until the effects were obvious it would be too late to avoid major
consequences," says Oppenheimer. "Had some individual countries,
especially the United States, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s,
we might have made it. But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."

"The goal of the disinformation campaign wasn't to win the debate,"
says Gelbspan. "The goal was simply to keep the debate going. When the
public hears the media report that some scientists believe warming is
real but others don't, its reaction is 'Come back and tell us when
you're really sure.' So no political action is taken."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chaired the
1994 hearings where tobacco executives unanimously declared under oath
that cigarettes were not addictive, watches today's global-warming
deniers with a sense of déjà vu. It all reminds him of the
confidential slogan a top tobacco flack coined when arguing that the
science on smoking remained unsettled: "Doubt is our product." Now,
Waxman says, "not only are we seeing the same tactics the tobacco
industry used, we're seeing some of the same groups. For example, the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was created [in 1993] to debunk
the dangers of secondhand smoking before it moved on to global
warming."

The scientific work Frederick Seitz oversaw for R. J. Reynolds from
1978 to 1987 was "perfectly fine research, but off the point," says
Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco, and a lead author of The Cigarette Papers
(1996), which exposed the inner workings of the Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation. "Looking at stress, at genetics, at lifestyle
issues let Reynolds claim it was funding real research. But then it
could cloud the issue by saying, 'Well, what about this other possible
causal factor?' It's like coming up with 57 other reasons for Hurricane
Katrina rather than global warming."

For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, "as
long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue.
We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent." Did the
research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that to
the philosophers and priests," he replies. ..."

http://snipurl.com/txkv
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/?mod...cument_code=&d
ate_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=date

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/680110947.html
"... memorandum dated August 21, 1969 from J. W. Burgard to Mr. R. A:
Pittman and others. The subject of
the memo is "Doubt. " The memo reads approximately as follows: "Doubt is
our product since it is the best
means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the
general public. It is also the means of
establishing that there is a controversy. ...

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI04450339.html
It cited an Aug. 21, 1969, internal memorandum W. Burgard, Brown &
Williamson's vice president for
marketing, saying. "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the body of fact that
exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy."

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI22182043.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/12515397.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s4/TI25930219.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/267023.html Page 212: 0000267023
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/11839935.html Page 213: 0011839935

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI09110286.html Page 2: TI09110286
Documents obtained by the Federal Trade Commission show that as early as
1969 one tobacco company had
a plan to sow doubt and confusion in the public's mind about the validity
of evidence linking smoking to
disease and death. The company's document says Doubt is our product since
it is the best means of
competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general
public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy.

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332501.html
... our product as doubt, our message as truth -- welt stated, and our
competition as the body of anti-
cigarette fact that exists in the public mind. We have chosen the mass
public as our consumer for several
reasons: - This is where the misinformation about smoking und health has
been focused. The Congress and
federal agencies are already being dealt with -- and perhaps as
effectively as possible -- by the Tobacco
Institute. It is a group with little exposure to the positive side of
smoking and health. It is the prime force in
influencing Congress and federal agencies without public support little
effort would be given to a crusade
against cigarettes. Doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the "body of fact" that
exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy. Within the
business we recognize that a controversy exists. However, with the general
public the consensus is that
cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If we are successful in
establishing a controversy at the
public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts
about smoking and health. Doubt is also
the limit of our "product".
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332506.html

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."