Burning issues burning up w/hearth.com users

[Harley]

Keep it polite and constructive and I think they'll let you play in their sandbox.

You are right, BG, but I think either way, most of us will get banned over there. It's been pretty polite, for the most part. Maybe a little bit of trolling, but not much at all. Most of the site seems to be filled with people that have had some really bad experiences, or are all blowing it all out of proportion for their own agenda, and using some very outdated data and twisting it to try to meet their goals.

 

[northwinds]

Keep it polite and constructive and I think they'll let you play in their sandbox.

You are right, BG, but I think either way, most of us will get banned over there. It's been pretty polite, for the most part. Maybe a little bit of trolling, but not much at all. Most of the site seems to be filled with people that have had some really bad experiences, or are all blowing it all out of proportion for their own agenda, and using some very outdated data and twisting it to try to meet their goals.

Ya never know. Maybe some of them will be get donor stoves eventually.

 

[begreen]

Keep it polite and constructive and I think they'll let you play in their sandbox.

You are right, BG, but I think either way, most of us will get banned over there. It's been pretty polite, for the most part. Maybe a little bit of trolling, but not much at all. Most of the site seems to be filled with people that have had some really bad experiences, or are all blowing it all out of proportion for their own agenda, and using some very outdated data and twisting it to try to meet their goals.

I think you're exactly right Harley. Well, I'm going to try to meet them half-way. This crap is getting quoted at local community meetings, so I consider this a preemptive discussion.

 

[babalu87]

Uncle Rich, that is funny sh!t though isnt it

I will abide by their rules ......................................... until I get sick of their candy asses , then

 

[restorer]

Below is my post to Burningissues.com. I think I will no longer be a member of the forum. The thread is:http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=296&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I got tired of the threats and bias, so I let it go. I will be posting this on two other sites also. If you see the need to feed, let her rip.

a little short on attention are you?

I can't figure out what you are referring to here, can you explain?

I think the rationals are very good for both sides, but I'm on a fixed income earning less than $24,000 per year. I do all I can to protect my home and my environment. I care for my neighbors and provide a shelter for a homeless man who choses to be homeless. I don't think I can afford a Solar system or a Wind system, but I don't feel good about giving my money to a foreign corporation to provide me with a non renewable fuel. I burn waste wood products, they are called pellets. They are very efficient in converting biomass to heat. My particulate emissions are less than .07gph. I use a resource that goes to waste and produces methane and other noxious gasses unless made to pellets. I have friends who burn wood and do it responsibly.

Lately, you have posted several references as your power as god on this forum. You have threatened all of us who have posed a position contrary to yours (you realize Hitler and Stalin and Mao did the same thing). You can not use intimidate as a way to validate your position. You can chose to ban all who disagree, but you are on a public forum. It is worldwide, you have an option, to hide our comments you will have to wipe your forums and purge your history and servers. If you really want a true dialog better to leave the forum open and let the woodies speak, then prove them wrong with true facts and figures. Using bogus, hocus-pocus data only proves the case that you are not legitimate.

You can choose to erase this post, but realize it has already been copied to three other sites that deal with issues of burning and fuel conservation (membership averages 1-2000). If you want a real dialog, open up.... let the chips fall as they may.

I have my own opinions about your agenda, and I will not attack you personally, but I will not let you use outdated and wrong interpretation to advance that agenda.

 

[restorer]

Uncle Rich, that is funny sh!t though isnt it

I will abide by their rules ......................................... until I get sick of their candy asses , then

Sorry BB, pulled the plug, already. I lost it when they expected us all to invest in a $24,000 solar/wind generator system to power our electric heaters.

I take pride in pushing the discussion to be the first banned from the forum.

 

[Harley]

I'm not sure... I may be the first - I had to respond to the "warning"

This is the "warning":

greetings newbies.
welcome to my forum.

the purpose of this forum is to educate viewers about particulate and other kinds of air pollution.

a couple of things to remember:
this is a place of learning.
and
here, in this place, I am GoD.
I make the rules
and you will follow...
...or you will meet my special little bouncer, Mr. De-Lete
who will deport you from this bastion of sanity
out into the far reaches of digital space.

here are the rules:
1) you must contribute to my forum in a productive and positive fashion.
2) you will, at all times, treat all members of this forum with respect. no exceptions.
3) bickering, sarcasm, name calling, arrogance and other tude problems
will not be tolerated.
4) your posts must be lean and to the point. viewers don't care to read miles of silly blather and i won't abide it.
5) you will back up your statements with references and citations whenever possible... otherwise you may look like a garden variety
gasbag. (i will also give you a gasbag award in the form of a special avatar)
6) when you don't agree with someone, you will not make your point by
attempting to destroy their cred. you will make your point in a positive way and in an eloquent manner. this way viewers will be able to read opposing ideas and draw their own conclusions. (imagine that)
7) the only reason you are here is because I allow you to be here. you should think of me as a cop, judge and jury. if you attract my attention in any way by breaking my rules i will not hesitate to delete your post
and/or banish you from my kingdom.
...you will be out of here like a wisp of yesterdays smoke.

~bodhi

This was the message:


Harley



Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 7

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject:

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

OK, I guess I'll be the first to bite on this hook, and I guess I'll get banned for it from the self-proclaimed god - so be it.

There's some who have recently joined your forum (myself included) who would like to see some actual discussion about the pro's and con's about wood burning as an alternative source to heating our homes. Not all of us are Hillbillies who have no concern for our neighbors, and many of us, are in fact, doing what we can do to:

Heat our homes in an environmentally concious way

Leaving the most carbon-neutral footprint on the environment

Managing our land and cutting dead/dying trees that would otherwise cause overgrowth/disease within the forest.

Replace the older, less efficient wood buring appliances with some very well-designed, and quite frankly pretty amazing technology as far as gaining the most heat out of the wood, and minimal emmissions out of the stack.

You may not want to hear any of this - that's fine. Most of the country is not in your area. Many of your posters seem to have had a bad experience with some bad neighbors. That doesn't mean you should broad-brush paint everyone who burns wood as evil or inconsiderate. Quite frankly, many of the statistics presented here are outdated, or simply out of context. For what agenda - I really don't know.

You really seem to have an issue with anyone who has a differing opinion than yours by making the statement you did above, and I don't think that opinion is based on anthying else than a bias, rather than any real-world thinking or scientific data.

You could make it a lot easier by posting at the top of your website by stating something like "anyone who burns wood is not welcome here". Then you would probably not hear from must of us Hillbillies who heat our homes with wood and do it responsibly.

 

[cbrodsky]

Perhaps we should send that god-complex "warning" message to the various organizations funding these folks, along with the government officials that may be hearing from them regularly. It does a great job of highlighting just how extreme, intolerant and incapble of debate this group is.

It does not reflect well on their association at all - if it was my business (or I was managing the non-profit) I would not tolerate such behavior.

-Colin

 

[keyman512us]

Keep it polite and constructive and I think they’ll let you play in their sandbox.

With everything I'm seeing about it so far I don't know if "I wanna play in their sandbox" for the plain and simple fact if I do...Whilst trying to 'knock some sense into em'...I might get banned for "smashing someone upside their head with my Tonka Dump truck"....lol

 

[keyman512us]

I just checked out that site...
54 users...moderator is from South Dakota? Sounds like he has a problem (neighbor) and wants to get a little "soap box squad" going. Glad he (or she) don't live here.

I did find something disturbing though:

wow we agree on something. Get those OWB's banned. there terrible. lucky for most there rare.

Poster was "MSG" over there...I sure hope it wasn't our MSG...I give him more credit than that.

While a few OWB owners are giving "all" a bad rap...the same can be said "stove" owners too... regardless of whether or not they have EPA cert. models...it isn't what you got...but how you use it.

Regardless of how people feel towards OWB's (one way or the other)...if they do get "outlawed" it sets a dangerous precedence...keep that in mind folks when you share your feelings on OWB's.

Today it's OWB's...tommorow? Who knows. But that site goes to show they aren't afraid to 'start small'...It makes me laugh though...there are people out there that want to go after stoves too!

And yes, in case you are wondering, I have a wood fired boiler, it is outside...that doesn't make it an OWB though...because I guarantee 9 out of 10 "stoves" make more smoke and soot than I do!
Just like guns...OWB's aren't the problem...it's whose hands they fall into.

 

[babalu87]

OWBs should at least be made to adhere to a similar set of standards that stoves/inserts do.

Currently there are no real rules on OWBs and I can definitely see MSGs point.

 

[wg_bent]

I edited elk's message. There were a few times where i guessed what was intended but i noted that by putting a comment in brackets like this [ ].

It sounds like some of the folks doing the most complaining about wood burning have never had a power outage in the winter. If they wish to experience sitting in a house that has lost its heat because the electricity cut out, and it's below freezing, good on them. I have enough character and don't need to build more through an experience like that!

here's the edited copy.
megan

************************************************************************************************

They’re quoting pollutants to mice from uncertified stoves for their argument base, at GPH amounts off the charts Exposing to 300 GPH is not scientific, not indicative of modern stoves they emit, .7 GPH. Quoting from an 1986 study? Do you think technology has advanced a bit? Are you typing on an 8086 processor computer? Have you heard of Auto Cad, where 3-D viewing of combustions chambers are rendered? Do you know anything about the horizontal burn process? Where the smoke path is directed down across the hot bed of coals where smoke particulates are being burned off, being super heated and channeled into a secondary combustion chamber? Fresh super heated air is also introduced into the chamber resulting in a super hot gasification combustion. Temperatures reach 1700 degrees burning just about any residual particulates. That is how the 1 GPH barrier has been broken. I challenge you to plug that statistic into your formulas. Thousands of these stoves equipped with this technology are residing in homes today.

I find your arguments are flawed. At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. I have witnessed the testing procedures; I have seen the particulates collected in the filters. All stoves are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA.

I take this group to be ecologically responsible but again I’m viewing mixed messages. Some here are suggesting portable electric [you put ‘electic’ but I thought that a typo] heater alternatives. Recently 8 people died in a NY fire caused by an electric heater. Before one plugs one of those units in better check the amperage draw and the current draw on the circuit. It surprises me you would make that suggestion. Ever experience black outs, brown outs? Our grid is overtaxed to begin with, yet you suggest adding to that condition? Never mind that 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and much of that is coal, low-grade, sulfur-laden coal to boot but that’s ok?

Many here suggest oil burning for heat. Do we have to rehash the real cost of oil?
Here is a little tidbit, you never factored in the modern oil burners test to be in the low 80’s efficiencies. Most tests are done when they are first installed. Before the firing head gets gunked up and the flue become carbonized. That initial testing is the only time that burner runs that efficient; from there performance drops off. I know—I inspect them every day. Did you know, that .7 GPH stove has obtained 82.5% efficiencies, burning cleaner than the average oil burner? I find it ironic you promote a technology that is not renewable that burns less efficiently.

The next fuel alternative you suggest is gas. Again, let’s not rehash the real cost of imported gas from the Middle East. For the uninformed gas lines do not service every home. You mention medical cost of smoke what about factoring the cost of gas explosions?

We agree renewable alternatives are needed. Dependency upon fossil fuel is not working.
Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal are viable alternatives for some, economically beyond most individual home owners. You make very little mention of conserving the energy we produce: better windows, more insulation, better draft prevention, buttoning up our homes.

A complete ban on burning is not going to happen. You have no argument for the use of wood heat during power outages. Many of you arguments are flawed and can be easily invalidated. Referencing your own prior statement is unscientific as are the words can, might, may, or seems.

I’m asking you, are you willing to support cleaner responsible burning? Supporting technology such as I described? These modern stoves are not your old polluting beasts of yesteryear. I mean we are talking about .7 GPH this is not some small manufacturer but the largest one in North America employing the new everburn technology.

Are you willing to use this site to educate responsible burning? Are you willing to promote swap out programs? Are you willing to promote continued research for cleaner burning? You are not winning the battle; 500,000 more stoves were sold this year on top of 500,000 [or should this be 50,000? You typed 500,00] last year. People are still going to burn them. Life is full of compromises. Better to direct them and improve them than to stand by helplessly, unable to do anything constructive about it. One must take baby steps before giant ones. I am asking you to support clean, responsible burning and to promote replacing older stoves with super efficient new ones.


PS I do not think they will take the bait nor do I think they will support anything to do with burning and smoke. No I’m not selling out. Just measuring their ignorance.

I'll post this sometime today, but will do some additional editing.

 

[elkimmeg]

warren work in the bio bricks and comperssed logs that are said to burn cleaner use taht in conjunction burning .in a .7 stove would produce a burn that the best oil burner may not achieve

On the gas part maybe you should link in the Ny disaster I already mentioned explosions. I have looked into this type of thinking if they dig deep enough smoke from stove law suits did not go in the direction of the burners. I'm suprised they have not looked into cas law. I have know this for a long time the stoves do not win in court.

Believe me the threat to banning wood stoves is real, especially if they can link up to global warming. We also have to distinguish the difference in necessary heating appliance and outdoor fire pits .Im my town you can burn brush and leaves that will start buring spring clean up I think one has till the end of April to burn outside debris. Nothing like smoldering smoking leaves smell to know spring is comming. These people don't get True we had to do some about the ugly neighbor industrial polution, But did we envision that they would pick up stakes and leave to the Pacific basin. We never fatored what their presence meant to local econmies or the jobs lost. Only if we had worked with them many be we would not have the imbalance in trade
that and the global economy tell us how well that worked out for the American worker.

Yes we all have to take a more responsibility to conservation and and ecology. We can't be fighting here as well and to the outide world 3.6 GHP to .7 is a huge difference. Even if it amounts to 5 extra splits. times 1 million stoves sold the past two years. My biggewst suprise here this year, is finding out that BB stove the NC-30 only emits 1.6 GPH now that is amazing
k
Kudos to Englander proof it can be done in the larger fire box stoves and done economically. Our message to the non burning public is that we burn clean and responsible using a renewable supply

 

[wg_bent]

Here would be my version to post. Thoughts?

Quoting pollutants in labs directed at mice from uncertified stoves as a base, at GPH amounts off the charts Exposing to 300 GPH is not reasonable current scientific method, not indicative of modern stoves they emit, .7 GPH. Quoting from an 1986 study? Technology has advanced quite a bit. All manufactures today Have Cad systems for design similar to automobile mfgs, where 3-D viewing of combustions chambers are rendered? Stoves today use the horizontal burn process, are you familiar with this? Where the smoke path is directed down across the hot bed of coals where smoke particulates are being burned off, being super heated and channeled into a secondary combustion chamber? Fresh super heated air is also introduced into the chamber resulting in a super hot gasification combustion. Temperatures reach 1700 degrees burning just about any residual particulates. That is how the 1 GPH barrier has been broken. I challenge you to plug that statistic into your formulas. Thousands of these stoves equipped with this technology are residing in homes today.

At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. Please explain. All stoves approved for installation in homes today are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA. (Not true of OWB's though, so clearly OWB's need to be improved)

I take this group to be ecologically responsible but again I’m viewing mixed messages. Some here are suggesting portable electric heater alternatives. Recently 8 people died in a NY fire caused by an electric heater. Before one plugs one of those units in better check the amperage draw and the current draw on the circuit. It surprises me you would make that suggestion. Ever experience black outs, brown outs? Our grid is overtaxed to begin with, yet you suggest adding to that condition? Never mind that 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and much of that is coal, low-grade, sulfur-laden coal. This really needs to be addressed long before EPA wood stoves.

Many here suggest oil burning for heat. Do we have to rehash the real cost of oil?
Here is a little tidbit, you never factored in the modern oil burners test to be in the low 80’s efficiencies. Most tests are done when they are first installed. Before the firing head gets gunked up and the flue become carbonized. That initial testing is the only time that burner runs that efficient; from there performance drops off. I know a person who is an inspector who inspects them every day. Did you know, that .7 GPH stove has obtained 82.5% efficiencies, burning cleaner than the average oil burner? I find it ironic you promote a technology that is not renewable that burns less efficiently.

The next fuel alternative you suggest is gas (Propane?). Again, let’s not rehash the real cost of imported gas (Propane) from the Middle East. Natural gas lines do not service every home. You mention medical cost of smoke what about factoring the cost of gas explosions?

We agree renewable alternatives are needed. Dependency upon fossil fuel is not working.
Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal are viable alternatives for some, economically beyond most individual home owners. You make very little mention of conserving the energy we produce: better windows, more insulation, better draft prevention, buttoning up our homes, not to mention lights on all night at walmarts, overly air conditioned malls, open freezers in grocery stores, and lower mpg standards for trucks. Did you know there's a guy who's managed to 3x the mpg of a semi? Did you know that Chrysler developed a large sedan that gets 70mpg, No incentive to bring it to market.

A complete ban on burning is not going to happen. You have no argument for the use of wood heat during power outages. Many of you arguments are flawed and can be easily invalidated. Using your own prior statements does not make for good science and the words can, might, may, or seems are not enough to convince.

I’m asking you, are you willing to support cleaner responsible burning? Supporting technology such as I described? These modern stoves are not your old polluting beasts of yesteryear. I mean we are talking about .7 GPH this is not some small manufacturer but the largest one in North America employing the latest technology. Another avenue to support is clean burning compressed logs. Even cleaner than cord wood.

My hope here would be to see if you would be willing to help by using this site to educate the public to encourage responsible burning. Would you be willing to help promote swap out programs? (old for new) Would you be willing to promote continued research for cleaner burning? You are not winning the battle; 50,000 more stoves were sold this year on top of 50,000 last year. People are still going to burn them. Life is full of compromises. Better to direct them and improve them than to stand by. One must take baby steps before giant ones. I am asking you to help support clean, responsible burning and to promote replacing older stoves with super efficient new ones.

 

[Eric Johnson]

OK, I guess I'll be the first to bite on this hook, and I guess I'll get banned for it from the self-proclaimed god - so be it.

There's some who have recently joined your forum (myself included) who would like to see some actual discussion about the pro's and con's about wood burning as an alternative source to heating our homes. Not all of us are Hillbillies who have no concern for our neighbors, and many of us, are in fact, doing what we can do to:

Heat our homes in an environmentally concious way

Leaving the most carbon-neutral footprint on the environment

Managing our land and cutting dead/dying trees that would otherwise cause overgrowth/disease within the forest.

Replace the older, less efficient wood buring appliances with some very well-designed, and quite frankly pretty amazing technology as far as gaining the most heat out of the wood, and minimal emmissions out of the stack.

You may not want to hear any of this - that's fine. Most of the country is not in your area. Many of your posters seem to have had a bad experience with some bad neighbors. That doesn't mean you should broad-brush paint everyone who burns wood as evil or inconsiderate. Quite frankly, many of the statistics presented here are outdated, or simply out of context. For what agenda - I really don't know.

You really seem to have an issue with anyone who has a differing opinion than yours by making the statement you did above, and I don't think that opinion is based on anthying else than a bias, rather than any real-world thinking or scientific data.

You could make it a lot easier by posting at the top of your website by stating something like "anyone who burns wood is not welcome here". Then you would probably not hear from must of us Hillbillies who heat our homes with wood and do it responsibly.

As usual, Harley, very well said. I doubt anybody could ban you for making such a compelling argument. They didn't ban you--did they?

Ditto, Warren, on your edit.

 

[Nicholas]

I'm In!
Gues Who I am

Nick

 

[Harley]

As usual, Harley, very well said. I doubt anybody could ban you for making such a compelling argument. They didn't ban you--did they?

Thanks, Eric... so far - no not yet. I'm just going to probably hang a little low and see how many of the other posts/threads get deleted before I end up saying something I would probably get banned for.

 

[Nicholas]

Hmm,
My post is not showing !!, is there a delay, or are they editing ??

 

[Nicholas]

Guess I have to click "submit", Bruce had Me distracted with his thong !!

 

[elkimmeg]

double post agin look below

 

[elkimmeg]

Warren looks good if you want to run with it or I will but I have a lot going on. Talked to Katie Couric today she thinks what we are doing with the stove donor swaping imake great press
she will let me know if they are interested. Amazing they got her on the phone (I told a white lie to get connected but it worked)

 

[restorer]

Here would be my version to post. Thoughts?

Quoting pollutants in labs directed at mice from uncertified stoves as a base, at GPH amounts off the charts Exposing to 300 GPH is not reasonable current scientific method, not indicative of modern stoves they emit, .7 GPH. Quoting from an 1986 study? Technology has advanced quite a bit. All manufactures today Have Cad systems for design similar to automobile mfgs, where 3-D viewing of combustions chambers are rendered? Stoves today use the horizontal burn process, are you familiar with this? Where the smoke path is directed down across the hot bed of coals where smoke particulates are being burned off, being super heated and channeled into a secondary combustion chamber? Fresh super heated air is also introduced into the chamber resulting in a super hot gasification combustion. Temperatures reach 1700 degrees burning just about any residual particulates. That is how the 1 GPH barrier has been broken. I challenge you to plug that statistic into your formulas. Thousands of these stoves equipped with this technology are residing in homes today.

At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. Please explain. All stoves approved for installation in homes today are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA. (Not true of OWB's though, so clearly OWB's need to be improved)

I take this group to be ecologically responsible but again I’m viewing mixed messages. Some here are suggesting portable electric heater alternatives. Recently 8 people died in a NY fire caused by an electric heater. Before one plugs one of those units in better check the amperage draw and the current draw on the circuit. It surprises me you would make that suggestion. Ever experience black outs, brown outs? Our grid is overtaxed to begin with, yet you suggest adding to that condition? Never mind that 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and much of that is coal, low-grade, sulfur-laden coal. This really needs to be addressed long before EPA wood stoves.

Many here suggest oil burning for heat. Do we have to rehash the real cost of oil?
Here is a little tidbit, you never factored in the modern oil burners test to be in the low 80’s efficiencies. Most tests are done when they are first installed. Before the firing head gets gunked up and the flue become carbonized. That initial testing is the only time that burner runs that efficient; from there performance drops off. I know a person who is an inspector who inspects them every day. Did you know, that .7 GPH stove has obtained 82.5% efficiencies, burning cleaner than the average oil burner? I find it ironic you promote a technology that is not renewable that burns less efficiently.

The next fuel alternative you suggest is gas (Propane?). Again, let’s not rehash the real cost of imported gas (Propane) from the Middle East. Natural gas lines do not service every home. You mention medical cost of smoke what about factoring the cost of gas explosions?

We agree renewable alternatives are needed. Dependency upon fossil fuel is not working.
Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal are viable alternatives for some, economically beyond most individual home owners. You make very little mention of conserving the energy we produce: better windows, more insulation, better draft prevention, buttoning up our homes, not to mention lights on all night at walmarts, overly air conditioned malls, open freezers in grocery stores, and lower mpg standards for trucks. Did you know there's a guy who's managed to 3x the mpg of a semi? Did you know that Chrysler developed a large sedan that gets 70mpg, No incentive to bring it to market.

A complete ban on burning is not going to happen. You have no argument for the use of wood heat during power outages. Many of you arguments are flawed and can be easily invalidated. Using your own prior statements does not make for good science and the words can, might, may, or seems are not enough to convince.

I’m asking you, are you willing to support cleaner responsible burning? Supporting technology such as I described? These modern stoves are not your old polluting beasts of yesteryear. I mean we are talking about .7 GPH this is not some small manufacturer but the largest one in North America employing the latest technology. Another avenue to support is clean burning compressed logs. Even cleaner than cord wood.

My hope here would be to see if you would be willing to help by using this site to educate the public to encourage responsible burning. Would you be willing to help promote swap out programs? (old for new) Would you be willing to promote continued research for cleaner burning? You are not winning the battle; 50,000 more stoves were sold this year on top of 50,000 last year. People are still going to burn them. Life is full of compromises. Better to direct them and improve them than to stand by. One must take baby steps before giant ones. I am asking you to help support clean, responsible burning and to promote replacing older stoves with super efficient new ones.

Warren:
If you are to make one post, this is very compelling. YOu may have leaned a little too my way. Of course, you didn't attack his "godliness." I guess I just hate folks who think their (*(^(*^ don't stink.

 

[Harley]

Warren looks good if you want to run with it or I will but I have a lot going on. Talked to Katie Couric today she thinks what we are doing with the stove donor swaping imake great press
she will let me know if they are interested. Amazing they got her on the phone (I told a white lie to get connected but it worked)

Wow - that's great! - Good job, Elk! - keep us posted as to when.

 

[restorer]

Warren looks good if you want to run with it or I will but I have a lot going on. Talked to Katie Couric today she thinks what we are doing with the stove donor swaping imake great press
she will let me know if they are interested. Amazing they got her on the phone (I told a white lie to get connected but it worked)

ABSOLUTELY TOP DRAWER. Way to go Elk. Really hope we get some coverage. You should stay away from the knuckleheads for a while, let us foot soldiers take the hits for a while. May create a new identity and punch again.

 

[begreen]

Elk brings up some really good points. If we go in like wood commandos, we will be ignored and eventually banned and they will regroup better protected against attacks to their podium. Better to politely tear apart the false statements, give a little on the small points and then impress them that there are wood burners that like a clean planet as much as they do, maybe more. I am not too worried about the global warming angle. We have a lot of facts on our side and wood burning is carbon neutral, which can't be said about the fossil fuel alternatives.