T. Boone's Power Play

TBoone (4.00 / 2)

Sure he's a hypocrite. But I'd rather have a hypocrite helping the cause of alternative energy than not. Transforming our energy policy is too important a need to sacrifice for the self-defeating and petty pleasure of telling those who are now allies how wrong they were. In life you have to take help however you can get it. We have an opportunity to make Texas an innovative leader in alternative energy. Let's put bygones behind us and constructively work together to achieve something great.  

---

by: txjake80 @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:55:57 PM CDT

Just like that? (4.00 / 2)

I was careful to be supportive of the alternative energy source -- and government support of it. I'm glad Pickens is picking this to make some money on. But we'd better stay open-eyed that Pickens will turn around and spend a lot of his profits against our causes, our candidates, and our friends in office.

Democrats have put bygones behind them for two decades. And that's where we've been. Bye and gone.

My point is that we should hold the Pickens of the world accountable.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:29:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hard to forgive (0.00 / 0)

him for funding the swiftboating of Kerry. If he'll do that...

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 23:34:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ALTERNATIVE energy? Read the fine print! (5.00 / 1)

Before jumping to the conclusion that T. Boone Pickens is promoting alternative energy (and the likely intent of his expensive advertising blitz is to get the public to see him as an "eco-friendly" innovator), take a critical look at his website. What he is pushing even more than solar and wind energy is liquefied natural gas, which is liquefied only when it is maintained below a certain (very low) temperature and above a certain (very high) pressure. Otherwise, it's highly explosive. Even when it doesn't explode, it leaves a huge carbon footprint that is hardly better than gasoline. T. Boone Pickens is pulling a fast one on those of us who think "alternative energy" means "clean energy," and he's going to make a lot of money at it while endangering public safety.

---

by: MarkCamann @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 18:23:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for calling our attention to it.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 21:04:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

government continues to work for Pickens (0.00 / 0)

I haven't been following the story all that closely, but I think if you ask pretty much any resident in the Panhandle, they'd all be happy to kick T. Boone Pickens right in the ass. He pretty much wants to eminent domain the entire Ogallala Aquifer and sell it to the highest bidder. Now if the government will underwrite his huge investment in wind power, well, he's all for wind power. He left Amarillo high and dry some years back after the city had bent over backwards for him for years.

T. Boone Pickens is for whatever will make T. Boone Pickens even more money. Nothing wrong with that, until he expects me, at less than 50K a year, to underwrite his sorry billion-dollar ass.

---

by: davew @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:42:30 PM CDT

Thanks for this post, Glenn (5.00 / 1)

I'm 110% for wind, solar, and non-carbon alternatives. Years ago, during the first "energy crisis" of the 70's, we used to joke that the big oil boys would be all over alternate energy if they could figure out how make a buck by leasing the sun and the wind. Now once again, they're having Reagan's (and the lesser, Rick Perry's) evil old big government do a chunk of their investing for them, covering the cost of getting the goods to market.

The issue here is at whose expense will energy be developed? Consumers? "Little" property owners? Working class taxpayers? If we pay, do we get a return on that investment? Or is the return reserved by Republican politicians for T Boone Pickens and his ilk?

---

by: Ed Martin @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:56:07 PM CDT

Pickens will build his own lines if he needs to (0.00 / 0)

Pickens will build a billion dollars worth of wind-driven generators in West Texas. The Texas Public Utility Commission has approved a plan calling for spending more than $4 billion in taxpayer money for transmission lines that will get the electricity from those windmills to consumers. Without government's extraordinary help, Pickens can't sell his electricity. He can't earn a profit.

Pickens has stated that if the lines funded by PUC and built by delivery companies are inadequate he'll build his own. In other words, he's all in for this project. He knows that if the transmission capacity doesn't exist he'll end up with a bunch of turbines spinning without generating resulting in wasted capacity.

Personally I don't care who gets in the game to generate clean energy.  Let's just get on with it.  Until there is a demand there won't be a supply.  But if the demand is there without a supply then this get expensive very quickly.

If Democrats can help get Pickens the infrastructure he needs why wouldn't he spend money on Democrats? I agree that Texas needs to lead the nation to get the transmission capacity in place for a renewable energy source.  Let's make this a win-win proposition and quit creating conspiracy theories.  There is no "grassy knoll" here in my mind.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 17:29:58 PM CDT

What conspiracy theory? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 21:08:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You must be joking (0.00 / 0)

"If Democrats can help get Pickens the infrastructure he needs why wouldn't he spend money on Democrats?"

He might be willing to buy some Democrats to go with his collection of Republicans the way others like Bob Perry have. Something wrong with the picture as they say. One of the problems with some of the Democrats in our legislatures and in Congress is that Republicans have bought them.    

As for any altruistic motive rest assured the only thing T Boone Pickens is interested in is profit.  How nice of him to offer to build all these wind farms. Of course he would own all of them.  And of course the electricity they produced would be sold in a deregulated market.  Meaning he would sell the electricity at market value which is no longer regulated. He isn't going to give the electricity away. Even if he did, your provider is going to charge you the highest rate possible. Deregulation was not meant to lower utility costs. It was meant to ensure profit.

Alternative energy is not going to lower utility costs any more than increased "domestic" oil and gas drilling will and anyone who thinks it will needs to look at Green Mountain which is one of the highest cost providers at this point.  Some alternative energy is clean. But clean is not necessarily cheap.  As customers of Green Mountain can attest to.

This of course is reminiscent of Texas Eastern which bought the two major gas pipelines the US government built during World War II and trust me Texas Eastern did not pay much for them. They were more of a gift from the taxpayers to a group of oilmen in Shreveport, Houston and Dallas.

The majority of Americans are more concerned at this point with regard to utility costs to the consumer and the only thing that is going to lower utility costs is to get rid of deregulation.  And that means voting for everyone with a "D" beside their name on the ballot. Unless of course there are lots of (R)s on their campaign contribution lists.  Once again, people need to follow the money trail.

Most of the few Texas wildcatters left (T Boone Pickens, Bill Moss, the Cullens, the Hunts and the Murchisons) are all looking at alternative energy but only in terms of profit. Not public interest. And not all of it is clean energy. The Cullens are investing in coal mines.  

What defines the division between Republicans and Democrats best in this country is the matter of profit versus public interest. The Democratic Party cares about the public interest. The Republican Party does not.

In reality there is only one party in this country which has become more and more obvious. But the people themselves are still of two parties.  And they need to choose their representatives more carefully. Democrats especially so since the Democratic Party represents the only real hope this country has at this point of surviving as a democracy.

The oil and gas interests may indeed start contributing to Democrats. Some already do.  It's called hedging and there has always been a hedge fund placing options on political futures. And the oil and gas interests have done quite well with it.  Ken Lay certainly did.  

As for property rights the only property rights the Republican Party believes in is the right to take your property.  Which raises the question of whether T Boone Pickens plans to put these wind farms on his land or land the state conveniently takes by eminent domain for him.

 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 00:35:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I'm still trying to parse through your position to see whether you are "fur or agin" the situation. What I can tell is that you believe Pickens is in this for profit and not for public interest. Heck yea he's in it for profit. Do you really think the clean energy thing should be free?

Now I do agree with you that some of the finer points of the approach need some regulation such as property rights and public funding of infrastructure. We need to make sure this isn't a free for all and give the entire farm away, be that a wind farm.

Today's NY Times ran an editorial on the issue.  It covers the point that Pickens wants to shift cars from gas to natural gas consumption where he already has investment. His approach is to shift electric production from natural gas to alternatives such as wind. He knows that he's got even more work to do to transition vehicles from gas to natural gas. But until the demand on natural gas used for electric generation declines the price of natural gas for vehicles will be unrealistic.

This is all about shifting the demand channels to other supply channels. A recent article in some publication (can't remember which one for the life of me) reported that air travel will soon become so expensive it will only be for the weathly once again due to energy costs. You see there is no alternative for jets. They are completely dependent on jet fuel from petroleum. In those spots where the demand channel can shift the alternatives need to be considered.

Pickens is right that new and innovative ideas are going to become critical if we plan to remove the volatility of the US energy consumption market. Yes, there will always be profits in the mix. Why does everyone in here have such a disdain for profits? Last time I checked this is a free market society. We just need to make sure the profits are reasonable and not extreme.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:50:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The hot air of wind farms... (0.00 / 0)

Reality is many of the alternative energy sources are not consistent and therefore not reliable and so they are really supplemental energy sources.

The wind does not always blow.  The water does not always flow. The sun does not always shine.  So wind farms, hydroelectric plants, and solar generating stations are not the answer apart from providing supplemental energy.

T Boone Pickens is promoting natural gas for cars because he will make a fortune.  He is promoting wind farms for the same reason. My position if you want to call it that is you don't trust the fox who claims to be watching the chickens for you.  And T Boone Pickens is a fox.  And a ravenous one at that.

Thirty years ago the world was faced with the reality of oil shortages but also the reality, or at least the possibility at that time, of oil depletion.

One country managed to take it seriously.  Over 85% percent of the vehicles in Brazil use ethanol and a growing percentage of those vehicles use 100% ethanol. Brazil is moving towards 100% oil independence with regard to its vehicles. We are not.

That is not to say it is a perfect solution and there is growing debate in Brazil over "regulation versus deregulation" with regard to deforestation in the Amazon basin for sugar cane plantations which will increase reliable ethanol production.  An alternative use of the Amazon is hydroelectric plants that merely utilize the river currents of the Amazon rather than hydroelectric plants that are part of dam systems. A dam on the Amazon would probably do as much ecological damage to the basin as deforestation.  

Necessity is the mother of all invention.  Brazil is proving to be a good mother for all of us. Certainly the example we should have followed.

"Why does everyone in here have such a disdain for profits? Last time I checked this is a free market society. We just need to make sure the profits are reasonable and not extreme."

Capitalism is what built this country but regulation of capitalism is what kept this country economically stable and at this point unregulated capitalism is what is destroying this country.

Profit should not be allowed to rule over public interest.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:22:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ethanol is not a solution (0.00 / 0)

Using something that is also a food source does not provide a good solution for our energy issues.  If you say that Brazil has banked on ethanol as their way out of the petroleum dependency then I would challenge we have a bigger crisis in the making.

Right now using consumable sources for ethanol only creates a food and water crisis. We should be looking at non-consumable sources for ethanol and then I'll sign up. This is an area that needs more investment. I started investing in ethanol production companies until I realized their innovation was focused on consumable sources. That's when I ditched the investments (at a loss) to avoid feeding the beast.

Wind, water, and solar are not consistent sources but any time you deal with a renewable source it will not be consistent in supply. By having enough of these sources online provides a reasonable enough consistency to avoid problems in the grid.

These sources are available for use. Foregoing them because of short-sighted views will only keep us in a constant cycle of energy problems. The only consistent non-carbon source is nuclear and it has problems of another sort.

When I discuss profits understand I don't agree with unreasonable profits. I agree that regulation of capitalism should help prevent the glut of profits. However without a profit to drive further innovation and development you create a stagnant and unsustainable business model.  

---

by: RBearSAT @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No crisis in Brazil... (0.00 / 0)

"Using something that is also a food source does not provide a good solution for our energy issues.  If you say that Brazil has banked on ethanol as their way out of the petroleum dependency then I would challenge we have a bigger crisis in the making."

Sugar is not a food source. It is a food additive. You will probably see Louisiana leading the way in ethanol production in this country.  Some have seen the example of Brazil and are following it. Ethanol from sugar cane is cheap, which is probably why the oil companies in particular don't like it, and clean.  One of the cleanest if not the cleanest of ethanols.  

There has been no shortage of sugar as a result of the ethanol program in Brazil and there has been no increase in the price of sugar.

The expansion of the program is not only to ensure domestic supply but also to allow export of ethanol.

Supplemental energy sources, particularly wind and sun, are actually good ways to allow individual energy production and consumption.  But as those who live in Los Angeles will tell you, they are not always "government friendly" and the government more or less discourages "utility provider independence" particularly with regard to homeowners.  If you aren't using the utility providers' electricity, they are not collecting taxes from you and so the government is collecting less taxes.  

Connect the dots. Greed still determines public policy in this country and greed does not make for good public policy.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 14:56:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

H-E-B is getting in the game also (0.00 / 0)

It looks like H-E-B is trying to get in the wind energy game as well by installing a wind sail on top of one of its stores.  As reported by the Express-News H-E-B is trialing this for possible use with some of their warehouses and stores.  If this goes well it might start a trend in Texas for other businesses with wind patterns to try harvest some of the wind blowing over their facilities, further reducing the carbon footprint of business and increasing in clean energy.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:40:39 PM CDT

Power play is right (5.00 / 1)

Water, Barnett Shale, ~ Wind Energy ~

Pickens owns more water than any other individual in the U.S. and is looking to control even more. He hopes to sell the water he already has, some 65 billion gallons a year, to Dallas, transporting it over 250 miles, 11 counties, and about 650 tracts of private property. The electricity generated by an enormous wind farm he is setting up in the Panhandle would also flow along that corridor. As far as Pickens is concerned, he could be selling wind, water, natural gas, or uranium; it's all a matter of supply and demand. [Emphasis added.]

Our insatiable consumption of oil and gas and Big Oil's insatiable greed has spawned the Barnett Shale's insatiable thirst for fresh water. Now we can say goodbye to another 9 billion gallons of water per year.[Emphasis added.]

The key, Pickens says, is that wind energy can be used as a substitute for natural gas now burned to generate electricity. That, in turn, will make far more natural gas available for use as a transportation fuel. Pickens' plan is to produce enough wind power within 10 years to divert 20% of the natural gas now used to fuel power plants for use in cars and trucks. That's much more aggressive a growth plan for the development of wind energy than envisioned by the Department of Energy, which doesn't expect the USA to be getting 20% of its total energy needs from wind until at least 2030.

Pickens foresees as many as a third of the vehicles running on natural gas within only a few years. Julius Pretterebner, director of the Global Oil Group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, says getting 15% to 20% of the USA's cars to run on natural gas - in some cases, in mixtures with other fuels in dual-fuel vehicles - by 2020 would be an outstanding achievement, and doing that will require federal support to expand the necessary infrastructure.

Powering vehicles with compressed or liquefied natural gas, CNG or LNG, has been Pickens' pet project since the late 1980s.Yet the concept has been very slow to catch on. [Emphasis added.]

No wonder he's spending so much on these ads.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 23:27:53 PM CDT

Public Resources (5.00 / 1)

We do not need, and never have needed, the Pickens, Murchisons, etc. for our essentials and management of public resources. Through the military, national service and cooperatives these systems can be built and maintained. The accumulation of much wealth by a few is nothing to be sought.

---

by: marc @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 01:21:56 AM CDT

Socialism at its best (3.00 / 2)

Ah, a socialistic society. Please, I love some of the progressive ideas but this is ridiculous.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:51:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think it's ridiculous to believe that our country is swiftly losing what made it great in the first place ~ the Middle Class.

If that's called "socialism," then so be it. Being so quick to cry "socialism" is so much a part of the right wing's propaganda.  

Socialism is not a dirty word. "Deregulation" seems like a really filthy word to me right now. So, "regulation" must be a dirty word to you?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 00:24:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Inaccurate claims (0.00 / 0)

So much a part of the right wing's propaganda? You seem to be quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as right wing. You've done it to me several times and others also. Bring the rhetoric down a notch please. We can have dialogue in here but lay off the false labels.

Regarding regulation/deregulation. I don't think you've ever had to operate or work in a regulated environment. You think business is bad? Try dealing with government regulators who don't have a clue about the business they were appointed into. Half the time business has to educate the regulators on what's going on. The paperwork and reporting is insane and many times unnecessary.  It's just the way we've done things all along. Corruption exists. It's not rampant but no more than it is in business.

Now do I advocate total deregulation? Heck no. That would be stupid. But pushing regulation because you don't have a trust of businesses means you don't understand the business to start with. I think there are appropriate levels of regulation but not to the point that it stifles business. When you've gone about creating some jobs for people and dealt with the issues of a P/L statement then we can talk.

I really feel a good balance can be struck with Pickens on this venture. It seems no one in here has really debated the aspects of Pickens business proposition. They just seem to want to throw stones at him because a) he's rich and b) he contributed to the Republican agenda. Get over it. Personally I like the idea of increasing the wind electricity pool. Without it we could never wean ourselves off the oil glut we've created. But we can't give the farm to him. We do need to have some checks and balances but let's not push the man out of the venture. We need it so badly right now.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Assuming a lot (0.00 / 0)

When you've gone about creating some jobs for people and dealt with the issues of a P/L statement then we can talk.

Why are you assuming that I've never dealt with a P/L statement?

So much a part of the right wing's propaganda? You seem to be quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as right wing. You've done it to me several times and others also. Bring the rhetoric down a notch please. We can have dialogue in here but lay off the false labels.

Did I hit a nerve because I certainly didn't say you were a right winger...just find it interesting that you brought up socialism as if it's a dirty word. It's regularly brought up by "right wingers" as a way to stop the discussion. Haven't you heard any AM talk radio, lately? It's excellent propaganda.

I don't routinely label blog commenters as "right wing." I do question comments that are unusual.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 23:17:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Probably did hit some nerves, just not the ones you implied (0.00 / 0)

Granted I did get a little excited when you made the claims. Honestly, I've never even listened to AM talk radio except when I stumble across it looking for my Longhorns or its on in the vehicle of a co-worker on the way to lunch (they love to punch my buttons).

Regarding the P/L statement it too was a reaction. I just find, as you have regarding my socialism comment, that further discussion with people who make those claims finds they've never dealt with managing business issues. In fact they are completely ignorant to the inner workings and challenges. Bad claim of you on my part without knowing more.

However the claims of socialism still remain (not a right winger remember). I think what I'm trying to point out is that there is a balance. Everyone here seems to be overreacting to Pickens' plan and jumping to the other extreme - regulation. Pickens isn't asking for complete deregulation, although he'd probably like it.

Does he have a motive? You're darn straight he does - to make money. However the money will probably be for his heirs since he won't see the benefits of his plan before he passes on. That's an interesting point to think about. The man's 80 years old.

Do I fault him for that? Heck no if it will move the clean energy process forward. Pickens is getting us off the mark and moving forward. No one else seems to be doing it. PUC probably would have never really pushed forward had Pickens not pushed his plan. Now we stand to far exceed our position as the #1 wind power state in the nation.

On an interesting note in this discussion the E-N ran an article on wind power. In it two small city offices were cited as having achieved lower electric bills as a result of signing on with 100% "windtricity" as CPS likes to claim it. With rising fuel costs their bills were cheaper due to their actions.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:30:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You really should (0.00 / 0)

listen to a morning and afternoon of the big boys on AM Talk Radio: Rush, Sean, Mark (Levin) and local celebrities in the morning depending on your market (Mark Davis on WBAP in Dallas). Unfortunately, these "propagandists" have a big influence on a lot of people. It's actually sad to listen to their warped thinking. They have way too much power without any "regulation."

Of course, wind energy is a good thing. I find it totally weird that one of the men that enabled George W. Bush to have 4 more years wants us all to ignore that "fact" and now follow his lead.

I have to doubt this:

PUC probably would have never really pushed forward had Pickens not pushed his plan.

Because of this:

The $1.8 million that Pickens spent on Texas' last two elections made him the state's No. 5 individual donor-up from No. 12 in 2002.

Pickens wants condemnation powers to lay 320 miles of utility lines from suburban Dallas to the Texas Panhandle-with or without the approval of the owners of the private land that he would excavate.

[...]

In their very next session, however, lawmakers enacted legislation that helped put these expansive powers in Pickens' hands. With Pickens spending up to another $1 million on state lobbyists this session, not a single lawmaker of either party voted against the legislation, which now is the law of the land. [Emphasis added.]

 

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 22:11:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Socialism is a ridiculous word to those who don't think (3.00 / 1)

Elsbeth, isn't it interesting how those who think socialism is so bad think plutocracies are so grand? If they wish to waste their lives and labor so that a very few and their decendents can own most everything and everyone, then let them. And if we let the plutocrats own our natural resources then we deserve to end up in a feudal system of the wealthy, the church, the bureaucrats or whatever. Cooperatives have and are working, the miltary does build housing for others and national service is a very good idea. Let's work together with those of a like mind and when possible gather in the same places.  

---

by: marc @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 17:32:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A world of reality (0.00 / 0)

I guess I'm just one to work together with all groups and not to shun someone because they happen to be in business. Last time I checked none of us were living on communes or sequestered away from the world. Heck you're even making these comments on an infrastructure put together by a large telecom. Until they came into the picture this thing called the Internet was relegated to researchers at large universities and was never in reach of the masses.

What I advocate is that in a free market society there are ways to grow the economy and build a strong society while still meeting business needs. Most of the recent innovation and research for new technologies has come through the private sector and not from any of the organizations you cite. Interesting that you claim a feudal system. That's a very dated word and seems to imply that cooperatives, the military and national service don't carry those same characteristics.

I did notice Elsbeth downgraded my comment with a 1. Normally I'd go on my rating rant but in this case I can see her point regarding the discussion. It is an opinion that comments of socialism against a person don't further the discussion. It doesn't change my position but I agree that it falls within the guidelines.

Personally I kind of wish I had never made my claim since it created this subthread and brings out deeper aspects of our beliefs. Maybe that's not such a bad thing but it's possibly not appropriate for BOR. So I'm closing down my part of this subthread and maybe moving back to the major thread if warranted. Take any bash at me you want from this point forward. Not gonna play any more.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 21:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But (0.00 / 0)

you've been given a "5" to offset my "1." So someone else thinks your comment is "Fabulous."  A progressive who thinks that comment deserves a "5"?  Very weird. If they only wished to "offset" my "1" they should have given a "2" or a "3." So, this is a "subthread"?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 00:10:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yea, a new term :) (0.00 / 0)

Heck its the only thing I could think to call it since it wasn't really on the same topic as the original. Maybe I've created a new term in the blogosphere (probably not). Must be the nerd in me.

Actually I've always thought the "1"s were to be used when the comment was inappropriate for the discussion, not a dissent. That's usually when I go on my rant, when someone just disagrees. Sometimes I feel those ratings are like diving judges at the Olympics. When you comment the crew holds up their cards.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:05:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

Actually I've always thought the "1"s were to be used when the comment was inappropriate for the discussion, not a dissent.

They are. And it was inappropriate and therefore "unproductive."

Oh, and look up "thread hijacking." That's what it's been called for a very long time. Not subthread. It is considered "rude" to hijack someone's diary. You can do that with your own, but it's considered bad form to do that with someone else's.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 13:40:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]