Ethanol is "an alcohol product produced from corn, sorghum, potatoes, wheat, sugar cane, even biomass such as cornstalks and vegetable waste. When combined with gasoline, it increases octane levels while also promoting more complete fuel burning that reduces harmful tailpipe emissions such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.Biodiesel is "a domestic, renewable fuel for diesel engines derived from natural oils like soybean oil, and which meets the specifications of ASTM D 6751." Or, for those of you who want a more technical definition, it is "a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats. Also Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification "whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil.Both forms of biofuel have definite environmental advantages over petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel.Ethanol contains 35% oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more complete fuel combustion, thus reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and quickly biodegradable.Biodiesel, on the other hand, "is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. Looking forward for more interesting discussion on this.

'Survivor' star Russell Hantz arrested in Louisiana by Jeff Labrecque Categories: Lawsuits, News, Survivor, Television Russell Hantz of Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains was arrested early this morning in Lafayette, La. According to a spokesperson for the Lafayette Police Department, the reality TV star was taken into custody at 2 a.m., 15 minutes after an emergency call reported a physical confrontation near Justin Street. Hantz was charged with simple battery and released at 4:30 this morning. No bail was required, but he was given a misdemeanor summons and a court date scheduled for June 24. CBS declined to comment.

Point taken, wrychoice, this one does hit home and I'm having a bad day. I think what gets my dander up about hopper2008's posts is what other people have cited (the apparent arrogance and the striking need to prove herself superior, esp. to the former wife & kids), but perhaps I'm taking it more personally because of my situation. The only other thing I really reacted to that other people hadn't already mentioned as irritating is the projection factor. That is, hopper2008 making it out like SD is the one being childish, unreasonable, immature, insecure and manipulative about this situation. Which may very well be the case, but if hopper2008 isn't in some way, at some level, tugging the other end of the rope, then it's a non-issue. If it's a non-issue, then Hopper2008 would simply make sure her husband knows it's okay for him to go to his daughter's wedding without her (and doesn't stand on any principle or misplaced idealism about unity, loyalty or whatever and create a very difficult situation for DH and SD on her wedding day b/c she can't face the reality that she and SD simply don't get along and pushes it at the wrong time & circumstance.) I guess I reacted especially much to the projection aspect because my Dad's wife plays that game of telling herself & other people similar things (i.e. "whatever HE wants to do"; "HE's choosing to do such-and-such"). It's crap, don't buy it if you ever hear this sort of thing. No parent except the lowest form would EVER so quickly and unequivocably "choose", "freely", to leave their kid in the lurch, even if said kid was being a brat. These husband/fathers DO NOT WANT TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON THEIR CHILDREN and they DO NOT do so easily. I mean, unless they are scum, in which case I'd have to ask why anyone would want to be with scum like that. These men (or women, when it's women in these situations) may seem like they are "choosing", but they are BACKED AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' WALL and make these apparent "free choices" under tremendous duress of one sort or the other. For example, I know this because my Dad got me a plane ticket to visit him behind my SM's back (via money order) and always calls me when she isn't around; he called NINE TIMES on and around X-mas ---when she was out--- because he felt so guilty about telling me I couldn't come. Because it wasn't what HE wanted. I know for a fact that SM was telling people "he decided" to not have me there, b/c he was so "disappointed" in me, or whatever the H3LL.... Meanwhile, these "independent decisions" of his always seem to benefit SM, for example HER sister and brother-in-law were there at Christmas in my place, and she got some home improvements done (FOR her not BY her, to be sure). My SM isn't fooling anybody! (Well, I can't say that.... she's not fooling ME and several others ---including my Dad--- but maybe she's fooling somebody somewhere.) In this kind of scenario, if a parent seems to be making a choice to turn their back on their child ---especially on a really important or significant occasion like a wedding that they would otherwise never want to miss--- and their spouse is acting all "my dog ain't in that fight", or more obviously, even GLOATING about the parent's "choice": look closer, ask some more questions. Barring possible reasons such as the most scummy good-for-nothing parent or child on the planet, in most average situations with average people with average issues and flaws, there is more going on than meets the eye. It's more than one person tugging the rope. One way or another, the spouse is also manipulating the situation, or at the very least, is getting a big payoff (emotional, financial, circumstantial, etc.) from just "sitting back" and 'watching" the fight. Saying things in plain English (i.e. "don't go to your daughter's wedding without me or I will be very upset and might divorce you") is only one possible method of getting one's point across. Other methods include: -The Silent Treatment -Sexual Freeze-Out -Generally Being a Stone-Cold B***h Until He Changes the Situation to Your Way -Acting all Hurt and Crying ("Why Doesn't SD Love Me?!?!") to Play the Victim -"Forgetting" to Do Something You Promised (such as get groceries to have food in the house) So He Gets the Hint You're Not Pleased About X situation -"Forgetting" to Give Him His Prescription Medications That You've Made him Dependent On You For So He Gets the Hint... (a favorite tactic of my SM's; actually all of these are) ...and there's probably myriad other sick, twisted ways of controlling a situation that aren't even occuring to me because I'm just not that perverse. (Would have to get in that Stephen King "Misery" headspace to comprehend it more thoroughly.) Admittedly I have some bitterness about my personal stepfamily dynamics (on one side of the family anyways), but apart from any offense it gives anyone, I hope that at least hopper2008 and perhaps anyone else who feels they relate to her will perceive in my words the effect that her apparent attitude may inspire in an SD in that kind of situation. And to just be careful, as kkny said, about the hubris factor. It's humbling to hear it, but hopefully it puts things in perspective b/c it's never a good idea to go around thinking of oneself as being perpetually in a catbird seat. Not with the way our society and relations between men and women tend to go. Plus I think it's good 'tactical' advice, to be kind of Sun Tzu about it: a strategic choice to 'lose the battle' (over being at the wedding) in order to 'win the war', or at least *appear* the bigger person and pre-empt any feeling DH might develop about being on a leash and starting to resent it. (Men tend to wriggle out of a leash millimeter by millimeter... you don't see it coming, and then poof! They're gone! Or even worse, they stay...) This particular advice isn't meant to be about pleasing the man, or the SD, but covering your own behind and not thinking you're invincible or always going to win.... or even always going to be around! So picture the points I made in my last post but with a bit less 'edge'... and hopefully it's illuminating.

The Camelot stories-Lancelot and Arthur.