“There is no reputation here to be built or broken.”

*****

Using that logic, contracts mean nothing because it’s just ink scratches on paper.

Telephone conversations are meaningless because they’re just electronic impulses sent over wires.

Kansas is trying to justify his need for disruption and attention.

And btw, answer the question above.

So, how about giving it a rest and just discuss the issues?

Posted by: Kansas | October 01, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Hey, wait a minute.

Kansas said that he NEVER posted over any other nics.

How can he “reform” unless he did what he said he never did?

Admit what nics you’ve been posting over, Kansas, if you expect to be believed . . . this time.

I have never heard such a bunch of whiners. Crybabies, and unfortunately liberal democrats. Is this the best you have?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

The editors must think they are dealing with small children.

Crybabies.

You posted enough of my name to be identifiable earlier this year — burn baby burn ….

“I suppose whoever complained about me and asked for me to be blocked was successful for a little while. ;) ”

Posted by: Republikansan | July 17, 2007 at 03:25 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/07/open-thread-717.html#comment-76187738

Plus some rants, etc.

Do a “find” on the word “banned” down thru the thread, for more.

You were almost surrounded for a time there.

Where were you when Custer needed you?

MANY people are very tired of all your crap… and all the blasted sock puppets!!

Are you that bad off??? really???

Posted by: Chas. | September 30, 2007 at 09:10 PM

Notice to all who disagree with Chas:

Get off of Chas’ blog now! Or else!

(He has lotsa important friends around town you know!)

God bless and good nite to all!

Appears to be written in a totally candid manner.

Hollywood Sending Mixed Climate MessagesSunday September 30, 2:24 pm ET
By Gary Gentile, AP Business Writer
Hollywood Sends Mixed Messages on Global Warming With Hybrid Cars but Energy-Guzzling Sets

LOS ANGELES (AP) — From “green carpets” at awards shows to organic fruit served to actors on sets, Hollywood is going all out to promote itself as being environmentally hip. But is it all just show?No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a gritty industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of thousands.

Studios’ back lots host cavernous soundstages that must be air-conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and tossed out after filming ends.

The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners are reluctant to replace.

A two-year study released last year by the University of California at Los Angeles concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern California polluter, second only to the oil industry.

Still, financial and public pressures have resulted in many studios expanding their environmental efforts, doing everything from using a biodiesel fuel mixture to run the generators on the set of the Fox show “24″ to converting Warner Bros.’ enormous set-building facility to solar energy.

“Public consciousness on this issue has changed dramatically,” said Kyle Tanger, a principal at Clear Carbon Consulting. “The talent themselves are requesting it from some of the studios. And a lot of these things make economic sense.”

Economic benefit can come to studios directly, by switching to more efficient lighting or cooling systems or driving hybrid cars on location, which can save gas. Other projects, such as installing solar power, can take decades to pay off.

But there are other benefits that are harder to quantify. Besides the public relations angle, many performers and other employees want to work with eco-friendly companies, so it also helps in recruiting and retaining employees, Tanger said.

Form and function merged at this year’s Primetime Emmy Awards show.

To symbolize its commitment to energy conservation, Fox had wanted to replace the traditional red carpet with a green one.

The tradition-bound Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives the awards, politely said “no.”

But the carpet that ended up cushioning the heels of such stars as Sally Field and America Ferrera was made from recycled plastic bottles and later cut into pieces and donated to several local schools.

“No doubt some efforts have been window dressing. But I actually think Hollywood is doing far more than people are giving it credit for,” said Terry Tamminen, who served as an adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before starting his own environmental consulting company.

One convenient yet controversial method is the purchase of carbon credits by studios and producers to offset the greenhouse gases from their production activity. The credits attempt to counter such pollution by investing in environmentally friendly projects such as planting trees or funding wind power.

Studios and a growing number of other industries calculate their emissions, then write a check to one of several brokers who funnel the money to projects around the world. The goal is to become carbon neutral by funding activities that reduce an equal amount of emissions.

The 2004 Fox film “The Day After Tomorrow” and last year’s Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” offset all or some of their pollution. This year’s “Evan Almighty,” from Universal, donated money to the Conservation Fund to plant 2,000 trees, enough to “zero out” the greenhouse gases produced.

But the practice has come under fire by some who say it is an easy way to avoid the hard work of directly reducing pollution. Others question whether carbon credit payments are actually going to projects that make that much of a difference.

“If you’re going to drive around in a big ol’ Hummer and then buy carbon offsets to mitigate that, that’s like getting drunk on the weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting and thinking you’re doing something,” said Ed Begley Jr., who was a poster child for energy conservation long before Al Gore made it trendy.

The Federal Trade Commission, meanwhile, has begun examining claims made by the nascent multimillion-dollar carbon credit industry.

Warner Bros., which bought carbon credits for the 2005 film “Syriana,” has also become more aggressive at reducing emissions during all phases of production.

In addition to solar-powered set-building, the studio is recycling sets, using recycled plastic lumber in the construction of some buildings, and printing double-sided scripts where feasible.

Pieces built for the 2001 film “Ocean’s 11″ now sit in the Santa Monica offices of the National Resources Defense Council. Sets from this year’s sequel “Ocean’s 13″ were donated to decorate the halls of local community colleges.

“You have to start by measuring your own footprint, then reducing it, whether through using alternative fuels, reducing electrical loads or combining trips,” said Shelley Billick, vice president of environmental initiatives at Warner Bros. Entertainment. “It’s too easy to write a check, pay thousands of dollars and say, ‘I’m climate neutral.’”

Last year, Fox parent News Corp. set a goal of being carbon neutral by 2010.

To further that goal, Fox Broadcasting chose its popular “24″ series as a case study and to serve as a model for other television productions.

Diesel generators that power the show’s lighting were switched to a mixture that uses 5 percent biodiesel fuel. That percentage will be increased in coming years. The show also has secured energy from solar and wind generation from a local utility for its soundstages.

But News Corp. has a more ambitious goal than simply reducing its own carbon emissions.

“We knew from the beginning that if our goal is to make as many carbon reductions in the world as possible, probably the best way we can do that is through our audiences,” said Rachel Webber, director of energy initiatives for News Corp.

The company concluded that worldwide, it produced the equivalent of 641,150 tons of carbon dioxide. But a rough estimate revealed that the people who read its newspapers, watch its TV shows and browse its Web sites use about 7 billion tons.

“That’s the greatest potential to reduce carbon, but we have to get our own house in order first,” Webber said.

To reach the wider audience, Webber and a climate expert from Harvard University met with show writers and executive producers earlier this year to brainstorm on ways to integrate environmental messages into show plots.

But Webber said Fox is not forcing “tacked on” messages into its shows, but rather offering resources should writers choose to address the issue.

“We can’t use this in a way that doesn’t fit into the show,” Webber said. “It can’t be Jack Bauer driving in a car he otherwise wouldn’t drive in.”

Ultimately, any steps Hollywood takes, big or small, to reduce emissions are positive, Begley said. “There are different shades of green.”

And now a word from our sponsors.

It’s a blog, it’s electronic bits and pieces.

There is no reputation here to be built or broken.

No one outside of the blog could care less who is who and what they do.

If you haven’t figured it out, we are a tool of the Wichita Eagle Editors. They look at what we write and what they write and try to get a feel for what kind of attitude and reaction is going on.

So try not and get a swollen head about your importance on a blog. The Wichita Eagle could care less, you are just another pencil on the desk.

Since when is progress moving backward?

You wanted me to email you back, so you could try and figure out who I was.

It wouldn’t work as I previously mentioned. It’s a fake email with a fake name and an IP address that is not mine.

As you requested…temporary

If you want to waste your time go ahead, just don’t waste mine.

Just don’t post any names on the blogs as you will for sure get in trouble. I don’t want some poor sap to get his name besmirched by a bunch of wannabe blog vigilantes.

With that, I’m heading to slumber.

“Sorry I did not conform to your time table, Mr. Kansas. I have info that the people at the Wichita Eagle have tried to ban you, but you have found ways around their meager countermeasure efforts. They did not ask you to be a ‘good boy’ and continue posting as you have claimed. Would you like to see this proof? And if Phillip Brownlee were to ask you to not post anymore, would you do that? Thank you.” Steven Davis

“There was nothing in the email but accusation and it was all from today.”

“Shrugs.”

Ohh… sounds like the sissy (I was thinking a different word) way out to me, would you like for me to post more to all here?

Shrugs…

So pathetic…

There was nothing in the email but accusation and it was all from today.

Shrugs.

I wish to share them with you, even as your soul prospers.