Enclosed you will find various examples of my writing.

I have culled examples from several

different media. There are samples from my personal blog, the local newspaper and the discussion
forum at USPoliticsOnline.com. I hope the examples provided will be of use. If you require more
examples I can also transcribe some of my school work.
There is one issue that needs to be noted. Some of the postings in their original content are
under different names. I can provide proof that they are all my personal writings if back up is needed.

Some examples from Uspolitics Online Forum

Killing Ourselves
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/environmental-issues/65965-killing-ourselves.html
Post 62
Incorrect. There is a source for which we have all the necessary technology and would provide a
constant stream of reliable power for the near and prolonged future. It basically relies on standard
turbine technology and does not pollute. It's operating fluid is commonly available and is reusable
without contamination. Here is the kicker the oil companies have much of the equipment needed for
both surveying it and accessing it.

Geothermal.

Geothermal electricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Quote:
A 2006 MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of
power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000
zettajoules being easily tap-able with improved technology.
The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about
half of a zettajoule a year, this means about 4000 years of planetary power
could be harnessed in this medium alone.
MIT, The Future of Geothermal Energy, 2006
The energy companies want you to think the only reliable resource is nuclear and/or fossil fuels.
They want this because both are scarce resources and they can more easily maintain the culture of
scarcity.
Post #68
Actually it does. Perhaps you are thinking the only source for geothermal energy is volcanoes,
or places like Iceland where it comes through the ground. There are plenty of geothermal sources in the
United States and even in major population areas. For example,
as shown in this map:

The entire West Coast of the United States is inundated with geothermal possibilities. We
already have a great deal of the technology from other industries. Surveying and drilling technology
from the petrochemical industry. High temperature generation technology from coal and nuclear power
plants. The transmission method is already spread across the country, otherwise known as electrical
transmission lines. They simply need upgrading. We are already working on developing upgrading our
technology to electric vehicles.

Geothermal doesn't, except for certain circumstances, create toxic environmental materials like
nuclear and hydrocarbons technology. It isn't dependent on the vagaries of the wind cycle. It doesn't go
away when there are clouds or at night. It has the potential to completely revamp the way we do
energy,

And it is completely renewable.

Post 70
Originally Posted by Brexx
If they can make a profit from geothermal they will be interested

This is also where you run into trouble. There really isn't that much profit in geothermal. There
is nothing like the potential for money they have with fossil fuels. Geothermal is completely renewable.
There isn't the ability to say production is down like they do with oil. Which is a method used to keep
the price artificially high. If you can produce to a certain level and you cut back because the price isn't
high enough then the prices are completely artificial.

Sustainability isn't really profitable which is why it won't ever extract the attention of the major
companies. How can they reap massive profits from something that can't be made to fit into supply and
demand? They can keep fossil fuels scarce. They can keep wind, solar and hydro scarce but the supply
of geothermal energy isn't dependent on the vagaries of weather.
Newspaper Comments in Kingsport Times-News

Government Demands We Accept Gays

In actuality, very few victims of child molestation become gay. That argument is part of the
whole choosing to be gay idea that runs through some people. Raping children doesn't turn children
into homosexuals it turns them into victims. Its a completely crappy piece of reasoning to blame
homosexuality on pedophiles.
D. Neely

If a place gets government funding then they have absolutely no right to limit which people use
their services. It should not matter what their gender is, what their race is or what their sexual
orientation is. If your organization doesn't like expressing the tolerance that should be part-and-parcel
of our government then don't accept the governments help.

I have NEVER understood the attitude towards homosexuals in the military. They are wanting
to serve in one of the most direct ways possible. We want them to be honorable and yet we "require"
them to start with a lie and lie the entire time they serve and protect the country. In addition, I have
never understood why a homosexual person would want to serve in the military. Why they would want
to serve and protect a country that insist on treating them like criminals and tries to deny them their
human rights is beyond me.

America used to be known as the "great melting pot." Of course, someone always seemed to be
left out. Those of native descent, Irish descent, Oriental descent, African descent, any other religion
besides Christianity and (the current focus of those who live lives of intolerance) homosexuals. People
like you always have to have someone to disregard. Someone to keep out and someone to hate.

Now here is the kicker that you don't get. I don't care if you feel this way. I don't care as long as
you don't try to make it the policy of everyone. As soon as you start trying to make your hatred the law
of the land I will oppose you. My tolerance can accept your intolerance but your intolerance can't
accept my tolerance. This is the critical function of intolerance and its hatred of diversity.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Overpopulation is the Real Problem

Malthusians who continue to claim we have to worry about overpopulation are
not aware of any facts in the matter.

Not correct. The fact that some industrialized countries are experiencing a decline in population
is clearly being offset by the increase in population of non-industrialized countries. It is the growing
population of the whole that is the issue.
The side issue is that those people who live in industrialized countries, even if experiencing a
decline, pollute and use up resources in a matter which is non-consistent with their population. In other
words, while people in industrialized countries might have a population that is smaller they use more
resources than larger populations.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Paul White. You did vote and so did everyone else who participates in the capitalist system
which runs America. Any system designed to maximize profits for businesses and minimize costs to
the consumer is going to force companies to find the cheapest source so as to maximize profits for the
business owners. The politicians only allowed the companies to do what the consumers wanted which
was to provide things as cheaply as possible. If the costs of labor and doing business in the United
States was interfering with companies making the most amount of money then you can't blame
companies for going where they can get things cheap.

If you tried to stop outsourcing then you were engaging in anti-capitalist practices because you
were standing in the way of profits.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Mr. White. No. Not anything for a buck. However, that is what capitalism is. You benefit from
it at every turn but don't like it when it doesn't work the way you want it. I was just pointing out that the
very thing you and the person who posted the letter are complaining about are part-and-parcel of the
way capitalism works. So. Yes, that is the true nature of the capitalist system of which you partake and
reap the benefits.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Gore Promoting Hysteria

The petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has gathered quite a list.
However, the truth is that this list is not anything near a responsible gathering of scientist and experts.
Anyone can add their name to the list and for a while characters from M.A.S.H. were listed as experts.
There is absolutely no way to verify the identity of the scientist listed and the organization does not
provide a reference to the credentials of the "signatories."
The paper that the organization provided as evidence for their position was never peer-reviewed
by any scientific journal or scientific process. The way it was presented intentionally misrepresented
this fact and misrepresented the credentials of the contributors to the paper. This allowed the writers to
make it seem that their position was supported by the National Academy of Science when the Academy
itself denied this support. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing
to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a
news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

If you want to know the truth about this organization then please read:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

One additional point needs to be made. A person being a Medical Doctor does not automatically
make one a scientist. You can be a doctor and still know absolutely nothing about what being a
scientist actually means. If you doubt this simple type in "doctor of medicine" and pseudoscience into
google then read away. The fact that a doctor does not a scientist make has its proof in our own state.
Bill Frist is a doctor but he is also a creationist and a believer in Intelligent Design which is absolutely
incompatible with being a scientist.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Creationism and Intelligent Design do most definitely interfere with science. The default
assumption behind both ideas is that god, or some other designated creative force, is the real answer to
scientific questions. If you are a creationist/ID'er then in the back of your mind is the answer at some
point is going to "god did it." For example, a "young earth creationist" is going to believe that the
universe and the earth is only about 6-10,000 years old. When you think the universe is that young you
must ignore all the evidence that conflicts with your position. There is simply no evidence that the
universe is only 10,000 years old and avoiding these kinds of facts to keep your beliefs intact is
extremely counter-productive to the scientific method. All the other mechanisms of creationism and ID
follow the same basic method which relies on ignoring the evidence.

Just for the record. I have explored every variation of creationism and religion in my life during
my search for meaning. I do know the details of the other ways of thinking and they all fail the test of
reality.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Mr. Jones you evidently did not read the letter closely. The letter specifically mentions the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. If you look up this institute you find that many of the
supposed scientist that make up the signers of the petition are simply medical doctors. The institute
itself has deep ties with creationist and conservative thinkers.
"It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-
bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from
nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into
"demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense
book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with
Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also
a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It
Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You
Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls."

And
"The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website
and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible
& Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian
families"

As you can see this letter does have a great deal to do with Creationism. My mentioning of Frist
was to provide an example why being a practitioner of medicine does not make you a scientist.

Mr. Jones you might try researching the information in the letters instead of taking them at face
value.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

I can only assume Mr. McQueen that you are referring to the "supposedly suppressed"
comments by the economist Alan Carlin who is not a climatologist or even a scientist. It is widely held
by scientist that the points made in the comments aren't reputable in any way.

For example:
"But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for
support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-
decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot
done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor
Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due
to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the
aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a
paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of
water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct
observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer
reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc.
I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of
international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the
rounds of review of the CCSP reports…."

You can read more on: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691

Of course, the conservatives are all over this supposedly great report that shows climate change
isn't real. However, the sheer lack of science in the papers would make anyone that actually knows
anything about science want to keep it where it belongs -- in the trash.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

"Then again, wasn't Gore responsible for inventing the internet as well? (lol)"

No, Al Gore didn't create the internet. However, he did have a significant input on its
development. A great many people think that the internet was the baby of DARPA but the modern
internet is very far removed from what DARPA started.

If you want to know more you can read:

Al Gore and information technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%27s_contributions_to_the_Internet_and_technology

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely

Mr. or Mrs. Starnes. I already provided refutation to the supposedly suppressed report within
the EPA. You can read more on:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691 The very idea than an
economist knows enough about climatology to analyze the scientific data is very humorous.
 Typing in all caps is considered yelling and most people take it as an indication that you have
lost the argument and are resorting to histrionics to make your point. Yelling something louder doesn't
make it any more correct.

As for the supposed 30,000 scientist who have signed on against climate change I have
addressed that already. In fact, it was the very first post I made in reply to this letter. The report is full
of holes and has even included names of fictional characters in its list.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

According to SourceWatch, it aims: to produce a directory of the people, organizations and

issues shaping the public agenda. A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and
propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing
and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy. SourceWatch also includes profiles on think
tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public
opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. Over time,
SourceWatch has broadened to include others involved in public debates including media outlets,
journalists and government agencies. Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict
referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor.

Sincerely Yours,
D. Neely
From my personal blog.

Is it all connected?
I have noticed in my own life a correlation between two different things which don't seem to be
connected but actually seem to be connected. If that makes any sense. I have noticed a direct
connection between my mental states and the occurrences of my life. Whenever I embrace certain
internal realities my life seems to be much easier from a troubles stand point. However, when I try to
live according to certain other mindsets I seem to be beset constantly by troubles. No matter how much
I try to pretend that there isn't any power which directs I cannot blindly pretend that the exact opposite
doesn't occur.

My favorite psychologist Carl Jung had this idea that connected things which didn't seem to be
connected together.

The idea of synchronicity is that the conceptual relationship of minds, defined as the
relationship between ideas, is intricately structured in its own logical way and gives rise to relationships
that are not causal in nature. These relationships can manifest themselves as simultaneous occurrences
that are meaningfully related.

If perhaps, as some followers of quantum theory believe, our state of mind interacts directly
with reality then what else should one expect. I am not saying that I believe in the concept of that force
of direction that many people ascribe to but I can't say that it does not exist for sure in some fashion.

For a long time I have considered myself an atheist but can you actually make that absolute
claim. I used to think you could but I have found myself question that dogmatic attitude. Perhaps I have
to accept that the only truly logical way to be is agnostic?

Perhaps I also have to accept that I should be more embracing of my inner self and stop trying
to be what other people seem to think I need to be

What our vehicles leave behind

34,254,000 Tons of Hydrocarbons
260,462,000 Tons of Carbon Monoxide
30,707,400 Tons of Oxides of Nitrogen
5,086,605,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide

Based On:
Worldwide Automobiles
600,000,000 Passenger Cars
206,000,000 Light Trucks

Generating per Vehicle

Average Passenger Car Per Year Global Average
77.1 pounds hydrocarbons 23,130,000 tons
575 pounds carbon monoxide 172,500,000 tons
83.2 pounds oxides of nitrogen 24,960,000 tons
11,450 pounds carbon dioxide 3,435,000,000 tons

Average Light Truck Per Year Global Average

108 pounds hydrocarbons 11,124,000 tons
854 pounds carbon monoxide 87,962,000 tons
55.8 oxides of nitrogen 5,747,400 tons
16,035 pounds of carbon dioxide 1,651,605,000 tons

With calculations for Total Annual Pollution Emitted and Fuel Consumed based on an average annual
passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles. Fuel
consumption is based on fleetwide average in-use fuel economy of 21.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for
passenger cars and 17.2 mpg for light trucks

References
Number Automobiles and Light Trucks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile
Emmision Facts Automobiles and Light Trucks - http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/f00013.htm

Author Note: These are approximations based on the best data I could find. It does not include diesel
fuel usage or heavy trucks not using diesel