St Patricks Day

[gordo]

So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

[Catoni]

On Mar 17, 2:31 pm, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
> Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

You may find this hard to believe comrade, but I've always been
green.. Camping and hiking in the northern forests all my life from
the time I used to go hunting and fishing with my father and
grandfather back in the '50's. Oooooohh... Canadians with
guns,...... yeah ! Started fishing and hunting when I was six or
seven. Up early at our camp fishing out on one of the lakes for our
breakfast.....sunfish, perch, trout, catfish. then in the afternoon
go hunting for our dinner...

Ever tried wild rabbit or bush squirrel or raccoon that you just
shot for yourself ? ?

[Blue]

On 17/03/2012 18:31, gordo wrote:
> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
> Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

http://tinyurl.com/83qfbmt
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_British_soldiers_killed_in_Northern_Ireland_since_1969

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:31:50 -0700, gordo wrote:

> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
> Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

Up to now, you showed many erroneous ideas on what is good for nature.
Take this opportunity to consider seriously what sceptics say. Maybe you
will stop to speak and act foolishly. Maybe you will stop doing exactly
the opposite of what you think you do for nature.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

you have shown you should not be taken seriously.

[Paul Aubrin]

My advice is good for you too.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

its rather obvious that your incorrectly think your opinions are
correct, but thats the funny part, as you seem to be stuck in a
illogical loop driven by your irrational fears.

[gordo]

Up to now you have shown yourself to be a denier of AGW not a skeptic.
Here is a short list of things discussed here that are bad for
wildlife and human health. Tar sands,pipelines, coal extraction,
burning of fossil fuels,urban sprawl over hunting and over fishing. It
is a toss up what poses the largest immediate threat between
acidification of the oceans and AGW.

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:01l9m796o9n31hreb...@4ax.com

> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
> Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

But you are a first class bigot????

[Bret Cahill]

> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.

Cabbage is kind of green. Does that count?

[Bill Ward]

Ah. Now we see the transition period to Plan B. The CAGW scam is outed
beyond recovery, so the focus shifts to CO2 causing "ocean
acidification". The difference is that now we know all about you, and
we'll point out that the "acidification" is simply a scare tactic. The
ocean is slightly basic, and can never become acidic because of all the
solid CaCO3 in equilibrium with it.

You can use the term "neutralizing", when it moves slightly toward
neutrality, but not "acidifying". The ocean is heavily buffered, and
incapable of becoming acid.

On to Plan C?

[Paul Aubrin]

You, AGW cultists, are obviously definitely resistant to logics as much
as to ridicule. Who fear Gaia's wrath here?

[RedAcer]

How many logics have you got? A new false one in an attempt to bolster
each argument you know you are losing.

[RedAcer]

It was obviously a barbed joke even if there was no smiley. Why is it
bigoted ?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

laughing, if your logic was true and your attempts at ridicule worthy,
you would have a point, but your logic is twisted, and your weak
attempts at insults really are nothing. Which in effect means your
post was irrelevant. Did you say something?

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:31:50 -0700, gordo wrote:

>So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
>Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.

Aren't you the one who always says, "What the hell is a greenie?"

Unless you are finally equating "greenie" with "Warmist cult
adherent," why do you think it would be incongruous for a "denier" to
be a "greenie?"

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 06:25:44 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>> > its rather obvious that your incorrectly think your opinions are
>> > correct, but thats the funny part, as you seem to be stuck in a
>> > illogical loop driven by your irrational fears.
>>
>> You, AGW cultists, are obviously definitely resistant to logics as much
>> as to ridicule. Who fear Gaia's wrath here?
>
> laughing, if your logic was true and your attempts at ridicule worthy,
> you would have a point, but your logic is twisted, and your weak
> attempts at insults really are nothing. Which in effect means your post
> was irrelevant. Did you say something?

My attempts at insults are so weak as to be non-existent.
It is not because, in your crooked logic, you suppose that what I say is
not rational that it isn't, just the opposite is true.

You AGW cult makes you fear the wrath of Mother Nature because you are
guilty of producing CO2. No fear can be more irrational.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Your problem can be summed up by simply saying you dont understand
that stewardship of the land air and water is a conservative and
prudent concept as it protects our precious natural resources for
future generations. The funny thing is you think you can blame others
for your idiocy, and you are fighting to cling to your ignorance.

[Wally W.]

<http://www.varioustopics.com/chemistry/1007907-catch-me-up-on-uncle-al.html>
Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to
consume it; and not them, either

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 18, 10:43 am,

> <http://www.varioustopics.com/chemistry/1007907-catch-me-up-on-uncle-a...>

> Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to
>  consume it; and not them, either

Take some time to do some research in to Thomas Jefferson and
environmentalism.

[gordo]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 00:16:07 -0500, Bill Ward
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:37:18 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2012 22:19:09 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:31:50 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>>
>>>> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green today.
>>>> Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.
>>>
>>>Up to now, you showed many erroneous ideas on what is good for nature.
>>>Take this opportunity to consider seriously what sceptics say. Maybe you
>>>will stop to speak and act foolishly. Maybe you will stop doing exactly
>>>the opposite of what you think you do for nature.
>>
>> Up to now you have shown yourself to be a denier of AGW not a skeptic.
>> Here is a short list of things discussed here that are bad for wildlife
>> and human health. Tar sands,pipelines, coal extraction, burning of
>> fossil fuels,urban sprawl over hunting and over fishing. It is a toss up
>> what poses the largest immediate threat between acidification of the
>> oceans and AGW.
>
>Ah. Now we see the transition period to Plan B. The CAGW scam is outed
>beyond recovery, so the focus shifts to CO2 causing "ocean
>acidification".

What the hell are you talking about? I suppose when you believe in a
giant world wide conspiracy of all the countries in the world and all
the scientists then you can make stupid statements like plan A.

> The difference is that now we know all about you, and
>we'll point out that the "acidification" is simply a scare tactic. The
>ocean is slightly basic, and can never become acidic because of all the
>solid CaCO3 in equilibrium with it.

Acidification is the scientific term used by scientists and you do not
get to make up your own terms but your cult does it all the time.

>You can use the term "neutralizing", when it moves slightly toward
>neutrality, but not "acidifying". The ocean is heavily buffered, and
>incapable of becoming acid.

You don't get to make up the terms that scientists use. When asked
most of them will tell you they don't give a damn what you call it so
long as you know what is happening to the oceans and it is not good.

>On to Plan C?

[gordo]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:34:00 +0000, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

Thank you for that. It was a barbed joke but the deniers are so used
to attacking anything posted that they jumped in with both feet in
personal attacks etc. I also used the word greenies which I have
attacked as being a meaningless word when they used it in other posts.

[gordo]

I thought you might laugh. It would seem that wearing green on St
Patricks day has nothing to do with conservation but could apply to
all the people wearing green on St Patricks day. Did you have some
green beer yesterday. They were drinking it all over the world.

[Bill Ward]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:33:32 -0700, gordo wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 00:16:07 -0500, Bill Ward
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:37:18 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2012 22:19:09 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:31:50 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So it is St Patrick's Day and everyone is expected to go green
>>>>> today. Even all the deniers are expected to be greenies today.
>>>>
>>>>Up to now, you showed many erroneous ideas on what is good for nature.
>>>>Take this opportunity to consider seriously what sceptics say. Maybe
>>>>you will stop to speak and act foolishly. Maybe you will stop doing
>>>>exactly the opposite of what you think you do for nature.
>>>
>>> Up to now you have shown yourself to be a denier of AGW not a skeptic.
>>> Here is a short list of things discussed here that are bad for
>>> wildlife and human health. Tar sands,pipelines, coal extraction,
>>> burning of fossil fuels,urban sprawl over hunting and over fishing. It
>>> is a toss up what poses the largest immediate threat between
>>> acidification of the oceans and AGW.
>>
>>Ah. Now we see the transition period to Plan B. The CAGW scam is outed
>>beyond recovery, so the focus shifts to CO2 causing "ocean
>>acidification".

> What the hell are you talking about? I suppose when you believe in a
> giant world wide conspiracy of all the countries in the world and all
> the scientists then you can make stupid statements like plan A.

The CAGW fraud is a conspiracy only to you, gordo. The rest of us know
all about it. Or are you implying there are other similar schemes in the
pipeline we don't know about yet? Guess again.

>> The difference is that now we know all about you, and
>>we'll point out that the "acidification" is simply a scare tactic. The
>>ocean is slightly basic, and can never become acidic because of all the
>>solid CaCO3 in equilibrium with it.

> Acidification is the scientific term used by scientists and you do not
> get to make up your own terms but your cult does it all the time.

Again, you're out of the loop. You're trying to confuse your attempt at
propaganda with science. That won't fool anyone who's paying attention.

>>You can use the term "neutralizing", when it moves slightly toward
>>neutrality, but not "acidifying". The ocean is heavily buffered, and
>>incapable of becoming acid.

> You don't get to make up the terms that scientists use. When asked most
> of them will tell you they don't give a damn what you call it so long as
> you know what is happening to the oceans and it is not good.

First you have to convince people something bad is happening to the
ocean. No one will believe you, because you used up all your credibility
allowance lying about CAGW. You can't fool all the people all the time,
especially when they're paying attention.

Also, successful con games seldom involve insulting the marks. Good con
men have to be likeable. You've got a long way to go.

>>On to Plan C?

[gordo]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:49:45 -0500, Bill Ward

The rest of us you say? What us. The us that says there is no warming.
The us that says there is warming but it is so small so no matter. The
other us where we won't have to worry about it for 30 or 40 years. The
us that says we are heading into an ice age. The us that says its a
hoax and the us that says its a world wide conspiracy? So there you
have it the dupes from the Merchants of Doubt. You have no us. There
is a collective group of scientists and countries represented at the
IPCC and they agree that we must reduce our burning of fossil fuels.

>>> The difference is that now we know all about you, and
>>>we'll point out that the "acidification" is simply a scare tactic. The
>>>ocean is slightly basic, and can never become acidic because of all the
>>>solid CaCO3 in equilibrium with it.
>
>> Acidification is the scientific term used by scientists and you do not
>> get to make up your own terms but your cult does it all the time.
>
>Again, you're out of the loop. You're trying to confuse your attempt at
>propaganda with science. That won't fool anyone who's paying attention.
>
>>>You can use the term "neutralizing", when it moves slightly toward
>>>neutrality, but not "acidifying". The ocean is heavily buffered, and
>>>incapable of becoming acid.
>
>> You don't get to make up the terms that scientists use. When asked most
>> of them will tell you they don't give a damn what you call it so long as
>> you know what is happening to the oceans and it is not good.
>
>First you have to convince people something bad is happening to the
>ocean. No one will believe you, because you used up all your credibility
>allowance lying about CAGW. You can't fool all the people all the time,
>especially when they're paying attention.
>
>Also, successful con games seldom involve insulting the marks. Good con
>men have to be likeable. You've got a long way to go.

There was a good video today on ocean acidification from TEDs. Watch
it .
>>>On to Plan C?

Your idea of plan A,B and C means you are just a kook who believes in
a conspiracy theory. That is the us you belong to . You join those who
think that the moon landing was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside
job.
There is little we can do about you and your fellow dupes.

[Bill Ward]

Looks like I hit a nerve there, huh? It's always fun to incite you into
a content-free blatherburst like that.

>>>> The difference is that now we know all about you, and
>>>>we'll point out that the "acidification" is simply a scare tactic.
>>>>The ocean is slightly basic, and can never become acidic because of
>>>>all the solid CaCO3 in equilibrium with it.
>>
>>> Acidification is the scientific term used by scientists and you do not
>>> get to make up your own terms but your cult does it all the time.
>>
>>Again, you're out of the loop. You're trying to confuse your attempt at
>>propaganda with science. That won't fool anyone who's paying attention.
>>
>>>>You can use the term "neutralizing", when it moves slightly toward
>>>>neutrality, but not "acidifying". The ocean is heavily buffered, and
>>>>incapable of becoming acid.
>>
>>> You don't get to make up the terms that scientists use. When asked
>>> most of them will tell you they don't give a damn what you call it so
>>> long as you know what is happening to the oceans and it is not good.
>>
>>First you have to convince people something bad is happening to the
>>ocean. No one will believe you, because you used up all your
>>credibility allowance lying about CAGW. You can't fool all the people
>>all the time, especially when they're paying attention.
>>
>>Also, successful con games seldom involve insulting the marks. Good con
>>men have to be likeable. You've got a long way to go.

> There was a good video today on ocean acidification from TEDs. Watch it.
>

Yeah, he's better at being likeable, but the con still won't work. After
the CAGW fiasco, reasonable people will insist on hard evidence from the
git-go. It's not there. The party's over. Get used to it.

>>>>On to Plan C?

> Your idea of plan A,B and C means you are just a kook who believes in a
> conspiracy theory. That is the us you belong to . You join those who
> think that the moon landing was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job.
> There is little we can do about you and your fellow dupes.

Dream on, oh irrelevant one. You reveal more about yourself than I
really want to know.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT),

Your statement is too broad.

What do you find of interest in Jefferson's perspective on
environmentalism? How is it relevant here?

Warmist are too given to waving their hands at vast quantities of
irrelevant text.

[gordo]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:02:26 -0500, Bill Ward

You never really watched the video now did you. He had hard evidence
and exactly no scientists are disputing the findings. You cannot
dispute the evidence because you never watched the video to see what
the evidence is. Now watch the bloody thing and come back when you can
dispute it and piss off until you do.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 18, 5:11 pm,

your views are myopic, short sighted, and self centered, and if you
dont see the connection between conservation and stewardship of the
land/air/water one has to wonder if you can "see" at all.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:16:47 -0700 (PDT),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>On Mar 18, 5:11 pm,

Top posting fixed.

>
>your views are myopic, short sighted, and self centered, and if you
>dont see the connection between conservation and stewardship of the
>land/air/water one has to wonder if you can "see" at all.

You invoke Jefferson, but you can't quote him?

Warmist have track record of saying "Look over there!" without giving
a clue which part of a vast landscape they think supports their view.

Unlike Dawlish, I don't claim to be able to read minds. If you have a
particular thing you think Jefferson said in support of your view,
quote it.

How does the quote from Jefferson counter the quote from Uncle Al?

Which portion of the fossil fuels shall we set aside for a future
generation? For *which* generation shall we set them aside? Why are
you willing for generations beyond that one to do without?

Or do you think that *no* generation should consume fossil fuels, in
agreement with the quote from Uncle Al:

Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to

[Bill Ward]

Sorry, no. I'm not that gullible. You're one of the very few remaining
who are gullible enough to believe that kind of propaganda. Just because
he's smoother than you doesn't make him any more credible. No reasonable
person would take such an obvious propaganda piece as evidence, but
apparently you do, for reasons you somehow can't explain.
Too bad, it is.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 18, 7:53 pm,

i dont care about your uncle al, or any other members of your linear
family tree. The denialist track record shows people like you are
desperate, to blame others for your ignorance.

[Catoni]

columbiaaccidentinvestigation posted:

>"Take some time to do some research in to Thomas Jefferson and
>environmentalism. "

Reply:

Oh... you like Thomas Jefferson ? ? How about this quote
from him: ? ? The Sum of Good Government (The socialist far left and
far right hate this quotation. I wonder why? ? )

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our
felicities."

Thomas Jefferson
First Inaugural Address
In Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, March 4, 1801

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

nice quote, but you seem to miss the concept of stewardship.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind
another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit
decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every
government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-
evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .."
Thomas Jefferson September 6,1789 letter to James Madison

http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-3.htm
"Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:
II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their
Contemporaries
B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-
Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct

[Wally W.]

>Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:16:47 -0700 (PDT),
>> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>> >On Mar 18, 5:11�ｿｽpm,

>> >> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT),
>> >> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>> >> >On Mar 18, 10:43�ｿｽam,

>> >> >> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:30:58 -0700 (PDT),
>> >> >> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>> >> >> >On Mar 18, 9:11�ｿｽam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 06:25:44 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > its rather obvious that your incorrectly think your opinions are
>> >> >> >> >> > correct, but thats the funny part, as you seem to be stuck in a
>> >> >> >> >> > illogical loop driven by your irrational fears.
>> >> >> >> >> You, AGW cultists, are obviously definitely resistant to logics as much
>> >> >> >> >> as to ridicule. Who fear Gaia's wrath here?
>> >> >> >> > laughing, if your logic was true and your attempts at ridicule worthy,
>> >> >> >> > you would have a point, but your logic is twisted, and your weak
>> >> >> >> > attempts at insults really are nothing. Which in effect means your post

>> >> >> >> > was irrelevant. �ｿｽDid you say something?

>> >> >> >> My attempts at insults are so weak as to be non-existent.
>> >> >> >> It is not because, in your crooked logic, you suppose that what I say is
>> >> >> >> not rational that it isn't, just the opposite is true.
>> >> >> >> You AGW cult makes you fear the wrath of Mother Nature because you are
>> >> >> >> guilty of producing CO2. No fear can be more irrational.
>> >> >> >Your problem can be summed up by simply saying you dont understand
>> >> >> >that stewardship of the land air and water is a conservative and
>> >> >> >prudent concept as it protects our precious natural resources for
>> >> >> >future generations. The funny thing is you think you can blame others
>> >> >> >for your idiocy, and you are fighting to cling to your ignorance.
>> >> >> <http://www.varioustopics.com/chemistry/1007907-catch-me-up-on-uncle-a...>
>> >> >> Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to

>> >> >> �ｿｽconsume it; and not them, either

Top posting fixed ... again.


On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:57 -0700 (PDT),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>On Mar 18, 7:53�ｿｽpm,

>
>i dont care about your uncle al, or any other members of your linear
>family tree. The denialist track record shows people like you are
>desperate, to blame others for your ignorance.

Nor are you willing to say that his quote accurately reflects the
greenie perspective on conservation:

somebody else in the future deserves to
consume it; and not them, either

Talk about deniers. The greenies want to deny access in perpetuity.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 19, 7:30 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:" Top posting
fixed ... again. Nor are you willing to say that his quote accurately

reflects the greenie perspective on conservation: somebody else in the
future deserves to consume it; and not them, either Talk about
deniers. The greenies want to deny access in perpetuity."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/54ab18b2ceeca15c?hl=en


On Mar 18, 7:53 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"You invoke

Jefferson, but you can't quote him?"

im glad you stopped top posting, maybe next time you wont start it if
you cant take it. Now, you asked for the quote, this quote shows
Thomas Jefferson viewed stewardship as self evident concept. Good
stewardship of the land air and water, protects our nations precious
resources for next generations, a principle in building a strong base
foundation for a long lasting country.

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:12 -0700 (PDT),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>On Mar 19, 7:30 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:" Top posting
>fixed ... again. Nor are you willing to say that his quote accurately
>reflects the greenie perspective on conservation: somebody else in the
>future deserves to consume it; and not them, either Talk about
>deniers. The greenies want to deny access in perpetuity."
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/54ab18b2ceeca15c?hl=en
>
>
>On Mar 18, 7:53 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"You invoke
>Jefferson, but you can't quote him?"
>
>im glad you stopped top posting, maybe next time you wont start it if
>you cant take it.

What a piece of work you are, CAI. Do you find projecting your faults
on others to be as naturally as breathing?

Do you snip context in the hope that no one will notice?

>Now, you asked for the quote, this quote shows
>Thomas Jefferson viewed stewardship as self evident concept. Good
>stewardship of the land air and water, protects our nations precious
>resources for next generations, a principle in building a strong base
>foundation for a long lasting country.
>
>"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind
>another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit
>decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every
>government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
>self- evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the
>living' . . .."
>Thomas Jefferson September 6,1789 letter to James Madison
>
>http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-3.htm
>"Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
>The Stewardship Doctrine:
>II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their
>Contemporaries
>B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-
>Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct

Your quote opposes the idea of national parks. The legislation which
creates them intends to bind all future generations.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/role/legislation/national-parks-act/
The New Zealand national parks system aims to preserve in perpetuity


IOW:
<http://www.varioustopics.com/chemistry/1007907-catch-me-up-on-uncle-al.html>
Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 20, 3:13 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:12 -0700 (PDT),
>
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> >On Mar 19, 7:30 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:" Top posting
> >fixed ... again. Nor are you willing to say that his quote accurately
> >reflects the greenie perspective on conservation: somebody else in the
> >future deserves to consume it; and not them, either Talk about
> >deniers. The greenies want to deny access in perpetuity."

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/54ab18b2ceeca15...

> <http://www.varioustopics.com/chemistry/1007907-catch-me-up-on-uncle-a...>

> Conservation - somebody else in the future deserves to
>  consume it; and not them, either

Oh you mean you would feel like an idiot if you tried to make the
assertion that thomas jefferson was showing his love for gaia, even
though he was expressing a desire to protect our natural resources.

[Catoni]

On Mar 20, 8:38 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

> though he was expressing a desire to protect our natural resources.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess you're claiming that Jefferson believed in freedom and
liberty, but also believed that a socialist authoritarian government
controlling everyone from the cradle to the grave, and the destruction
of freedom and liberty would be necessary to defend your goddess Gaia.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

You seem to be a bit confuses, as the purpose of good stewardship is
to allow others in the future to benefit as we have, thats why i
provided the link. Wally asked for a direct quote, and i provided it
here in this thread. The words "self evident", and "usufruct" are
found in the writings from one founding father to another, like many
of those letters one can see the roots of the United States forming.
The very point jefferson was making by using such words was he was he
thought good stewardship of the land did not need to be debated, as
such a prudent concept helps create a good foundation for the newly
created democracy. Are you claiming jefferson was basing such a
concept for his love of gaia?

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT),

More expansive handwaving.

How much stewardship is enough for you?

No one can live without making waste, unless they are full of shit.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT),

all things being equal you really should stop the top posting, as it
does not bother me to match your actions. No handwaving the quote is
backed by explantation which directly contradicts your bs. The only
thing full of bs around here is you, now run along.

[Wally W.]

>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT),

Top posting fixed again.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT),
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
>all things being equal you really should stop the top posting, as it
>does not bother me to match your actions. No handwaving the quote is
>backed by explantation which directly contradicts your bs. The only
>thing full of bs around here is you, now run along.

You don't know what top posting means, do you?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 20, 6:14 pm

maybe you should work on the word "usufruct", as you still need to
show jefferson was showing love for gaia.

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind
another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit
decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every
government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self- evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the
living' . . .." Thomas Jefferson September 6,1789 letter to James
Madison

http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-3.htm
"Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:
II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their
Contemporaries
B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-
Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:17:14 -0700 (PDT),

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/about
Top posters
All time
11389 columbiaaccidentinvestigation

And he doesn't know what "top posting" means.

Too funny.

[gordo]

Top posting is a very stupid and selfish thing to do. Snip what you
want explain why and all is forgiven. Glad to see this denier on the
same page as most users of the newsgroups.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:17:14 -0700 (PDT),

talk about hand waving and irrelevant please explain why you think the
definition of top posting is relevant to your ignorance on the subject
of thomas jefferson, stewardship and environmentalism. On top of that
please explain why you think thomas jefferson was expressing his love
for gaia, if you cannot, then you must admit Thomas Jefferson viewed

stewardship as self evident concept. Good
stewardship of the land air and water, protects our nations precious

resources for next generations, a conservative principle in building a

strong base foundation for a long lasting country.

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind
another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit
decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every
government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self- evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the
living' . . .."
Thomas Jefferson September 6,1789 letter to James Madison

http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-3.htm
"Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:
II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their
Contemporaries
B. Generational Sovereignty and the Land – The Earth as Tenancy-in-
Common - Thomas Jefferson's Usufruct

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

why, "no top-posting" -- is it your newsreader?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

did you say something relevant

[Bill Ward]

Think "Eliza".

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 20, 11:13 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>
wrote:""
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/020f4dcb49412441?hl=en-gb

na, i dont think thomas jefferson was thinking eliza or about gaia,
but he was focused on "usufruct". Now that’s two of the denialist
favorites I have smashed their comparison of eugenics, and the lame
posts about gaia.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Mar 18, 6:53 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"You invoke

Jefferson, but you can't quote him?"