Merkel
Piet de Arcilla
have a successful agreement on climate change.
I looked up some statistics, and I think it's interesting that the
three countries are 41% of the world's population, and about 32% of
the world's economy.
One way of looking at that is that it's a very large amount of each,
but another way of looking at it is that 60-70% of the world is
outside the three.
$Zero
but the only percentages that matter in that analysis is the
percentage of pollution production.
neither populations nor economies in and of themselves create harmful
percentages of pollution.
it's how they live day to day which either adds or subtracts from the
overall percentages.
for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
-$Zero...
i often talk about myself because i talk about what i know.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e5301cba87fefc76
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
of the three listed, which is the largest per capita user of fossil
fuels in the world?
Mark
> for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
> harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
> peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
>
> -$Zero...
You don't know what you're talking about. The tribal
peoples of Indonesia are 3rd on the pollution list after
America and China. Their cut and burn native culture
has a prominent signature seen from satellite.
---
Mark
$Zero
> On Nov 11, 2:09 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
> > harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
> > peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
i know what i know.
> The tribal
> peoples of Indonesia are 3rd on the pollution list after
> America and China. Their cut and burn native culture
> has a prominent signature seen from satellite.
are all tribal cultures the same?
nope.
even so, "prominent signatures" mean nothing unless the acts
themselves are damaging the eco balance.
are the tribal peoples of Indonesia damaging the eco balance?
what are they cutting and burning, and for what reason?
what is the chemical composition?
does their cutting and burning cause more damage to the environment
than any and all other counter activities they engage in to replenish,
etc.?
blah de blah blah.
and so forth.
-$Zero...
starve the greedy, feed the generous.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/576ba43bafc0d2a4
Piet de Arcilla
Fossil fuels are used to make things. What meaning is there to fossil
fuel usage per capita? Only an imbecile would think one person ought
to use the same amount of fuel as another person, when those people do
different sorts of work and produce different things, or amounts of
those things.
If we prevented anyone from using above average amounts of energy,
then we would have to eliminate steel mills. How could we have a
civilization then?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
yo! Steel mills are already gone.
Mark
You sure do talk a lot for someone who
never actually says anything.
Indonesia is the #3 polluter in the world.
See how that works. That's a verifiable statement.
Give it a try.
---
Mark
$Zero
um, here's what i originally said that you tried to argue against:
for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
> Indonesia is the #3 polluter in the world.
and you're trying to claim that typical tribal living produces all
that pollution?
c'mon, dude.
> See how that works. That's a verifiable statement.
>
> Give it a try.
the questions are there for a reason.
the burden of proof is upon you for claiming that typical tribal
living is the third largest source of harmful pollution on planet
earth.
anywho, thanks so much for your earlier submissions but i'm afraid
that your counter argument is a bit too flimsy for the purposes of any
kind of rational productive discussion. but worry not, we will gladly
review any and all further submissions on this matter for any traces
of substance and/or wit.
-$Zero...
what convinces me is my endless creative genius output.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
Piet de Arcilla
From where? And what does that have to do with smacking down the
implicit premise that it's fair or reasonable for people to use equal
amounts of energy, when civilization depends on a division of labor
where different people do different things for the benefit of all?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Mark
> > You sure do talk a lot for someone who
> > never actually says anything.
>
> um, here's what i originally said that you tried to argue against:
I didn't *try* to argue anything, I simply proved you wrong.
> for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
> harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
> peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
>
> > Indonesia is the #3 polluter in the world.
>
> and you're trying to claim that typical tribal living produces all
> that pollution?
>
> c'mon, dude.
That's exactly what I said. Indonesian tribal living consists of
slashing and
cutting rain forests, and non-stop burning on an industrial scale.
This is also being done in South America. It's shocking.
> > See how that works. That's a verifiable statement.
>
> > Give it a try.
>
> the questions are there for a reason.
Yes, and the reason is so that you can be an asshat and
spin responses in an effort to fluff your ego by adamently
insisting that your version of reality is real.
> the burden of proof is upon you for claiming that typical tribal
> living is the third largest source of harmful pollution on planet
> earth.
Wrong again. I made the point that the 3rd largest polluter in the
world consists of tribal peoples. That's relevant enough to
highlight your ignorance on this topic.
You see, don't try and deflect the focus to the word "Typical".
That's simply irrelevant here. The fact that tribal peoples are
huge polluters is a relevant point which contradicts the spirit
of your original arguement.
> anywho, thanks so much for your earlier submissions but i'm afraid
> that your counter argument is a bit too flimsy for the purposes of any
> kind of rational productive discussion.
See, that's a lie. See how you need to prove yourself smart,
even though the facts tell a different story?
That's called narcissism.
>but worry not, we
We? What we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket,
or are you seeing yourself in the plural now?
>will gladly
> review any and all further submissions on this matter for any traces
> of substance and/or wit.
That's alright. I see what you are now. You're the type of individual
that can't risk ego injury by admitting that they're wrong. You enjoy
consternation as much as you do praise. Any response will do really.
But in the long run you'll follow the motis operandi of filtering
reality
to fit your necessity. Same as talking to a teenager.
You can call yourself a creative genius when you've done what
I've done. My walls are covered with the first run editions of
intricate
valuable artwork. I have the originals safely stored away too. All
these
pieces were commissioned before they were started, and they
represent thousands of dollars in revenue.
They were all done by the same artist.
Me.
Good luck.
---
Mark
---
Mark
> -$Zero...
>
> what convinces me is my endless creative genius output.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
>
> > - Show quoted text -
"You can call yourself a creative genius when you've done what
> I've done. My walls are covered with the first run editions of
> intricate
> valuable artwork. I have the originals safely stored away too. All
> these
> pieces were commissioned before they were started, and they
> represent thousands of dollars in revenue.
>
> They were all done by the same artist."
Awe, that so cute! You've kept all your fingerpainting your parents
got you to do as a child.
$Zero
>
> > > You sure do talk a lot for someone who
> > > never actually says anything.
>
> > um, here's what i originally said that you tried to argue against:
>
> I didn't *try* to argue anything, I simply proved you wrong.
of course you didn't.
FFS.
> > for instance, typical tribal life is very low on the totem pole of
> > harmful pollution production, even though they may be abundant in
> > peoples and engage in trade for food and other minimal whatnots.
>
> > > Indonesia is the #3 polluter in the world.
>
> > and you're trying to claim that typical tribal living produces all
> > that pollution?
>
> > c'mon, dude.
>
> That's exactly what I said. Indonesian tribal living consists of
> slashing and
> cutting rain forests, and non-stop burning on an industrial scale.
> This is also being done in South America. It's shocking.
what's shocking is that you're trying to claim that typical tribal
living is the third largest cause of pollution on planet earth.
> > > See how that works. That's a verifiable statement.
>
> > > Give it a try.
>
> > the questions are there for a reason.
>
> Yes, and the reason is so that you can be an asshat
exposing your utter nonsense makes me an asshat?
i'll bet nobody else agrees w/ that assessment, except maybe for those
who greedily embrace the same sort of stupid desperate deceptive
propaganda that you're desperately trying to churn out here about this
global warming issue.
> and
> spin responses in an effort to fluff your ego by adamently
> insisting that your version of reality is real.
here's my version of reality:
typical tribal living is NOT a
significant source of global pollution.
it's not even a minor source.
but do go ahead and insist otherwise.
it's quite entertaining to watch you avoid the pertinent questions,
chief among them:
what are they cutting and burning, and for what reason?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a091fc1dd848a9a
> > the burden of proof is upon you for claiming that typical tribal
> > living is the third largest source of harmful pollution on planet
> > earth.
>
> Wrong again.
bzzzt.
> I made the point that the 3rd largest polluter in the
> world consists of tribal peoples.
next up you'll claim that tribal peoples can refer to anybody who has
a cousin.
> That's relevant enough to
> highlight your ignorance on this topic.
bwah!
_my_ ignorance.
how quaint.
> You see, don't try and deflect the focus to the word "Typical".
the word typical was used in the sentence you took issue with, genius.
it was placed there on purpose, in a good faith communication effort,
and to prevent deceptive people like you from trying to claim
ridiculous nonsense like:
tribal = cousins
it's a semantics thinger, genius.
> That's simply irrelevant here. The fact that tribal peoples are
> huge polluters is a relevant point which contradicts the spirit
> of your original arguement.
my original argument is that population numbers and the existence of
trade are totally irrelevant percentages to consider.
and that remains true.
i used the concept of typical tribal life to successfully prove my
point.
and here you are trying to twist the outrageous exploitation of tribal
peoples into tribal peoples being a significant source of the
pollution on planet earth.
when it just isn't so.
which is why you refuse to answer the relevant questions:
what are they cutting and burning, and for what reason?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a091fc1dd848a9a
> > anywho, thanks so much for your earlier submissions but i'm afraid
> > that your counter argument is a bit too flimsy for the purposes of
> > any kind of rational productive discussion.
>
> See, that's a lie.
nope.
and until you honestly answer those questions, everything you've
offered is a lie.
a huge lie.
> See how you need to prove yourself smart,
> even though the facts tell a different story?
your twisted facts tell nothing but a twisted story.
> That's called narcissism.
Dude, i'm not the one who named an Art Academy after myself.
"in my name" -- indicative.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
methinks you need to do some serious research on what constitutes
narcissism.
> >but worry not, we
>
> We? What we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket,
> or are you seeing yourself in the plural now?
it's the royal we.
yes.
the royal we.
> > will gladly
> > review any and all further submissions on this matter for any traces
> > of substance and/or wit.
>
> That's alright. I see what you are now.
it's no doubt that you see it much clearer than ever before.
no charge.
> You're the type of individual
> that can't risk ego injury by admitting that they're wrong.
whoa.
(something about an irony meter that just went and exploded).
> You enjoy consternation as much as you do praise.
you're sensing consternation from moi?
surely you jest.
> Any response will do really.
that part is true.
it's one of the many perks of my being a creative genius.
so i don't expect you to grasp it.
> But in the long run you'll follow the motis operandi of
> filtering reality to fit your necessity.
you mean like claiming that typical tribal life is responsible for a
third of the pollution on planet earth?
like that?
> Same as talking to a teenager.
i'm 48.
i don't recall how old you are, but i suspect that you were never a
teenager.
so it's probably a permanent condition of some sort.
my condolences.
> You can call yourself a creative genius when you've done what
> I've done.
um, nope.
i call myself a creative genius right now.
and have done so for many many years.
sorry, pops.
> My walls are covered with the first run editions of
> intricate valuable artwork.
may i please repeat that telling phrase?
thanks.
"intricate valuable artwork"
no, wait.
it's much better in context:
"You can call yourself a creative genius when you've
done what I've done. My walls are covered with the
first run editions of intricate valuable artwork."
that's a beaut.
right into the sig file.
> I have the originals safely stored away too.
for safe-keeping, i bet.
narcissism alert!
> All these pieces were commissioned before they were started,
so how _is_ Uncle Charlie and Aunt Emma?
> and they represent thousands of dollars in revenue.
naturally.
> They were all done by the same artist.
>
> Me.
got jpegs?
or just some real estate shell game sketches?
> Good luck.
merci.
that's French for "Thanks."
> > -$Zero...
>
> > what convinces me is my endless creative genius output.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
-$Zero...
services provided? "hey, you finally get the pea!"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fcede17ea6ed0729
samvaknin
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4945
Climate issues