should coppola be indicted as a movie war criminal?
Man...An Ancient Race
he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
how many animals died as a result of coppola's movie fancy? how many
birds? how many small mammals? how many reptiles? and why? why????
just because this sicko had to make a legendary movie!!
CGI makes me sick but i'm glad CGI technology no longer necessitates
such wholesale massacre of poor adorable critters who were simply
minding their own business.
Cap'n Lance Trousers
Ancient Race) wrote:
From what I've heard, that scene where the bull is killed wasn't
staged for the movie. The locals were doing that sacrificial ceremony
for real and Coppola just filmed it. So that animal would have died
in exactly the same way whether it was filmed or not. It had nothing
to do with "Coppola's movie fancy".
------------------------------------
Can't sleep, clown will eat me...
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Sneelock
with each and every one of those poor adorable creatures.
Hugh Lofting
rande...@aol.com
Besides, I heard they ate the cow after the slaughter. Much
like the pig in Babe.
-Rich
On 20 Aug 2001 19:13:33 -0700, anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An
Ancient Race) wrote:
.
Lou C
<rande...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3b82c889.239747801@news...
greg
of damage that the rest of the littering, polluting,
mcdonald's-eating, car-driving (et al) humans out there! sure, blowing
things up for your film might be pretentious, (and that in itself
might be seen as criminal!)but I don't see why he should be tried as a
criminal for something he did over 20 years ago.
rande...@aol.com wrote in message news:<3b82c889.239747801@news>...
MadHatter
> I seriously doubt Hollywood, and Coppola specifically, do a fraction
> of damage that the rest of the littering, polluting,
> mcdonald's-eating, car-driving (et al) humans out there! sure, blowing
> things up for your film might be pretentious, (and that in itself
> might be seen as criminal!)but I don't see why he should be tried as a
> criminal for something he did over 20 years ago.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Ancient Race) wrote:
> >
> > >he blew up forests with napalm for the movie apocalypse cow, right?
> > >
> > >he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
> > >
> > >
> > >shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
> > >forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
> > >
> > >how many animals died as a result of coppola's movie fancy? how many
> > >birds? how many small mammals? how many reptiles? and why? why????
> > >
> > >just because this sicko had to make a legendary movie!!
> > >
> > >CGI makes me sick but i'm glad CGI technology no longer necessitates
> > >such wholesale massacre of poor adorable critters who were simply
> > >minding their own business.
> >
> >
> >
Seriously...
How many clothes do you buy in a year?
How many books? CD's? Hair care products? Makeup?
How many miles do you drive in your car each week?
How many things do you do in the course of each day of your life,
affact the "little critters" for which you so deeply care?
I don't see the bird, insect, or rabbit population in grave danger of
extinction because Coppola made a movie, the same as they are not in
grave danger because of what you do everyday.
So, seriously...if Coppola should be tried as a criminal...shouldn't
all of us?
Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
serve a functional purpose. Whether that purpose is to be a service
animal like a pig or cow, or whether that purpose is to eat insects,
spread plant pollen, or be nature's forest cleaning crew...it is still
a purpose. You can look at them as nothing but cute and cuddly icons,
but isn't that doing a disservice to the animal...making it less of
something than it is? Denying the reason nature put them there to
begin with...
Leave Coppola alone, and take up a hobby.
- The MadHatter
Paul Hager
> - The MadHatter
I have on order the new book by Bjorn Lomborg entitled THE SKEPTICAL
ENVIRONMENTALIST. Lomborg is ex-Greenpeace, and he apparently explodes
nearly every myth and exaggeration of the enviro-extremists. Lomborg's
journey away from eco-fascism began when he was exposed to the writings
of free-market economist Julian Simon and decided that Simon was so
effective a critic that he had to be "debunked." However, the more
Lomborg researched Simon's claims, the more he found that he, Lomborg,
and the environmental movement were the ones being debunked. The book
is the result of Lomborg's research.
I doubt that doctrinaire environmentalists will see Lomborg as anything
other than a heretic or a quisling, but his work may help to innoculate
the general public against bogus environmental claims.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
--from A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS by Robert Bolt
Man...An Ancient Race
no, the locals sacrificed small animals like goats and such. but
coppola didn't think a goat was epic enough so settled for biggie
cows. the ritual as performed by the filippino savages was messy but
coppola did it pure cecil b. demille style what with the ritual slayer
doing the mystical slo-mo kung fu movements before turning cow into
steaky.
Man...An Ancient Race
> of damage that the rest of the littering, polluting,
> mcdonald's-eating, car-driving (et al) humans out there! sure, blowing
> things up for your film might be pretentious, (and that in itself
> might be seen as criminal!)but I don't see why he should be tried as a
> criminal for something he did over 20 years ago.
>
>
two wrongs don't make a right. i mean just because all of pollute
doesn't mean i should.
Man...An Ancient Race
> How many clothes do you buy in a year?
> How many books? CD's? Hair care products? Makeup?
> How many miles do you drive in your car each week?
>
> How many things do you do in the course of each day of your life,
> affact the "little critters" for which you so deeply care?
>
> I don't see the bird, insect, or rabbit population in grave danger of
> extinction because Coppola made a movie, the same as they are not in
> grave danger because of what you do everyday.
>
> So, seriously...if Coppola should be tried as a criminal...shouldn't
> all of us?
> Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
> Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
> serve a functional purpose. Whether that purpose is to be a service
> animal like a pig or cow, or whether that purpose is to eat insects,
> spread plant pollen, or be nature's forest cleaning crew...it is still
> a purpose. You can look at them as nothing but cute and cuddly icons,
> but isn't that doing a disservice to the animal...making it less of
> something than it is? Denying the reason nature put them there to
> begin with...
>
> Leave Coppola alone, and take up a hobby.
>
killing for food and clothing is one thing. to napalm a forest to make
a movie is rather sick.
i mean let's have more of that in the future.
and i don't own more clothes than i need. and i don't eat higher
animals for they are my brothers. i am one with nature.
Man...An Ancient Race
> adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) writes:
> I have on order the new book by Bjorn Lomborg entitled THE SKEPTICAL
> ENVIRONMENTALIST. Lomborg is ex-Greenpeace, and he apparently explodes
> nearly every myth and exaggeration of the enviro-extremists. Lomborg's
> journey away from eco-fascism began when he was exposed to the writings
> of free-market economist Julian Simon and decided that Simon was so
> effective a critic that he had to be "debunked." However, the more
> Lomborg researched Simon's claims, the more he found that he, Lomborg,
> and the environmental movement were the ones being debunked. The book
> is the result of Lomborg's research.
>
> I doubt that doctrinaire environmentalists will see Lomborg as anything
> other than a heretic or a quisling, but his work may help to innoculate
> the general public against bogus environmental claims.
julian simon was a good guy and had courage and went against the
enviromental whacko orthodoxy.
but 1. this isn't an enviromental issue but a moral issue. should a
forest be napalmed for the sake of a movie?
for sake of war, for development as building a dam or housing, i can
understand razing nature. but for a freaking movie the birds and
critters must die?
i find that selfish and full of judeochristian hotair about nature
being our pot to piss in.
2. though simon was a heroic figure and though many enviromental
freaks are idiots and really anticaptialist agitators in disguise,
there are major enviromental factors we have to take into accout.
many species do face extinction. developing countries are facing
horrendous problems in water supply, clean air, and pollution.
US is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that are
raising global climate.
i believen that only technology can save us. but can it? we don't
know but if it doesn't we are in big big doo doo.
i'll tell ya, the greater amount of CO2 had led to a greener chicago.
trees have more plant food and grower greener and bigger year after
year. but summers are getting unbelievably oppressively hot. this
summer, i had spent one week in my wading pool in the backyard. i was
afraid to climb out into this jungle heat.
we gotta do something about this. though simon was good to debunk
where enviros were wrong, on some issues enviros are right. and i
think simon was crazy to say this world needs MORE people and not
population control. yeah, tell that to india and china.
i'd say the world needs more white folks because white folks are
advanced and civilized and rational and are the best role model for
the benighted nonwhites all over the world but that's unlikely as
white folks have grown decadent and suicidal except for few folks like
pat buchanan.
trike
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> US is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that are
> raising global climate.
No, it isn't.
--
Doug
--
Moviedogs v3.0: your favorite dogs in your favorite films:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Spike, Tiggy & Panda's Pug-A-Rama:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Liam Devlin
Yes, he should. I'm deputizing you to get him & bring him in to justice.
Sheriff B. T. Pusser
Liam Devlin
>
> On 20 Aug 2001 19:13:33 -0700, anthony...@hotmail.com
> (Man...An Ancient Race) wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
>
> >
> >
> >shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
> >forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
>
> eating family, so you're not loose to pass judgement?
Shhh, don't anger him or he'll throw his feces at you.
LiamD
MadHatter
> advanced and civilized and rational and are the best role model for
> the benighted nonwhites all over the world but that's unlikely as
> white folks have grown decadent and suicidal except for few folks like
> pat buchanan.
Boy, you're just aching for a whole group of people to piss off aren't you?
MadHatter
> a movie is rather sick.
>
> i mean let's have more of that in the future.
>
> and i don't own more clothes than i need. and i don't eat higher
> animals for they are my brothers. i am one with nature.
So, when killing an animal suits your purpose, it's ok.
But, when it suits someone else's purpose, it's sick.
I understand. Just another hypocrite...
And just what is a "higher animal" anyway. I don't recall leaving my
house ever, and getting into a philisophical discussion with a cow...
Has that ever happened to anyone else? I'd love to know.
- The MadHatter
MadHatter
> raising global climate.
>
> i believen that only technology can save us. but can it? we don't
> know but if it doesn't we are in big big doo doo.
>
> i'll tell ya, the greater amount of CO2 had led to a greener chicago.
> trees have more plant food and grower greener and bigger year after
> year. but summers are getting unbelievably oppressively hot. this
> summer, i had spent one week in my wading pool in the backyard. i was
> afraid to climb out into this jungle heat.
>
> we gotta do something about this. though simon was good to debunk
> where enviros were wrong, on some issues enviros are right. and i
> think simon was crazy to say this world needs MORE people and not
> population control. yeah, tell that to india and china.
I find it very amusing that with all the awesome forces of nature that
are on display in the world. Floods, Droughts, Tornados, Hurricanes,
Volcanic Erruption, and countless other natural phenomena...that
anyone in the human race is so arrogant as to think that they can
personally do anything that this world, nature, is not going to
recover from. Pure balogna...
- The MadHatter
John M.
Hark
"Man...An Ancient Race" <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:145695ee.0108...@posting.google.com...
Lou C
Has that ever happened to anyone else? I'd love to know
Once, when I was really drunk. Although she didn't have much to say.
"MadHatter" <adfra...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:6329067d.01082...@posting.google.com...
Paul Hager
>hag...@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) wrote in message news:<9lug53$l2b$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) writes:
>> I have on order the new book by Bjorn Lomborg entitled THE SKEPTICAL
>> ENVIRONMENTALIST. Lomborg is ex-Greenpeace, and he apparently explodes
>> nearly every myth and exaggeration of the enviro-extremists. Lomborg's
>> journey away from eco-fascism began when he was exposed to the writings
>> of free-market economist Julian Simon and decided that Simon was so
>> effective a critic that he had to be "debunked." However, the more
>> Lomborg researched Simon's claims, the more he found that he, Lomborg,
>> and the environmental movement were the ones being debunked. The book
>> is the result of Lomborg's research.
>>
>> I doubt that doctrinaire environmentalists will see Lomborg as anything
>> other than a heretic or a quisling, but his work may help to innoculate
>> the general public against bogus environmental claims.
>julian simon was a good guy and had courage and went against the
>enviromental whacko orthodoxy.
>but 1. this isn't an enviromental issue but a moral issue. should a
>forest be napalmed for the sake of a movie?
>for sake of war, for development as building a dam or housing, i can
>understand razing nature. but for a freaking movie the birds and
>critters must die?
I'd say it depends on who owns the forest and whether or not a "burn"
fits it with the forest management plan. In any case, I see the
issue as irrelevant to me or anyone else not involved in the production
of the movie.
The movie GLADIATOR sets fires in a stand of timber also -- very effective
scene, BTW. In the commentary, Ridley Scott says that the British
Government gave permission of the burn. It may well be that a private
owner/corporation would not have given permission for the burn. It
would obviously depend on a number of things.
>i find that selfish and full of judeochristian hotair about nature
>being our pot to piss in.
I can't speak to Judeo-christian anything since I'm an agnostic.
I do know that everything is "nature" and "natural" whether it
is created by stellar evolution, natural selection, or human
activity. A beaver dam is no more "natural" than is the Hoover
Dam. You can general more electricity from the latter than the
former, which is why Hoover dam is useful to us humans.
>2. though simon was a heroic figure and though many enviromental
>freaks are idiots and really anticaptialist agitators in disguise,
>there are major enviromental factors we have to take into accout.
I'm much less concerned about anthropogenic CO2 than I was 25 years
ago -- or even 5 years ago. From what I've read of Lomborg so
far, he and I seem to be in agreement on this.
>many species do face extinction. developing countries are facing
>horrendous problems in water supply, clean air, and pollution.
It's unclear that the process of speciation through extinction and
creation of new species is occurring at a substantially different
rate today than earlier in human history. It's almost certainly
the case that the greatest human impact on flora and fauna in
North America was when the so-called aboriginals arrived over
the Bering land bridge and proceeded to wipe out the mammouth,
which changed the entire ecosystem and led to the extinction of
a host of large and small animals including (probably) the Terror
Bird, a 6 foot tall predatory bird with arms.
>US is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that are
>raising global climate.
See above, with respect to anthropogeic CO2. Besides, it's the
relentlessly anti-nuclear enviro-extremists who killed nuclear in
the U.S. and have crippled its development throughout most of the
developed world -- France being a notable exception. By increasing
red tape and thereby greatly increasing construction time (all
facilitated by hysteria about the technology), the enviro-extremists
have done incalculable harm. I was glad to discover a group called
Environmentalists For Nuclear Power -- which includes biologist
James Lovelock (of Gaia Hypothesis fame). Still, to the extent
that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem, the environmental movement
bears a heavy responsibility for promoting totally unworkable
technologies while nearly killing nuclear.
>i believen that only technology can save us. but can it? we don't
>know but if it doesn't we are in big big doo doo.
Only science and technology can save us. Without it, the human race
AND all life on Earth will be wiped out, absolutely guaranteed.
Since there is growing evidence that complex life is extremely rare
in the universe -- because the universe is a remarkably hostile place --
the extinction of intelligent life on Earth may well be the extinction
of intelligent life in not only our galaxy but perhaps even the local
cluster.
>i'll tell ya, the greater amount of CO2 had led to a greener chicago.
>trees have more plant food and grower greener and bigger year after
>year. but summers are getting unbelievably oppressively hot. this
>summer, i had spent one week in my wading pool in the backyard. i was
>afraid to climb out into this jungle heat.
You aren't keeping up with current events. The year 2000, according
to the surface record, was cooler than previous years. The global
warming hysteria is mostly driven by widespread public ignorance
of long duration climate cycles, some of which have only been
discovered within the past 5-10 years. It appears that the trend
for the next several years will be toward cooling. If there were such
a thing as climate warming index futures, I'd be going short in a big
way.
Of course, the satellite data is showing no warming trend, which poses
all sorts of problems for the extremist anthropogenic CO2 view.
>we gotta do something about this. though simon was good to debunk
>where enviros were wrong, on some issues enviros are right. and i
>think simon was crazy to say this world needs MORE people and not
>population control. yeah, tell that to india and china.
I can't think of a single issue where the enviros are right. The
closest is anthropogenic CO2. But, they were tardy to recognize it
(I've know about it since the early 70s and began to consider it a
real problem in the mid-70s) and when they did, in the late 80s,
exaggerated it beyond all reason. Generally, if the enviros take
a position, you will be safe in taking the opposite position.
I think the reason for this is the underlying anti-science philosophy
naturally leads to egregious errors.
As for world population, the fact is that, so far, every developed
country has gone or is going through the demographic transition.
This is the phenomenon where the birth rate drops so low that even
with increased life span, the population starts to decline. There
are lots of reasons for the demographic transition -- I'm not going
to go into them here. However, there is every reason to expect that
rising affluence in the developing world will have the same effect.
Global population will plateau sometime in the next 50 years and start
declining, unless there is a breakthrough in halting the effects of
human aging. In the absence of that breakthrough, the big problem
in the future will be DECLINING human population. This will be
particularly problematic when it comes to exploiting the solar system.
I would be surprised if the solar system couldn't support a trillion
people at a very high standard of living. That would only be around
7 doublings of the current population.
>i'd say the world needs more white folks because white folks are
>advanced and civilized and rational and are the best role model for
>the benighted nonwhites all over the world but that's unlikely as
>white folks have grown decadent and suicidal except for few folks like
>pat buchanan.
Well, now you're just being provocative. What the human race needs is
rational, pro-science individuals in large numbers. It doesn't matter
what color said individuals are.
Ron Christian
Hey Hugh, aren't you dead?
Ron
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"I think he's injured."
"He said 'not' at the end of a sentence. He deserves to be injured."
Kre...@hisunderworldpalace.deepbeneath
>>On 20 Aug 2001 19:13:33 -0700, anthony...@hotmail.com
>>(Man...An Ancient Race) wrote:
>>
>>>he blew up forests with napalm for the movie apocalypse cow, right?
>>
>>They grew back.
Hardly the point. If someone shaved your head and said "It'll grow
back" I'm sure you wouldn't be quite so aloof.
That is, assuming you don't already have a shaved head or are bald.
>>
>>>
>>>he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
>>
>>
>>He did? Since when?
Heinous? I don't see what's so heinous, it was over really quickly.
Have you ever been to an abbaotir? It's really not that different.
>>>
>>>
>>>shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
>>>forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
>>
>>
>>Shouldn't you be exiled back to the jungle with your berry
>>eating family, so you're not loose to pass judgement?
Just like you did you mean.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>how many animals died as a result of coppola's movie fancy? how many
>>>birds? how many small mammals? how many reptiles?
>>
>>
>>Ummmmmmm...... I give up. How many?
Me too. Anyway, how many of them would be stupid enough to hang around
with all those people running about? Very few.
>>
>>
>>>and why? why????
>>
>>To piss you off.
And to make a hell of a movie!!!
>>>
>>>just because this sicko had to make a legendary movie!!
>>
>>
>>legendary is debateable.
Oh climb out of your castle in the sky. It is legendary even if you
feel that it's too popular to be any good.
>>
>>>
>>>CGI makes me sick but i'm glad CGI technology no longer necessitates
>>>such wholesale massacre of poor adorable critters who were simply
>>>minding their own business.
Like in the Beach, where they found they found that incredible
loaction, but decided to move some trees and shit around first cause
it wasn't perfect enough. That kind of CGI?
>
>>There's nothing more detestable than these hypocritic
>>environmentalist pigs who carry a pepetual chip up their
>>ass, while they vote in favor of the death penalty and vote
>>against measures that would care for our human elderly and
>>sick.
I can't think of any environmentalists who would vote 'yes' to either
of those issues!!
Howard Brazee
> There's nothing more detestable than these hypocritic
> environmentalist pigs who carry a pepetual chip up their
> ass, while they vote in favor of the death penalty and vote
> against measures that would care for our human elderly and
> sick.
I would first assume that the first post was 100% troll.
But the popular stereotype of the environmentalists is of people who vote
against the death penalty and voting to move the elderly into government
care. Didn't Gore go after the environmentalist vote, with Bush going
after the oil users?
Howard Brazee
From what I've heard, that scene where the bull is killed wasn't
staged for the movie. The locals were doing that sacrificial ceremony
for real and Coppola just filmed it. So that animal would have died
in exactly the same way whether it was filmed or not. It had nothing
to do with "Coppola's movie fancy".
TNT
>
> Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
> Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
> serve a functional purpose.
purpose for some kind of goal or design. You should know it. People
analyze nature's mechanism through science, but the 'purpose' of
nature, the purpose of reality is out of mankind's grasp. Speculating
how animals are here to serve a purpose doesn't lead you anywhere,
so please get over it.
> Whether that purpose is to be a service animal like a pig or cow
purpose is to be a service animal for humans? Now that's
dumb. I thought this kind of anthropocentrism had been dead
since the Medieval times.
<cut>
person on Earth knows the reason of the existence of animals, men,
life and nature.
If men, like you say, are at the top of the evolutionary ladder,
they should be able to understand how horrible is to inflict
pain and death, both on people and animals.
Man...An Ancient Race
> anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An Ancient Race) writes:
> I'd say it depends on who owns the forest and whether or not a "burn"
> fits it with the forest management plan. In any case, I see the
> issue as irrelevant to me or anyone else not involved in the production
> of the movie.
animals and trees own the forest.
it's their home. their only home.
>
> The movie GLADIATOR sets fires in a stand of timber also -- very effective
> scene, BTW. In the commentary, Ridley Scott says that the British
> Government gave permission of the burn. It may well be that a private
> owner/corporation would not have given permission for the burn. It
> would obviously depend on a number of things.
burning a few trees is different than napalming dense jungle forest.
jungles have tons of life. in temperate zones, burning a few trees
might kill some bugs and squirrels. but napalming forests will kill
tons of animals.
and i disagree that what looks good justifies whatever action
filmmakers take. i mean if i dropped an atomic bomb for a movie
that'd look cool. but many marine animals would suffer and they
didn't ask to be blasted or made sick via radiation.
>
> >i find that selfish and full of judeochristian hotair about nature
> >being our pot to piss in.
>
> I can't speak to Judeo-christian anything since I'm an agnostic.
> I do know that everything is "nature" and "natural" whether it
> is created by stellar evolution, natural selection, or human
> activity. A beaver dam is no more "natural" than is the Hoover
> Dam. You can general more electricity from the latter than the
> former, which is why Hoover dam is useful to us humans.
a beaver dam is no more natural than the hoover dam? well, i'll be
damned!!
>
> >2. though simon was a heroic figure and though many enviromental
> >freaks are idiots and really anticaptialist agitators in disguise,
> >there are major enviromental factors we have to take into accout.
>
> I'm much less concerned about anthropogenic CO2 than I was 25 years
> ago -- or even 5 years ago. From what I've read of Lomborg so
> far, he and I seem to be in agreement on this.
it's getting hotter and hotter. global climate has gone up
dramatically in the past decades. if an ice age is coming, then it's
for the good. but what we are likely facing is global warming and i
hate hot humid weather. i hate it!!
>
> >many species do face extinction. developing countries are facing
> >horrendous problems in water supply, clean air, and pollution.
>
> It's unclear that the process of speciation through extinction and
> creation of new species is occurring at a substantially different
> rate today than earlier in human history. It's almost certainly
> the case that the greatest human impact on flora and fauna in
> North America was when the so-called aboriginals arrived over
> the Bering land bridge and proceeded to wipe out the mammouth,
> which changed the entire ecosystem and led to the extinction of
> a host of large and small animals including (probably) the Terror
> Bird, a 6 foot tall predatory bird with arms.
can you say stuff like this with a straight face? i mean whatever
happened to the tiger in russia and china? well, commies killed all
tigers in china and though the siberian tiger was protected by soviet
commies, since liberalization poaching has wiped out tiger populations
in siberia.
americans have the consciousness and money to protect species in
america but africa is facing near extinctions for the great beasties.
i mean look at the black rhino. it's nearly gone because asian people
want the horn as medicine. and increase in population in africa and
asia mean lesser and lesser habitat for animals since most people of
these regions are agricultural people who want to turn more land for
purpose of cattle and farming.
there were bears in illinois once. there are no bears. i love bears.
bears are holy and sacred. they are my brothers. where did they go?
>
> >US is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that are
> >raising global climate.
>
> See above, with respect to anthropogeic CO2. Besides, it's the
> relentlessly anti-nuclear enviro-extremists who killed nuclear in
> the U.S. and have crippled its development throughout most of the
> developed world -- France being a notable exception.
there is no clearcut solution. i mean what do we do with nuclear
waste? only nanotechnology can save us. but it may never be.
By increasing
> red tape and thereby greatly increasing construction time (all
> facilitated by hysteria about the technology), the enviro-extremists
> have done incalculable harm. I was glad to discover a group called
> Environmentalists For Nuclear Power -- which includes biologist
> James Lovelock (of Gaia Hypothesis fame). Still, to the extent
> that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem, the environmental movement
> bears a heavy responsibility for promoting totally unworkable
> technologies while nearly killing nuclear.
yes, the enviromental whackos suck big time. i hate their guts. they
are really anticapitalists. like feminists. they are flaky commies.
>
> >i believen that only technology can save us. but can it? we don't
> >know but if it doesn't we are in big big doo doo.
>
> Only science and technology can save us. Without it, the human race
> AND all life on Earth will be wiped out, absolutely guaranteed.
> Since there is growing evidence that complex life is extremely rare
> in the universe -- because the universe is a remarkably hostile place --
> the extinction of intelligent life on Earth may well be the extinction
> of intelligent life in not only our galaxy but perhaps even the local
> cluster.
this is what we must do. people like einstein come along only once in
a long while. what we must do is take a supergenius and clone him
1000X and then we'll have an army of superscientists who can create
the new technology.
>
> >i'll tell ya, the greater amount of CO2 had led to a greener chicago.
> >trees have more plant food and grower greener and bigger year after
> >year. but summers are getting unbelievably oppressively hot. this
> >summer, i had spent one week in my wading pool in the backyard. i was
> >afraid to climb out into this jungle heat.
>
> You aren't keeping up with current events. The year 2000, according
> to the surface record, was cooler than previous years. The global
> warming hysteria is mostly driven by widespread public ignorance
> of long duration climate cycles, some of which have only been
> discovered within the past 5-10 years. It appears that the trend
> for the next several years will be toward cooling. If there were such
> a thing as climate warming index futures, I'd be going short in a big
> way.
it was so hot this year, i nearly died.
i wanted to evolve into a seal and live in the water.
>
> Of course, the satellite data is showing no warming trend, which poses
> all sorts of problems for the extremist anthropogenic CO2 view.
if you look at global trends of the past 50 years, global warming is a
fact. whether it's truly catastrophic or something we can adapt to is
another matter. but it be a fact.
>
> >we gotta do something about this. though simon was good to debunk
> >where enviros were wrong, on some issues enviros are right. and i
> >think simon was crazy to say this world needs MORE people and not
> >population control. yeah, tell that to india and china.
>
> I can't think of a single issue where the enviros are right. The
> closest is anthropogenic CO2. But, they were tardy to recognize it
> (I've know about it since the early 70s and began to consider it a
> real problem in the mid-70s) and when they did, in the late 80s,
> exaggerated it beyond all reason. Generally, if the enviros take
> a position, you will be safe in taking the opposite position.
> I think the reason for this is the underlying anti-science philosophy
> naturally leads to egregious errors.
still, i think people like rush limbaugh who don't wanna save the
hooded owl is a stinker in my book.
>
> As for world population, the fact is that, so far, every developed
> country has gone or is going through the demographic transition.
> This is the phenomenon where the birth rate drops so low that even
> with increased life span, the population starts to decline. There
> are lots of reasons for the demographic transition -- I'm not going
> to go into them here. However, there is every reason to expect that
> rising affluence in the developing world will have the same effect.
nah, i think china and india will implode. they can't control the
population growth. them folks are horny, ignorant, and wanna have
kibblers.
> Global population will plateau sometime in the next 50 years and start
> declining, unless there is a breakthrough in halting the effects of
> human aging.
yeah, i heard this too but this is baloney. look at population growth
among hispanics and blacks in america. i mean it's a cultural thing.
black males wanna impregnate as many ho's as they can. and i don't
see this changing. and since there is such lack of respect for
education in black and much of hispanic community, the girls there
don't go to college and find professions. instead, they watch tv and
get pregnant over and over. hopefully, there will be more welfare
reform and we'll stop this crappy trend.
>In the absence of that breakthrough, the big problem
> in the future will be DECLINING human population. This will be
> particularly problematic when it comes to exploiting the solar system.
> I would be surprised if the solar system couldn't support a trillion
> people at a very high standard of living. That would only be around
> 7 doublings of the current population.
wrong. the only population is declining population among whites and
japanese, the two most capable, progressive, efficient people around.
as whites and japanese don't have babies, they'll increasingly have to
rely on nonwhites and nonjapanese who will immigrate to western
countries since their native nations will always be brimming with poor
folks yet having more kibblers.
whites and japanese must breed like rabbits if they are to survive. if
their civilization is to survive.
>
> >i'd say the world needs more white folks because white folks are
> >advanced and civilized and rational and are the best role model for
> >the benighted nonwhites all over the world but that's unlikely as
> >white folks have grown decadent and suicidal except for few folks like
> >pat buchanan.
>
> Well, now you're just being provocative. What the human race needs is
> rational, pro-science individuals in large numbers. It doesn't matter
> what color said individuals are.
you're totally true. but all said and done, them folks are whites and
japanese and some chinese and some hindus. rest... they're almost
hopeless. africa is political and economic cesspool. middle east
will never break out of stupid islam and reactionary culture. much of
asia will be lame, slavish, and antidemocratic.
and with PC, nonwhites who come to white nations and SHOULD be
appreciating white civilization are being taught--mostly by white
leftists--that america and western europe is garbage, that all of
european culture is no more advanced or worthy than some primitive
subliterate culture where they wear bones on their noses.
Man...An Ancient Race
nature as in geology don't care. it's amoral. it's just mountains and
bodies of waters and rain, etc.
but animals suffer when we drastically change the climate. jungle
animals are rubbed off when corporations go in and cut down the trees
in the amazon.
nature is an abstract concept. it can never be rubbed off.
but animals and fish and etc are real and they can be rubbed off.
Man...An Ancient Race
> > killing for food and clothing is one thing. to napalm a forest to make
> > a movie is rather sick.
> >
> > i mean let's have more of that in the future.
> >
> > and i don't own more clothes than i need. and i don't eat higher
> > animals for they are my brothers. i am one with nature.
>
>
> So, when killing an animal suits your purpose, it's ok.
> But, when it suits someone else's purpose, it's sick.
>
> I understand. Just another hypocrite...
no, when killing an animal is for a primary purpose, then it's
justified. when it only serves vanity--film director's reputation--or
entertainment--hunting for sport--then it's no good.
killing an animal for food or clothing is not MY purpose. it's our
purpose. it is the purpose of survival and life. but killing tons of
animals just to make a movie serves not people; serves not my nor your
tribe. it only serves coppola's idear of hisself as a visionary. i
mean how would he like it if i napalmed his house?
>
> And just what is a "higher animal" anyway. I don't recall leaving my
> house ever, and getting into a philisophical discussion with a cow...
> Has that ever happened to anyone else? I'd love to know.
>
> - The MadHatter
you think too highly of human language. there are different ways to
communicate with animals. if you sit in the forest long enough, you
can communicate with birds and spuirrels and deers.
human language is a great and powerful tool for communication and
understanding and such. but it's also poison. it makes smartalecky
arrogant fools too cocksure of their smartass superiority.
i dare say a cow's moo makes more sense than the gutter trash spewed
by ICe-T. i still say let's not barbeque ICE-T.
TNT
>
> And just what is a "higher animal" anyway. I don't recall leaving my
> house ever, and getting into a philisophical discussion with a cow...
Don't use the cow as a scapegoat. It quite probably wasn't only her
fault.
TNT
>
> I find it very amusing that with all the awesome forces of nature that
> are on display in the world. Floods, Droughts, Tornados, Hurricanes,
> Volcanic Erruption, and countless other natural phenomena...that
> anyone in the human race is so arrogant as to think that they can
> personally do anything that this world, nature, is not going to
> recover from. Pure balogna...
Tomorrow time I'm gonna go out, burn some houses, shoot somebody
and say "hey you can't condemn me, I remember that somebody died
struck by lightning".
Jesus. You are pathetic.
MadHatter
If you find the need to call me pathetic because I feel that nature is
resilliant, than fine. Go ahead and call me pathetic.
But, don't for one moment insinuate that I have somehow OK'd going out
and killing a fellow human being. That is completely missing the
point, and cheapening anything I have said.
If you can't be at least a little respectful of someone else's
viewpoint, and offer something intelligent to say, you shouldn't
post...plain and simple.
MadHatter
> adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) wrote:
> >
> > Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
> > Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
> > serve a functional purpose.
>
> Animals struggle to live, and to keep their species going. Not to serve a
> purpose for some kind of goal or design. You should know it. People
> analyze nature's mechanism through science, but the 'purpose' of
> nature, the purpose of reality is out of mankind's grasp. Speculating
> how animals are here to serve a purpose doesn't lead you anywhere,
> so please get over it.
Every animal on this planet serves a purpose. Not neccesarilly to
humans, but to each other. One example that comes to mind... Bats
need to eat to live. They feed on insects. This in turn keeps in
control the insect population. Purpose. Every animal serves a
purpose in the cycle of nature. In fact, it could be argued that
humans are the only animal that does not. Every species on the planet
takes and contributes to a cycle of nature and or life. Good Lord,
even elementary Biology class will teach you that. Humans,
technically are only consumers. We don't give a whole lot back to
nature, save a little dust after we die. So, I don't need to
speculate on the purpose of animals. It's documented. Go talk to a
biologist if you don't believe me.
>
> > Whether that purpose is to be a service animal like a pig or cow
>
> So you're saying that cows and pigs are on Earth because their
> purpose is to be a service animal for humans? Now that's
> dumb. I thought this kind of anthropocentrism had been dead
> since the Medieval times.
>
No, that's not necessarily why they are on earth, but that's what we
human's use them for since they are here. It was just one example. I
didn't have time to type an essay.
I suppose I'm just medieval then...
> <cut>
> > Denying the reason nature put them there to begin with...
>
> Nobody, not me, not you, not the most intelligent or most educated
> person on Earth knows the reason of the existence of animals, men,
> life and nature.
> If men, like you say, are at the top of the evolutionary ladder,
> they should be able to understand how horrible is to inflict
> pain and death, both on people and animals.
Granted. No one KNOWS the reason life exists. But, I have obliously
based my knowledge of why life exists around a set of beliefs.
Whether evolutionary, or creationary, or any other -ary...unless you
believe that the world just magically appeared in the state that it is
in, you must have a certain idea of why you think everything is here,
and what purpose it is here for.
How else can someone discuss something that isn't scientifical fact,
if not by basing it on a set of beliefs. I'm presenting my argument
based on my beliefs.
If all you can do is sit there and tell me I'm stupid because science
hasn't proved this, then don't waste your time talking to me, or
anyone else for that matter, because you can never be involved in an
intelligent argument...
-End Game...
Drayfitt
This may sound hypocrytical but here it is, nature will adapt, it has and
will as long as earth exists.
If all the mosquitos were wiped out today then creatures that feed on them
will adapt to find another insect to consume. If Humans were wiped out today
(I can only hope) then nothing bad will happen, the planets creatures,
plants and everything else will adapt and continue living on. There would be
no overgrowth expect where it was to benefit creatures.
In my opinion, humans are a msitake, a genetic defect not meant to happen.
Monkeys came down from the trees and evolved into humans on accident. We
were not supposed to happen. "Why?" you say.. Humans take, as was explained
in another post, they don't give anything back except some carbon dioxide
for plants to use. Only humans have wars,only humans have weapons of mass
distruction, only humans pollute the enviorment on large scale, or even
delibratly, only humans kill others not for terrortorial reasons or food but
for sport and for hatred. Only humans beat there mates. Only humans keep
there disabled children.. Now this may be a good thing you say. I don't, I
feel any human on this planet is too many. I have nothing against disabled
people, I have an uncle who's a parapolegic (sp) I simply dislike people.
Drayfitt
Enough of this off topic post for me. I feel better now.
TNT
>
> If you find the need to call me pathetic because I feel that nature is
> resilliant, than fine. Go ahead and call me pathetic.
>
> But, don't for one moment insinuate that I have somehow OK'd going out
> and killing a fellow human being. That is completely missing the
> point, and cheapening anything I have said.
>
> If you can't be at least a little respectful of someone else's
> viewpoint, and offer something intelligent to say, you shouldn't
> post...plain and simple.
that for their own nature are amoral. A volcanic eruption is
merciless because it doesn't have a brain. A virus that kills
millions is merciless because it doesn't think about pain
and mercy. I find it extremely arrogant that you consider
yourself an evolved being and yet you feel that when it comes
to respect living beings it's ok to put yourself on the same
level as a natural disaster.
And as for extintion, perhaps you should take a look at some
books written by people much more educated than you on
the subject and read the truth about how many species of
animals don't exist anymore because because they were
killed by humans. You don't care? You're free not to.
You are perfectly right to say that nature would probably
recover from disaster, but how does that equal "let's not
care and destroy anyway"?
And yes, considering what you said to this moment and the
way you said it, I don't have a bit of respect for your ideas.
I am sorry but I have to inform you that the Internet is a
free place so feel free to deal with it.
Helen & Bob
TNT wrote:
> adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) wrote:
> >
> > If you find the need to call me pathetic because I feel that nature is
> > resilliant, than fine. Go ahead and call me pathetic.
> >
> > But, don't for one moment insinuate that I have somehow OK'd going out
> > and killing a fellow human being. That is completely missing the
> > point, and cheapening anything I have said.
> >
> > If you can't be at least a little respectful of someone else's
> > viewpoint, and offer something intelligent to say, you shouldn't
> > post...plain and simple.
>
> You are putting mankind on the same level as natural phenomena
> that for their own nature are amoral. A volcanic eruption is
> merciless because it doesn't have a brain. A virus that kills
> millions is merciless because it doesn't think about pain
> and mercy. I find it extremely arrogant that you consider
> yourself an evolved being and yet you feel that when it comes
> to respect living beings it's ok to put yourself on the same
> level as a natural disaster.
> And as for extintion, perhaps you should take a look at some
> books written by people much more educated than you on
> the subject and read the truth about how many species of
> animals don't exist anymore because because they were
> killed by humans.
name 10
How many thousands of species became extinct before the advent of mankind?
The claim that MAN is the only evil is fallacious. There are as many
concerned people as unconcerned.
Bob
Helen & Bob
MadHatter wrote:
> uf398y...@sneakemail.com (TNT) wrote in message news:<f4b904bc.01082...@posting.google.com>...
> > adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
> > > Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
> > > serve a functional purpose.
> >
> > Animals struggle to live, and to keep their species going. Not to serve a
> > purpose for some kind of goal or design. You should know it. People
> > analyze nature's mechanism through science, but the 'purpose' of
> > nature, the purpose of reality is out of mankind's grasp. Speculating
> > how animals are here to serve a purpose doesn't lead you anywhere,
> > so please get over it.
>
> Every animal on this planet serves a purpose. Not neccesarilly to
> humans, but to each other. One example that comes to mind... Bats
> need to eat to live. They feed on insects. This in turn keeps in
> control the insect population. Purpose. Every animal serves a
> purpose in the cycle of nature. In fact, it could be argued that
> humans are the only animal that does not.
Human beings are predated upon (in nature) by the Polar Bear, and the Muggah Crocodile.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Drayfitt wrote:
> MadHatter <adfra...@juno.com> wrote in message
> snip a bunch
> This may sound hypocrytical but here it is, nature will adapt, it has and
> will as long as earth exists.
> If all the mosquitos were wiped out today then creatures that feed on them
> will adapt to find another insect to consume. If Humans were wiped out today
> (I can only hope) then nothing bad will happen, the planets creatures,
> plants and everything else will adapt and continue living on. There would be
> no overgrowth expect where it was to benefit creatures.
>
> In my opinion, humans are a msitake, a genetic defect not meant to happen.
> Monkeys came down from the trees and evolved into humans on accident.
Please name for me all the animals on the planet that evolved into what they are
on purpose, by plan.
Genetic defects do NOT survive in nature. Only favorable mutations survive.
Obviously, the Brain that man evolved is a favorable mutation.
If you are so damned ashamed of being Human, then why don't you take the action
of making more room for animals? Of course, to do this, you should NOT harm any
other person on the planet.
> We
> were not supposed to happen.
Please cite you source for this incredible finding.
Now, tell me what animal WAS meant to happen?
> "Why?" you say.. Humans take, as was explained
> in another post, they don't give anything back except some carbon dioxide
> for plants to use.
and TONS of fertilizer.
> Only humans have wars,
wrong. Witness the ant.
> only humans have weapons of mass
> distruction,
only humans have the brain to do that.
> only humans pollute the enviorment on large scale,
wrong again. The most destructive agent to the Ozone layer is bovine farts.
> or even
> delibratly, only humans kill others not for terrortorial reasons
Again, you have no clue. Many animals kill each other over territorial rights.
Animals ARE territorial. That you do not know that shows that you are not
coning to your conclusions from a basis of FACT, but rather from your own
prejudices.
> or food but
> for sport and for hatred. Only humans beat there mates
Wrong again. Good God, man, get some knowledge. You are making a fool of
yourself here.
> . Only humans keep
> there disabled children.. Now this may be a good thing you say. I don't, I
> feel any human on this planet is too many. I have nothing against disabled
> people, I have an uncle who's a parapolegic (sp) I simply dislike people.
>
> Drayfitt
And based on the above, I am sure there ore many who, perhaps, don't dislike
you, but understand that you are not quite bright.
How many times have I been in discussions with fools like you, to no avail.
There is but one solution to this.
PLONK
Bob
Paul Hager
>adfra...@juno.com (MadHatter) wrote:
>>
>> Let's leave the happy hunting grounds, and come back to reality.
>> Humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, and animals are here to
>> serve a functional purpose.
>
>Animals struggle to live, and to keep their species going. Not to serve a
>purpose for some kind of goal or design. You should know it. People
>analyze nature's mechanism through science, but the 'purpose' of
>nature, the purpose of reality is out of mankind's grasp. Speculating
>how animals are here to serve a purpose doesn't lead you anywhere,
>so please get over it.
You are correct. There is no "purpose" in nature. What all living
organisms do is to alter their local environment so as to make it
more suitable for them. If you want to use Lovelock's Gaia metaphor,
all living organisms on Earth actually cooperate to produce an
environment in which all can mutually benefit, even as they kill and
eat each other. The entire system is, itself, an organism: Gaia.
One problem is that as long as the mechanism by which Gaia maintains
itself is just dumb (but very elegant) self-regulation, sooner or later
some cosmic calamity -- a planetoid perturbed from the Oort Cloud by
a passing star crashing into the Earth or a nearby star going supernova --
will kill all life on Earth. In other words, Gaia will die. So,
purposeless natural selection has allowed Gaia to grow a brain for
itself. We're the brain. We can save life by speading outward or
by swatting some killer comet aside. Science and technology -- the
products of Gaia's brain -- will make this possible.
The problem with environmentalists is that they are actually a secular
recrudescence of medieval asceticism and obscurantism. They have no
real interest in preserving life. What they really want to do is
to create an idealized image of a nature that doesn't include human beings.
>
>> Whether that purpose is to be a service animal like a pig or cow
>
>So you're saying that cows and pigs are on Earth because their
>purpose is to be a service animal for humans? Now that's
>dumb. I thought this kind of anthropocentrism had been dead
>since the Medieval times.
Cows and pigs are creations of human beings. Our prehistoric ancestors
invented something called agriculture and developed selective breeding
to produce "domesticated" animals and plants (wheat, corn, etc.).
To reiterate, the only medieval thinking comes from environmentalists,
who really have no concern whatever for life on Earth.
>
><cut>
>> Denying the reason nature put them there to begin with...
>
>Nobody, not me, not you, not the most intelligent or most educated
>person on Earth knows the reason of the existence of animals, men,
>life and nature.
That's true. See above. However, since most of us humans would like
to survive -- that's inborn -- then using our intellect to save ourselves
and such other organisms as we may need to maintain a salubrious
ecosphere is our "purpose". One doesn't need to read philosophy or
theology to figure this out. It just is.
>If men, like you say, are at the top of the evolutionary ladder,
>they should be able to understand how horrible is to inflict
>pain and death, both on people and animals.
Kill the brain and the body dies. We're the important animals, for
better or worse. And ethics applies to us. There is no rational
reason to extend ethics beyond us.
Krebber
>>The whole thing is really a non issue. I think fanatical
>>environmentalists should be executed - slaughtered with the
>>minks and the cows and incinerated with the forests.
>>
>> The Speedbyrd®
>>
>> "How's my posting?....
>> dial 1-800-eat-shit"
You really try way too hard to be abrasive. Why offer an opinion like
that, then give no good reason for why you believe it? It's all very
well you flexing your muscles, but lets see what their built on.
WHY do you think the above, hmmm? I've read a bunch of your posts over
the years and you never seem to give a reason for your vitriol.
It means that either you don't think we're worthy of your time, which
I know not to be true since you spend a lot of time on this ng and
other ones like it. so do I.
OR, that there isn't really a decent reason WHY you feel the way you
do, and that you're just saying that sort of thing to get a rise out
of someone, or to appear like a real tough character.
Frankly, I think you are all mouth and no action. Let's hear an
explanation of WHY you think that....
Paul Hager
>hag...@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) wrote in message news:<9m0tbs$u25$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An Ancient Race) writes:
>> I'd say it depends on who owns the forest and whether or not a "burn"
>> fits it with the forest management plan. In any case, I see the
>> issue as irrelevant to me or anyone else not involved in the production
>> of the movie.
>animals and trees own the forest.
>it's their home. their only home.
Animals don't "own" anything. Animals, however, are territorial.
>>
>> The movie GLADIATOR sets fires in a stand of timber also -- very effective
>> scene, BTW. In the commentary, Ridley Scott says that the British
>> Government gave permission of the burn. It may well be that a private
>> owner/corporation would not have given permission for the burn. It
>> would obviously depend on a number of things.
>burning a few trees is different than napalming dense jungle forest.
>jungles have tons of life. in temperate zones, burning a few trees
>might kill some bugs and squirrels. but napalming forests will kill
>tons of animals.
>and i disagree that what looks good justifies whatever action
>filmmakers take. i mean if i dropped an atomic bomb for a movie
>that'd look cool. but many marine animals would suffer and they
>didn't ask to be blasted or made sick via radiation.
They are incapable of asking anything. This is just anthropomorphising.
>>
>> >i find that selfish and full of judeochristian hotair about nature
>> >being our pot to piss in.
>>
>> I can't speak to Judeo-christian anything since I'm an agnostic.
>> I do know that everything is "nature" and "natural" whether it
>> is created by stellar evolution, natural selection, or human
>> activity. A beaver dam is no more "natural" than is the Hoover
>> Dam. You can general more electricity from the latter than the
>> former, which is why Hoover dam is useful to us humans.
>a beaver dam is no more natural than the hoover dam? well, i'll be
>damned!!
Yep. If it ain't natural, it's supernatural. I assure you, the
Hoover dam was not created by gods or spirits.
>>
>> >2. though simon was a heroic figure and though many enviromental
>> >freaks are idiots and really anticaptialist agitators in disguise,
>> >there are major enviromental factors we have to take into accout.
>>
>> I'm much less concerned about anthropogenic CO2 than I was 25 years
>> ago -- or even 5 years ago. From what I've read of Lomborg so
>> far, he and I seem to be in agreement on this.
>it's getting hotter and hotter. global climate has gone up
>dramatically in the past decades. if an ice age is coming, then it's
>for the good. but what we are likely facing is global warming and i
>hate hot humid weather. i hate it!!
No it isn't getting hotter and hotter. I already explained this,
and Lomborg -- a former Greenpeace member -- and I agree on this.
The satellite data shows no warming.
>>
>> >many species do face extinction. developing countries are facing
>> >horrendous problems in water supply, clean air, and pollution.
>>
>> It's unclear that the process of speciation through extinction and
>> creation of new species is occurring at a substantially different
>> rate today than earlier in human history. It's almost certainly
>> the case that the greatest human impact on flora and fauna in
>> North America was when the so-called aboriginals arrived over
>> the Bering land bridge and proceeded to wipe out the mammouth,
>> which changed the entire ecosystem and led to the extinction of
>> a host of large and small animals including (probably) the Terror
>> Bird, a 6 foot tall predatory bird with arms.
>can you say stuff like this with a straight face? i mean whatever
>happened to the tiger in russia and china? well, commies killed all
>tigers in china and though the siberian tiger was protected by soviet
>commies, since liberalization poaching has wiped out tiger populations
>in siberia.
It's called science. I have no preconceived notion about how things
should be and I subscribe to no dogma. There is very good evidence
for what I wrote.
To the extent that preserving existing species is desirable -- and I
go along with this -- we should agree on an approach that actually
works. Environmentalists are so consistently and disastrously wrong
that they undercut and frustrate their own stated goals. Environmentalists
essentially say, "our intentions are good, therefore anything we propose
must be good."
>americans have the consciousness and money to protect species in
>america but africa is facing near extinctions for the great beasties.
>i mean look at the black rhino. it's nearly gone because asian people
>want the horn as medicine. and increase in population in africa and
>asia mean lesser and lesser habitat for animals since most people of
>these regions are agricultural people who want to turn more land for
>purpose of cattle and farming.
>there were bears in illinois once. there are no bears. i love bears.
>bears are holy and sacred. they are my brothers. where did they go?
If a bear comes into my yard, I will probably kill it. I don't
necessarily have anything against bears, but they really can't
coexist with humans.
I'm an agnostic, so I hold nothing "sacred". Again, much of what
passes for "environmentalism" is really just religion.
>>
>> >US is largely responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions that are
>> >raising global climate.
>>
>> See above, with respect to anthropogeic CO2. Besides, it's the
>> relentlessly anti-nuclear enviro-extremists who killed nuclear in
>> the U.S. and have crippled its development throughout most of the
>> developed world -- France being a notable exception.
>there is no clearcut solution. i mean what do we do with nuclear
>waste? only nanotechnology can save us. but it may never be.
For nuclear waste, read about the Oklo Natural reactors. Waste has
never posed a problem.
> By increasing
>> red tape and thereby greatly increasing construction time (all
>> facilitated by hysteria about the technology), the enviro-extremists
>> have done incalculable harm. I was glad to discover a group called
>> Environmentalists For Nuclear Power -- which includes biologist
>> James Lovelock (of Gaia Hypothesis fame). Still, to the extent
>> that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem, the environmental movement
>> bears a heavy responsibility for promoting totally unworkable
>> technologies while nearly killing nuclear.
>yes, the enviromental whackos suck big time. i hate their guts. they
>are really anticapitalists. like feminists. they are flaky commies.
Some feminists are of the MacKinnon-Dworkin variety. They are the flakes.
The idea of equal rights for women is not, however, flakey.
>>
>> >i believen that only technology can save us. but can it? we don't
>> >know but if it doesn't we are in big big doo doo.
>>
>> Only science and technology can save us. Without it, the human race
>> AND all life on Earth will be wiped out, absolutely guaranteed.
>> Since there is growing evidence that complex life is extremely rare
>> in the universe -- because the universe is a remarkably hostile place --
>> the extinction of intelligent life on Earth may well be the extinction
>> of intelligent life in not only our galaxy but perhaps even the local
>> cluster.
>this is what we must do. people like einstein come along only once in
>a long while. what we must do is take a supergenius and clone him
>1000X and then we'll have an army of superscientists who can create
>the new technology.
Clone 1000 Einsteins and run them through the public education system
and you'd probably get 1000 fairly average people.
I have a better idea. Since children are natural geniuses, don't
indoctrinate and dumb them down through the regimentation of
public education.
>>
>> >i'll tell ya, the greater amount of CO2 had led to a greener chicago.
>> >trees have more plant food and grower greener and bigger year after
>> >year. but summers are getting unbelievably oppressively hot. this
>> >summer, i had spent one week in my wading pool in the backyard. i was
>> >afraid to climb out into this jungle heat.
>>
>> You aren't keeping up with current events. The year 2000, according
>> to the surface record, was cooler than previous years. The global
>> warming hysteria is mostly driven by widespread public ignorance
>> of long duration climate cycles, some of which have only been
>> discovered within the past 5-10 years. It appears that the trend
>> for the next several years will be toward cooling. If there were such
>> a thing as climate warming index futures, I'd be going short in a big
>> way.
>it was so hot this year, i nearly died.
>i wanted to evolve into a seal and live in the water.
Whether the average temp in the area where you live was up or not I can't
say. But there really isn't any dispute at all that the average global
temp was down last year.
>>
>> Of course, the satellite data is showing no warming trend, which poses
>> all sorts of problems for the extremist anthropogenic CO2 view.
>if you look at global trends of the past 50 years, global warming is a
>fact. whether it's truly catastrophic or something we can adapt to is
>another matter. but it be a fact.
This is not true at all. There is no evidence that human activity has
had any effect. Back in the 1970s when the anthropogenic CO2-warming
hypothesis was coming into vogue, the assumption was that warming would
not appear about the "noise level" of the climate until sometime after
the 1st quarter of the 21st century. The development of remote
satellite sensing gave us a very sensitive tool for measuring temperatures.
However, instead of demonstrating the validity of the hypothesis by
allowing us to see human effects earlier than we would have otherwise,
the satellites show no human effects at all.
Ever heard of the Medieval Climate Optimum? Ever read about the Viking
settlements on Greenland? It was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is
today. Why? There is no definitive answer, though there is evidence
that the Sun has longer-period cycles of energy output that the 11 year
sunspot cycle. Ultimately, the temperature of the Earth is dependant on
solar output. CO2 may well turn out to be merely a correlate of other
causative factors.
>>
>> >we gotta do something about this. though simon was good to debunk
>> >where enviros were wrong, on some issues enviros are right. and i
>> >think simon was crazy to say this world needs MORE people and not
>> >population control. yeah, tell that to india and china.
>>
>> I can't think of a single issue where the enviros are right. The
>> closest is anthropogenic CO2. But, they were tardy to recognize it
>> (I've know about it since the early 70s and began to consider it a
>> real problem in the mid-70s) and when they did, in the late 80s,
>> exaggerated it beyond all reason. Generally, if the enviros take
>> a position, you will be safe in taking the opposite position.
>> I think the reason for this is the underlying anti-science philosophy
>> naturally leads to egregious errors.
>still, i think people like rush limbaugh who don't wanna save the
>hooded owl is a stinker in my book.
I randomly opened Limbaugh's first book and read his comments about
"the environment". It amounted to some religious poppycock. I closed
the book and read no further. However, the fact that Limbaugh's
reasons for dismissing some environmentalist arguments are wrong
doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong. Think of it this
way. If you flip a coin, heads for "yes", tails for "no" and then
use the coin to decide whether or not something is correct, you
will make the right choice at least some of the time. That's Limbaugh.
Science allows you to greatly improve your odds of getting the right
answer -- in the long run, science will always give you the right answer.
>>
>> As for world population, the fact is that, so far, every developed
>> country has gone or is going through the demographic transition.
>> This is the phenomenon where the birth rate drops so low that even
>> with increased life span, the population starts to decline. There
>> are lots of reasons for the demographic transition -- I'm not going
>> to go into them here. However, there is every reason to expect that
>> rising affluence in the developing world will have the same effect.
>nah, i think china and india will implode. they can't control the
>population growth. them folks are horny, ignorant, and wanna have
>kibblers.
Science doesn't support your statement. The rate of population increase
is declining, even in places like China and India.
>> Global population will plateau sometime in the next 50 years and start
>> declining, unless there is a breakthrough in halting the effects of
>> human aging.
>yeah, i heard this too but this is baloney. look at population growth
>among hispanics and blacks in america. i mean it's a cultural thing.
>black males wanna impregnate as many ho's as they can. and i don't
>see this changing. and since there is such lack of respect for
>education in black and much of hispanic community, the girls there
>don't go to college and find professions. instead, they watch tv and
>get pregnant over and over. hopefully, there will be more welfare
>reform and we'll stop this crappy trend.
You are completely wrong about demographic trends in the U.S. and
around the world.
>>In the absence of that breakthrough, the big problem
>> in the future will be DECLINING human population. This will be
>> particularly problematic when it comes to exploiting the solar system.
>> I would be surprised if the solar system couldn't support a trillion
>> people at a very high standard of living. That would only be around
>> 7 doublings of the current population.
>wrong. the only population is declining population among whites and
>japanese, the two most capable, progressive, efficient people around.
>as whites and japanese don't have babies, they'll increasingly have to
>rely on nonwhites and nonjapanese who will immigrate to western
>countries since their native nations will always be brimming with poor
>folks yet having more kibblers.
Nope.
>whites and japanese must breed like rabbits if they are to survive. if
>their civilization is to survive.
Ideas are all that matter. The correct approach is maximizing the
number of humans harboring good ideas.
>>
>> >i'd say the world needs more white folks because white folks are
>> >advanced and civilized and rational and are the best role model for
>> >the benighted nonwhites all over the world but that's unlikely as
>> >white folks have grown decadent and suicidal except for few folks like
>> >pat buchanan.
>>
>> Well, now you're just being provocative. What the human race needs is
>> rational, pro-science individuals in large numbers. It doesn't matter
>> what color said individuals are.
>you're totally true. but all said and done, them folks are whites and
>japanese and some chinese and some hindus. rest... they're almost
>hopeless. africa is political and economic cesspool. middle east
>will never break out of stupid islam and reactionary culture. much of
>asia will be lame, slavish, and antidemocratic.
It's hard to say what the future holds. But again, this is all about
bad ideas versus good ideas and how they compete with each other.
Competition through war is a very bad way to resolve things.
[...]
TNT
>
> The claim that MAN is the only evil is fallacious. There are as many
> concerned people as unconcerned.
people are just evil? You two are taking it wrong. I never even
use the word "evil". I am just judging the matter on my own
beliefs, and everybody here else is.
I happen not to agree with the belief that man as an evolved being
has the right to decide on large scale on the future of other so-called
"inferior" (based on man's own yardstick of intelligence) beings.
Anyway, based on my own yardstick of intelligence there's absolutely
nothing worthy of further attention around this thread, so I am gonna
skip everything from this moment.
Paul Hager
Fine. But you are clearly wrong. Without humans ALL life on Earth
is doomed. Guaranteed. Only humans have the ability to save life
by spreading it beyond the Earth. If there is another contender
species you are offering up as the savior, please name it. This is
not a matter of "right", it is a matter of survival. As I've stated
before, at its root, the philosophy of environmentalists is completely
nonsensical because its anti-human, anti-science basis ineluctably
leads to mass extinction.
slowbird
Krebber,
as he has already shown in previous "replies" to people that see him for what he
is (brief recap from other posts: a troll, born 1955, once used the hotmail
address speedbyrd69 (mature), specifies "other things ;>" in his ICQ profile
(interesting selection of newsgorups his name turns up in), once to be found
mocking people in one of the christian news groups (how did they get rid of him
lol)), the guy just sits at home and beats off over his "superior" posts.
I think we can do better things with our time than give him more intelligent
comments with which he can practice his "wit". one day he'll wake up to discover
his life has no meaning to anyone but himself because of his behaviour, and
maybe, just maybe, he'll do something about it (positively).
do a search at groups.google.com for speedbyrd and marvel at the guy's
insecurity, banality and bigotry.
One can't help but feel sorry for him, as someone else has already stated.
^^^^\/^^^^ (flies off to safe distance)
marty mcmahome
news:sjeaotsvck51qdqqq...@4ax.com...
> A brilliant post! I totally concur on all issues. Humans
> seem more of an afterthought than a planned existence. If
> we all died, other creatures would continue and there would
> probably be a better environmental balance than there is
> now, since there would be so much less destruction.
>
Why don't you two start the process then?
Kre...@hisunderworldpalace.deepbeneath
>>Funny, I never thought of humans at the top of anything. I
>>much prefer the company of animals to the company of people,
>>for the most part. Humans are one of the very few species
>>who kill for sport and inflict destruction and misery out of
>>their own selfishness,
So how come you were ragging on someone earlier who was expressing a
very similar opinion? Fair enough, they were a bit over the top, but
you started to slag anyone off who expressed almost exactly that
opinion.
You are pretty changeable since this is only a few threads down from
the one I'm talking about.
>>while fulfilling no useful purpose.
>>I get more enjoyment the company of my cat than I can get
>>from a room full of people.
Probably because it doesn't answer back in English. Let me translate
those meows for you "LET ME OUTTA HERE"
>>
>> The Speedbyrd®
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Man...An Ancient Race
> >it's their home. their only home.
>
> Animals don't "own" anything. Animals, however, are territorial.
semantics, pure semantics.
>
> >>
> >> The movie GLADIATOR sets fires in a stand of timber also -- very effective
> >> scene, BTW. In the commentary, Ridley Scott says that the British
> >> Government gave permission of the burn. It may well be that a private
> >> owner/corporation would not have given permission for the burn. It
> >> would obviously depend on a number of things.
>
> >burning a few trees is different than napalming dense jungle forest.
> >jungles have tons of life. in temperate zones, burning a few trees
> >might kill some bugs and squirrels. but napalming forests will kill
> >tons of animals.
>
> >and i disagree that what looks good justifies whatever action
> >filmmakers take. i mean if i dropped an atomic bomb for a movie
> >that'd look cool. but many marine animals would suffer and they
> >didn't ask to be blasted or made sick via radiation.
>
> They are incapable of asking anything. This is just anthropomorphising.
animals feel pain. pain is pain enough.
> >a beaver dam is no more natural than the hoover dam? well, i'll be
> >damned!!
>
> Yep. If it ain't natural, it's supernatural. I assure you, the
> Hoover dam was not created by gods or spirits.
yep, and a animal breaking wind, why that's hardly difrent than
nuclear kazoom kabang!!!
>
> No it isn't getting hotter and hotter. I already explained this,
> and Lomborg -- a former Greenpeace member -- and I agree on this.
> The satellite data shows no warming.
i tole ya, it's gebittin hotter and hotter in me place and arear. i'm
dyin out here.
>
> It's called science. I have no preconceived notion about how things
> should be and I subscribe to no dogma. There is very good evidence
> for what I wrote.
science is amoral. it be no guide to anythin. it's how we use it that
make it art and life.
>
> To the extent that preserving existing species is desirable -- and I
> go along with this -- we should agree on an approach that actually
> works. Environmentalists are so consistently and disastrously wrong
> that they undercut and frustrate their own stated goals. Environmentalists
> essentially say, "our intentions are good, therefore anything we propose
> must be good."
okay, let's kill off enviros and make me extinct. fine with me. but
if we only foller conservative ways, i mean they'll raze everythin jus
to build business and to service greed and such.
>
>
> >there were bears in illinois once. there are no bears. i love bears.
> >bears are holy and sacred. they are my brothers. where did they go?
>
> If a bear comes into my yard, I will probably kill it. I don't
> necessarily have anything against bears, but they really can't
> coexist with humans.
this is why you be sick. we can set aside some land in illinois for
bears. but it's like we kill everythin just to have some more suburban
homes and ugly cities. why that's some fool talkin.
>
> >there is no clearcut solution. i mean what do we do with nuclear
> >waste? only nanotechnology can save us. but it may never be.
>
> For nuclear waste, read about the Oklo Natural reactors. Waste has
> never posed a problem.
why that be? what they do wid them?
> Some feminists are of the MacKinnon-Dworkin variety. They are the flakes.
> The idea of equal rights for women is not, however, flakey.
but it's still flooky.
>
>
> Clone 1000 Einsteins and run them through the public education system
> and you'd probably get 1000 fairly average people.
that's nurturists talkin. i believe more in nature argument. i's
thinks eisnstein be smart even if grow up illiterate.
>
> I have a better idea. Since children are natural geniuses, don't
> indoctrinate and dumb them down through the regimentation of
> public education.
heck, i dunno. if not for public education, i never would have much
wanted to learn chemistry, biology, physics, literature and such. i
just wanted to see reruns of three's company. but this darnd society
dragged me to school and made me into a robot.
>
>
> >if you look at global trends of the past 50 years, global warming is a
> >fact. whether it's truly catastrophic or something we can adapt to is
> >another matter. but it be a fact.
>
> This is not true at all. There is no evidence that human activity has
> had any effect. Back in the 1970s when the anthropogenic CO2-warming
> hypothesis was coming into vogue, the assumption was that warming would
> not appear about the "noise level" of the climate until sometime after
> the 1st quarter of the 21st century. The development of remote
> satellite sensing gave us a very sensitive tool for measuring temperatures.
> However, instead of demonstrating the validity of the hypothesis by
> allowing us to see human effects earlier than we would have otherwise,
> the satellites show no human effects at all.
we'll it's common sense. more co2, more heat absorbtion and more heat.
it's like it gits so hot inside yer car cuz the sunlight go in but
heat gits trapped.
i mean it makes sense if you think about it. earth atmospher is just
like the air in a locked car. sho is.
>
> Ever heard of the Medieval Climate Optimum? Ever read about the Viking
> settlements on Greenland? It was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is
> today. Why? There is no definitive answer, though there is evidence
> that the Sun has longer-period cycles of energy output that the 11 year
> sunspot cycle. Ultimately, the temperature of the Earth is dependant on
> solar output. CO2 may well turn out to be merely a correlate of other
> causative factors.
there is the natural reason and human reason. that's fer sure. but we
are now changing climate due to fossil fuel technoloy that's fer sure.
it's not all us but it's us too is what i's be meanin.
>
>
> Science allows you to greatly improve your odds of getting the right
> answer -- in the long run, science will always give you the right answer.
only unideoloical science do that. but on enviro matters, both left
and right don't practice science but policyience which be some
bullcocky.
>
> >>
>
> Science doesn't support your statement. The rate of population increase
> is declining, even in places like China and India.
okay, some hindu broad is having 6 chillun instead of 8. or some
chinese gal is havin 3 instead of one child. still that be scary.
>
>
> You are completely wrong about demographic trends in the U.S. and
> around the world.
black and hispanic populations double every 30-40 years based on
childbirth. this be true.
Howard Brazee
> Fine. But you are clearly wrong. Without humans ALL life on Earth
> is doomed. Guaranteed. Only humans have the ability to save life
> by spreading it beyond the Earth. If there is another contender
> species you are offering up as the savior, please name it. This is
> not a matter of "right", it is a matter of survival. As I've stated
> before, at its root, the philosophy of environmentalists is completely
> nonsensical because its anti-human, anti-science basis ineluctably
> leads to mass extinction.
If you're worrying about the death of the Sun, why not include the death of
the Universe? Barring miracles, ALL life is doomed. Period.
If you believe in evolution or aliens, then you can conceive of other
exceptions to your statement.
Paul Hager
[...]
>>
>> >there is no clearcut solution. i mean what do we do with nuclear
>> >waste? only nanotechnology can save us. but it may never be.
>>
[I write:]
>> For nuclear waste, read about the Oklo Natural reactors. Waste has
>> never posed a problem.
>why that be? what they do wid them?
Well, I assumed that using the keyword "Oklo", you could go to a library
or even surf the web and find a wealth of information.
Briefly, it was hypothesized that when uranium ore bodies began to be
laid down by bacterial activity (around 2 billion years ago) that
nuclear fission might occur naturally in some of these bodies. This
hypothesis was based upon the differential decay rates of the two
naturally occurring isotopes, U-235 and U-238. Today U-235 is around
0.7% of natural uranium, but 2 billion years ago, it would have been
around 3%. At 3%, it is possible for a nuclear fission chain reaction
to be moderated by water. In fact, Light Water Reactors (LWRs) use
uranium that is "enriched" to around 3%. All of this has to do with
the neutron absorption cross-section of hydrogen, which is larger than
is the neutron absorption cross-section of heavy water. Heavy water is
needed to moderate natural uranium, so for a bunch of reasons, enriching
uranium is desirable for making a power reactor (note, the Canadian
CANDU reactors are heavy water moderated, natural uranium fueled).
The hypothesize natural reactors were discovered by accident in the 1970s.
The fission reactions occurred 2 billion years ago when ground water
flowed into the ore bodies and a chain reaction ensued. Radioactive
waste from fission has a distinctive "signature" in terms of the ratio
of various elements. It was determined that waste had been produced,
and after 2 billion years, and decayed to totally inert elements. It
was further determined that the waste had remained on site, even though
water had been flowing through the ore body (after all, without water
to function as a moderator, there would have been no chain reaction).
In other words, the WORST thing that supposedly can happen to buried
rad waste if water ingress. Nature demonstrated that geochemical
processes kept the waste right where it was produced. The French have
applied what they've learned from Oklo to their own waste disposal
system.
That should be enough information to get you started.
Like I say, waste disposal was never a problem since nature has shown
how to contain it for 2 billion years. In reality, a little over 100
will suffice (ignore the anti-nuke propaganda about 250,000 years --
they don't know any more about rad waste disposal than they know about
anything else).
Paul Hager
>Paul Hager wrote:
>> Fine. But you are clearly wrong. Without humans ALL life on Earth
>> is doomed. Guaranteed. Only humans have the ability to save life
>> by spreading it beyond the Earth. If there is another contender
>> species you are offering up as the savior, please name it. This is
>> not a matter of "right", it is a matter of survival. As I've stated
>> before, at its root, the philosophy of environmentalists is completely
>> nonsensical because its anti-human, anti-science basis ineluctably
>> leads to mass extinction.
>If you're worrying about the death of the Sun, why not include the death of
>the Universe? Barring miracles, ALL life is doomed. Period.
Maybe after trillions of years. In any case, who says I'm "worried
about the Sun"? Near term, a big comet will do quite nicely. Longer
term, other threats come into play. Why ignore them? If you don't care,
fine. Just don't impede the rest of us.
>If you believe in evolution or aliens, then you can conceive of other
>exceptions to your statement.
I don't "believe" in anything. Desiring to survive, and for one's
offspring to survive is "natural". A philosophy that goes against
this is "unnatural" by definition. Q.E.D.
Beyond that, the more we find out about the universe, the more it
becomes clear that complex life is very rare. If there are other
civilzations out there somewhere, they would have to be very far
away. The universe is so hostile that it is probably the case
than complex life almost never develops, and when it does it
gets snuffed out by a comet impact, supernova, or some other
disaster. Human beings have nearly reached the point when we
can guarantee that life will exist as long as the universe --
that's if environmental luddism doesn't kill us all off.
Krebber
>>Why don't you mind your own fucking business. I wasn't
>>discussing it with you.
>>
>> The Speedbyrd®
Funny, I thought this was an open forum. If you wanted to speak just
with one person, why don't you e-mail them? Or ask them to e-mail you?
Or specifiy that you don't want anyone else to join in your
discussion?
Or maybe it's because I pointed something out you weren't happy with.
If I'd agreed with you, you wouldn't have said anything, now would
you?
Nimrod``
Ancient Race) wrote:
>hob...@voicenet.com (Cap'n Lance Trousers) wrote in message news:<3b81ed81...@netnews.voicenet.com>...
>> On 20 Aug 2001 19:13:33 -0700, anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An
>> Ancient Race) wrote:
>>
>> >he blew up forests with napalm for the movie apocalypse cow, right?
>> >
>> >he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
>> >
>> >
>> >shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
>> >forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
>> >
>> >how many animals died as a result of coppola's movie fancy? how many
>> >birds? how many small mammals? how many reptiles? and why? why????
>> >
>> >just because this sicko had to make a legendary movie!!
>> >
>> >CGI makes me sick but i'm glad CGI technology no longer necessitates
>> >such wholesale massacre of poor adorable critters who were simply
>> >minding their own business.
>> From what I've heard, that scene where the bull is killed wasn't
>> staged for the movie. The locals were doing that sacrificial ceremony
>> for real and Coppola just filmed it. So that animal would have died
>> in exactly the same way whether it was filmed or not. It had nothing
>> to do with "Coppola's movie fancy".
>>
>
>no, the locals sacrificed small animals like goats and such. but
>coppola didn't think a goat was epic enough so settled for biggie
>cows. the ritual as performed by the filippino savages was messy but
>coppola did it pure cecil b. demille style what with the ritual slayer
>doing the mystical slo-mo kung fu movements before turning cow into
>steaky.
Do you eat steak, Tony?
N``
Nimrod``
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:50:04 GMT,
>Kre...@HisUnderworldPalace.DeepBeneath wrote:
>
>>
>>>>Funny, I never thought of humans at the top of anything. I
>>>>much prefer the company of animals to the company of people,
>>>>for the most part. Humans are one of the very few species
>>>>who kill for sport and inflict destruction and misery out of
>>>>their own selfishness,
>>
>>So how come you were ragging on someone earlier who was expressing a
>>very similar opinion? Fair enough, they were a bit over the top, but
>>you started to slag anyone off who expressed almost exactly that
>>opinion.
>>
>
>Why don't you mind your own fucking business. I wasn't
>discussing it with you.
>
> The Speedbyrd®
>
No...you were discussing it with Usenet. Which is me and he and
thee....and we.
N``
Helen & Bob
Nimrod`` wrote:
Why do you think Tony can afford steak? Micky D's burgers, perhaps.
Bob
Nimrod``
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you eat steak, Tony?
>>
>> N``
>
>Why do you think Tony can afford steak? Micky D's burgers, perhaps.
>Bob
Aw....I always figured Tony to be more of a microwave burrito man,
hanging tough at the local 7-11.
N``
Nimrod``
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:36:04 -0500, Nimrod``
><nim...@AskMeForIt.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Aug 2001 19:18:04 -0500, SpeedbyrdŽ <Spee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:50:04 GMT,
>>>Kre...@HisUnderworldPalace.DeepBeneath wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Funny, I never thought of humans at the top of anything. I
>>>>>>much prefer the company of animals to the company of people,
>>>>>>for the most part. Humans are one of the very few species
>>>>>>who kill for sport and inflict destruction and misery out of
>>>>>>their own selfishness,
>>>>
>>>>So how come you were ragging on someone earlier who was expressing a
>>>>very similar opinion? Fair enough, they were a bit over the top, but
>>>>you started to slag anyone off who expressed almost exactly that
>>>>opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you mind your own fucking business. I wasn't
>>>discussing it with you.
>>>
>>> The SpeedbyrdŽ
>>>
>>
>>No...you were discussing it with Usenet. Which is me and he and
>>thee....and we.
>>
>>
>>N``
>>
>>
>
>Nope! Wrong again! PLONK!
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ
What an idiot. Hears an answer it doesn't like so it plonks. Purely
moronic.
N``
Helen & Bob
Nimrod`` wrote:
Sure, that could work. I just recommended to Mr. Eucker that he apply
for a job as a personal aide to Tony Gaza. After all, Tony does get
welfare, and what he could pay Mr. Eucker would surely be an increase
over what he is earning now.
Bob
Man...An Ancient Race
i grow my own food. i raise my own livestock. i eat organic tomatoes
and pray to the animal i just slaughtered and thank him as a brother
who has sacrificed hisself so that i can live.
that's the kind of guy i am.
Man...An Ancient Race
sure i do but i believe in humane slaughtering of animals. the way
they killed the cow in the movie was downright sick. and i hate the
idear of animal sacrifice. kill the darn animal painlessly as
possible. apologize to the animal as a brother that had died so we
can live. show gratitude. but i hate this sacrifice or movie
spectacle slaughtering of animals. that's savage.
Sean LeBlanc
All environmentally correct attitudes and animal rights
nitwittery aside, don't you think that "indicting"
someone as a so-called "movie war criminal"(whatever the
hell that means) for a movie that was filmed, what, over
25 FUCKING YEARS AGO, is just a little bit ridiculous,
even for a liberal college education casualty such as
you? (Original poster, of course)
Jeez, where the hell do these people come from? Don't you
think there a few more important things than crap like this?
If things progress much further, we'll have movies with
scenes like this labelled "hate speech", and liberals
everywhere will be burning them. Little nazis. Move
to Europe. Your kind are more welcome there. Stop
pushing your bogus world views on America.
Speedbyrd® <Spee...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On 20 Aug 2001 19:13:33 -0700, anthony...@hotmail.com
> (Man...An Ancient Race) wrote:
>
> >he blew up forests with napalm for the movie apocalypse cow, right?
>
> They grew back.
>
>
> >
> >he also had poor innocent animals butchered in the most heinous ways.
>
>
> He did? Since when?
> >
> >
> >shouldn't this megalomaniac fool be tried for his crime against life
> >forms that were happy eating nuts and berries in jungle?
>
>
> Shouldn't you be exiled back to the jungle with your berry
> eating family, so you're not loose to pass judgement?
>
>
> >
> >how many animals died as a result of coppola's movie fancy? how many
> >birds? how many small mammals? how many reptiles?
>
>
> Ummmmmmm...... I give up. How many?
>
>
> >and why? why????
>
> To piss you off.
>
>
> >
> >just because this sicko had to make a legendary movie!!
>
>
> legendary is debateable.
>
> >
> >CGI makes me sick but i'm glad CGI technology no longer necessitates
> >such wholesale massacre of poor adorable critters who were simply
> >minding their own business.
>
>
> There's nothing more detestable than these hypocritic
> environmentalist pigs who carry a pepetual chip up their
> ass, while they vote in favor of the death penalty and vote
> against measures that would care for our human elderly and
> sick.
Sean LeBlanc
Well, I'll tell you why *I* feel that environmental
extremists should be denied any real voice in America...oh,
you can have your free speech. I don't want to be like the
nazi left, and start some "speech codes" and a definition
of "hate speech". I just would like it if mainstream ignored
the nutter wing of environmentalism.
I really think
that some extreme factions of environmentalism have no idea
what they really want, other
than to bring down corporations, stop business, take cars
off the road...and the real reason is, they are Communists.
They hate this country and all the freedoms it stands for.
I mean, setting SUVs on fire? If I ever own property or a
big business, and I see those little bastards trying to
sabotage my property, I'll shoot them on sight. They are
trespassing, and it's within my legal right to do so.
I don't know why more haven't been killed, esp. when setting
ski resorts and the like on fire. They are terrorists,
and should be treated as such, especially in light of
recent events.
They really showed their hand when they tried to demagogue
the Kyoto treaty, and made a big stink when Bush didn't
sign the stupid thing. First of all, carbon dioxide is NOT
a pollutant. Second of all, here's the grand sum of the
countries who had signed it before Bush balked at signing
it: Romania. That's it. All the other Euro-weenies who
wanted to point their finger at us and blame us just
needed a scapegoat. They didn't sign it. Why would any
country in their right mind sign it?
Sean LeBlanc
> nature as in geology don't care. it's amoral. it's just mountains and
> bodies of waters and rain, etc.
> but animals suffer when we drastically change the climate. jungle
> animals are rubbed off when corporations go in and cut down the trees
> in the amazon.
>
> nature is an abstract concept. it can never be rubbed off.
> but animals and fish and etc are real and they can be rubbed off.
Where's the proof that we are changing the climate?
Where's the proof that it is changing at all? You can't
talk about "last year's weather". Weather is not climate.
So where's the proof? I've been hearing babble from environmentalists
for YEARS that the sky is falling. Where's the proof?
All evidence so far has been INCONCLUSIVE, so stop acting
as if this climate change is fact. It's not, so stop lying.
Heh heh. Memory is so short on the environmentalists' predictions.
Do you know why Earth Day was started? Out of a fear that we
may be driving the Earth into another Ice Age. Not global
warming. Why the flip-flop, eh? Pervasive environmental doctrine
of the 70's predicted all kinds of environmental disaster
in the 80's. And it didn't happen. Chicken Little wasn't
right, after all, huh?
You know what...animals suffer a LOT when there is an Ice
Age. It appears we've had a lot of them. Who's fault was
that?
MadNetter
"Sean LeBlanc" <seanleb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:k7wzkw...@free.lakwod3.co.home.com...
> anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An Ancient Race) writes:
>
> > nature as in geology don't care. it's amoral. it's just mountains and
> > bodies of waters and rain, etc.
> > but animals suffer when we drastically change the climate. jungle
> > animals are rubbed off when corporations go in and cut down the trees
> > in the amazon.
> >
> > nature is an abstract concept. it can never be rubbed off.
> > but animals and fish and etc are real and they can be rubbed off.
>
>
> Where's the proof that we are changing the climate?
> Where's the proof that it is changing at all? You can't
> talk about "last year's weather". Weather is not climate.
>
> So where's the proof? I've been hearing babble from environmentalists
> for YEARS that the sky is falling. Where's the proof?
> All evidence so far has been INCONCLUSIVE, so stop acting
> as if this climate change is fact. It's not, so stop lying.
That's funny - that's exactly what the tobacco companies say about the link
between smoking and cancer. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?
Kevin "Yeah, I Know - Don't Feed The Trolls" Cogliano
E.B.
> That's funny - that's exactly what the tobacco companies say about the
link
> between smoking and cancer. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?
Didn't you know the earth is flat?
Ron Leavens
>Didn't you know the earth is flat?
The earth only APPEARS to be flat,
because of the way the sun revolves around it.
rl
Sean LeBlanc
I'm no troll. I just couldn't help commenting on this thread.
It's really disingenuous to compare the tobacco and cancer issue to the
global warming issue. For every scientist that can claim that there IS
proof that global warming is happening, there is one that will claim
evidence to the contrary. The jury is still out. If you choose to believe
that it's not, fine. But don't expect the rest of us to swallow junk
science hook, line, and sinker. A few decades of measurements can't tell
you a whole lot when you are talking about a system that is billions of
years old.
All this being said, I am for commonsense environmentalism. Who in their
right mind isn't? But when you start saying that carbon dioxide emissions
should be reduced, because they are pollutants, my BS detector goes off.
Sean LeBlanc
Yeah, that's the way to go - stick your head in the sand.
Do you really doubt that some extreme enviromentalists have
Communist leanings, if not at least anti-capitalist? Don't
let your idealogy blind you.
In any case, I'm done with this topic. It's old and way
off-topic. And neither I or anyone else will convince someone
who'd rather throw someone with an opposing viewpoint into
a killfile than actually refute any points.
TNT <NOS...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Sean LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > Well, I'll tell you why *I* feel that environmental
> > extremists should be denied any real voice in America...
>
> ...
>
> > I really think
> > that some extreme factions of environmentalism have no idea
> > what they really want, other
> > than to bring down corporations, stop business, take cars
> > off the road...and the real reason is, they are Communists.
>
> ...
>
> > They hate this country and all the freedoms it stands for.
> > I mean, setting SUVs on fire? If I ever own property or a
> > big business, and I see those little bastards trying to
> > sabotage my property, I'll shoot them on sight.
>
> Ok, that's enough.
> *PLONK*
MadNetter
You don't sound like you're in favour of common-sense anything, never mind
environmentalism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that human beings
are doing some severe environmental damage to our planet - heck, take a look
at the ozone hole photographs sometime. (Here's the NASA link to build your
own animation of our shrinking ozone layer:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/Datasets/ozone.toms.html)
It's a reality we're gonna have to face sooner or later, and you sound like
you'd rather face them later. Which, sadly, makes you just another average
American.
Here's another link:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Environment/Global_Change/ That will
take you to 254 websites, governmental and otherwise, filled to the brim
with evidence on global climate changes. My, that's an awful lot of lying,
isn't it?
Kevin "And I Thought You Were Done With This Thread" Cogliano