A time in Calendar
Lynx
Jim GM4DHJ
"Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>
Jim Watt
You are right;
May the meaning of the season, being contentment, joy and peace - And
throughout the days to follow, may your blessings all increase!
Have a good Passover.
Shalom
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Ken
Does this include just all Christians and no-one else? This atheist /
agnostic would welcome charitable thoughts too, though in actual fact is
working this weekend having volunteered for it.
K
JimmyGibby
"Jim GM4DHJ" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:S9mRh.1894$xm4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
OK how's this, Easter greetings to all people who don't celebrate Easter!
>
Ken
"JimmyGibby" <see...@jimmy.net> wrote in message
news:pbednRvpcfU...@pipex.net...
OR - whether or not this time of year is special to you for any religious or
other reason, may you have a pleasant time of it.
K
Lynx
"Jim GM4DHJ" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:S9mRh.1894$xm4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
I did say "ALL" and....
Giving gracious priority to those who may not be......
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:g5ub13dugikfaov3n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:55:46 GMT, "Jim GM4DHJ"
> <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>>
>>that is not very inclusive .......
>
> You are right;
>
> May the meaning of the season, being contentment, joy and peace - And
> throughout the days to follow, may your blessings all increase!
Fuck the term season. This word's getting banded around all too often and it
means fack all!
> Have a good Passover.
>
> Shalom
Piss off!!
Lynx
Anyone might think this to be a kosher ng!
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ev61p...@news3.newsguy.com...
And who are you trying to please or appease this time?
Lynx
How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time? Are you sure you
know what you are?
I'm not working this weekend, but will be the next.
So you're the kind of old fart who bursts kids' bubbles come Xmas time,
right? "Hey kid!! There's no Santa and there's no Rudolph red-nose nothing!!
Ken
I am merely trying to offend no-one. Appeasement is the specialty of the
FCO, best seen when Chamberlain tried it on Hitler.
K
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev4uk...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>> news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>
>> Does this include just all Christians and no-one else? This atheist /
>> agnostic would welcome charitable thoughts too, though in actual fact is
>> working this weekend having volunteered for it.
>
> How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time? Are you sure
> you know what you are?
Last time I looked, it was all as I remmebered it had been. Yes, I'm fine.
> I'm not working this weekend, but will be the next.
> So you're the kind of old fart who bursts kids' bubbles come Xmas time,
> right? "Hey kid!! There's no Santa and there's no Rudolph red-nose
> nothing!!
Nah! I continue the illusion for their sakes. The innocence of childhood is
too soon gone, I do nothing to hasten its demise.
K
Ken
There are plenty of Jewish folk in Gib already!
K
Lynx
Lynx
I should think so, they own the frigging place.
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
> news:hbxRh.10187$M.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ev4uk...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>>
>>> Does this include just all Christians and no-one else? This atheist /
>>> agnostic would welcome charitable thoughts too, though in actual fact is
>>> working this weekend having volunteered for it.
>>
>> How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time? Are you sure
>> you know what you are?
>
> Last time I looked, it was all as I remmebered it had been. Yes, I'm fine.
Must be two of you then. And you're both fine, I see.
>> I'm not working this weekend, but will be the next.
>> So you're the kind of old fart who bursts kids' bubbles come Xmas time,
>> right? "Hey kid!! There's no Santa and there's no Rudolph red-nose
>> nothing!!
>
> Nah! I continue the illusion for their sakes. The innocence of childhood
> is too soon gone, I do nothing to hasten its demise.
Now, that I'm really glad to hear. Even though you do not believe or will
not commit to believe or disbelieve, or believe Good to be within
Providence. BTW, you wouldn't be Catharsis, would you?
Ken
Oi Vey! I know of TWO addresses where the above sweeping statement does not
apply for sure.
K
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev6cb...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hbxRh.10187$M.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ev4uk...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>>>
>>>> Does this include just all Christians and no-one else? This atheist /
>>>> agnostic would welcome charitable thoughts too, though in actual fact
>>>> is working this weekend having volunteered for it.
>>>
>>> How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time? Are you sure
>>> you know what you are?
>>
>> Last time I looked, it was all as I remmebered it had been. Yes, I'm
>> fine.
>
> Must be two of you then. And you're both fine, I see.
You're never alone with schizophrenia.
> Now, that I'm really glad to hear. Even though you do not believe or will
> not commit to believe or disbelieve, or believe Good to be within
> Providence. BTW, you wouldn't be Catharsis, would you?
I blow my nose often, and it's clear.
K
Lynx
What's the latest on the Theatre Royal?
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
> news:YGzRh.10223$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ev6cb...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hbxRh.10187$M.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:ev4uk...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this include just all Christians and no-one else? This atheist /
>>>>> agnostic would welcome charitable thoughts too, though in actual fact
>>>>> is working this weekend having volunteered for it.
>>>>
>>>> How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time? Are you
>>>> sure you know what you are?
>>>
>>> Last time I looked, it was all as I remmebered it had been. Yes, I'm
>>> fine.
>>
>> Must be two of you then. And you're both fine, I see.
>
> You're never alone with schizophrenia.
You missed your call, should've been a comedian.
>
>> Now, that I'm really glad to hear. Even though you do not believe or will
>> not commit to believe or disbelieve, or believe Good to be within
>> Providence. BTW, you wouldn't be Catharsis, would you?
>
> I blow my nose often, and it's clear.
I use cortisone, keeps it clear.
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev7ti...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>> news:YGzRh.10223$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ev6cb...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hbxRh.10187$M.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ev4uk...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:RKjRh.9975$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>> Eatser Greetings to all and fellow Christians.
>>>>>>
>
Personally I prefer Xylometazoline HCl 0.1%, though we're coming up the
hayfever season here and mid-May I use hydrocortisone regularly, for about
three weeks. The hayfever season passes me by almost un-noticed. Much more
important to me now than it used to be, and I must say it's a pleasure to go
to work at that time!
K
Ken
No idea. Not heard anything about it for ages.
K
Lynx
>
> Personally I prefer Xylometazoline HCl 0.1%, though we're coming up the
> hayfever season here and mid-May I use hydrocortisone regularly, for about
> three weeks. The hayfever season passes me by almost un-noticed. Much more
> important to me now than it used to be, and I must say it's a pleasure to
> go to work at that time!
I can sympathise. We have a higher than average incident of hay-fever and
allergy, and therefore asthma, sufferers in our population. Despite ours
being a temperate region, our atmosphere tends to be dry, which is ideal for
allergen particles to become airborne. That is why in my particular case, I
find the tropics such a haven. Humidity trapping these particles. London
weather used to play havoc with me as a child.
Lynx
>
> No idea. Not heard anything about it for ages.
I'm not given to arguments, lack of transparency though, can get the better
of me. I just heard on the BBC the Capt of the wrecked Greek liner being
charged. In contrast we hear no follow-ups about the ship's incident in Gib,
and the Theatre Royal costly transaction at the expense of the tax-payers is
treated as a fait accompli.
Ken
Well this is the first mention I've come across of the incident other than
on Gib media. As to Theatre, your guess and outrage as good as mine.
K
Ken
Not just the tropics, but anywhere by the sea. Dust + pollen and other
particualtes falling on land is blown about, but once it hits water is
trapped.
K
Lynx
Lynx
How true. I was once on a cruiser in the middle of the Indian Ocean, when
the Capt made an announcement informing all that the measured particle of
dust in the atmosphere was zero. As you say, water attracts and traps dust.
Jim GM4DHJ
Lynx
>I love religion...what a good excuse for a bounce up ! ...................
I agree. It's all to do with the written word, you know. One writes
something in gest, the reader interprets it to the letter. You noticed I
never swore, unlike JW.
Jim GM4DHJ
Lynx
No one has been accused of being bad. Trouble is some like to dish it, but
can't take it. As for religion, I have acquaintances from just about every
religion philosophy under the sun, Jews included, who interestingly enough
happen to be the friendliest of the lot. And there never seems to be a
problem, because we respect each others "seasonal greetings" and
observances. Like disappearing in the thick of our operations to say
prayer.......
Jim GM4DHJ
> No one has been accused of being bad. Trouble is some like to dish it, but
> can't take it. As for religion, I have acquaintances from just about every
> religion philosophy under the sun, Jews included, who interestingly enough
> happen to be the friendliest of the lot.
that is only because they consider themselves as the chosen ones ......
>And there never seems to be a
> problem, because we respect each others "seasonal greetings" and
> observances. Like disappearing in the thick of our operations to say
> prayer.......
I would sack them ......
I treat anybody who spouts religion with great caution.....
Lynx
>
>> No one has been accused of being bad. Trouble is some like to dish it,
>> but
>> can't take it. As for religion, I have acquaintances from just about
>> every religion philosophy under the sun, Jews included, who interestingly
>> enough happen to be the friendliest of the lot.
>
> that is only because they consider themselves as the chosen ones ......
Some do, but the few I know do not fit that mould. In fact they couldn't be
more distant from the typical character.
> >And there never seems to be a
>> problem, because we respect each others "seasonal greetings" and
>> observances. Like disappearing in the thick of our operations to say
>> prayer.......
>
> I would sack them ......
So would I. But these cultures from the mide ast can be hard to bring into
line in the ever politically correct world we live in.
> I treat anybody who spouts religion with great caution.....
My greeting was purely a friendly gesture. Hence my saying "all", meaning
all in the ng. What I did not expect was the sardonic reply from JW, whose
middle name may well be Eddy.
Ken
The problem with religion as I see it is that, like revolution, it is always
justified when used in the first person - MY religion, MY freedom fighter,
vs. YOUR sect / cult, YOUR terrorist. Though no religion to my knowledge
spouts violence and corruption, it seems to be the case that virtually all
creeds have the ability to be twisted by the unscrupulous in order to make
mischief like nothing else. Hence though all religions preach tolerance of
others, more people have died in the name of (somone else's) God than for
just about any other cause.
As to politicial correctness, despite my tongue-in-cheek reaction at the top
of this topic, I can't abide it!
Ken
Lynx
Still the case today.
> As to politicial correctness, despite my tongue-in-cheek reaction at the
> top of this topic, I can't abide it!
JW's reaction cannot go unchecked. He should come clean and offer some
explanation. This bloke gets away with calling native Gibraltarians "token
natives", then he derails a genuine greeting without valid reason. How much
would he like to see Gibraltar and its people changed?
Jim Watt
>Piss off!!
Oi Vey !
I did, but like arnie I'm back.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Jim Watt
>You noticed I never swore, unlike JW.
Hey you said fuck and told me to piss off you mean
there are other words used in OZ for swearing ?
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:kna723dvevrv98ul8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:24:37 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>
>>You noticed I never swore, unlike JW.
>
> Hey you said fuck and told me to piss off you mean
> there are other words used in OZ for swearing ?
Just occurred to me. As we here in the northern hemisphere refer to Oz + NZ
(but mostly Oz) as "down under", do those there refer to here as "up and
over" or something along those lines? Do you in Oz consider yourselves to be
upside down? When Oz-brats (Ozlets?) draw pics of the earth as might be seen
from space, do they put the S pole on the top of the page so Oz people stand
on land with their heads pointing to the top of the page also, or not?
It's all relative, after all.
K
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:kna723dvevrv98ul8...@4ax.com...
>
>>You noticed I never swore, unlike JW.
>
> Hey you said fuck and told me to piss off you mean
> there are other words used in OZ for swearing ?
I said "fack". As for the other directive, we all do it.
In Oz it's not so much the word, as the intensity or lack thereof that gives
a word its intended meaning.
You've been keeping quiet, 'como las putas en cuaresma'. A local saying, you
know...
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:20:49 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>
>>Piss off!!
>
> Oi Vey !
>
> I did, but like arnie I'm back.
What's this? "Oi Vey", a new form of corrupting our centuries old dialect?
Lynx
There is an Oz Atlas depicting the Sth Pole on top, intended for tourists.
There's no measure of ups and downs, except perhaps, the odd reference to
the Black Stump, which, like a black-hole, draws our attention towards the
centre of the country. Oz's a great country, ties to old mother England
persists and will do for a long time yet. Want to make an Aussie laugh? Put
on an Asian accent and say, "love you long time..."
> It's all relative, after all.
Yes it is. You pass wind up north and we end up with a hole the size of the
Grand Canyon in our ozone layer.
Jim Watt
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:kna723dvevrv98ul8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:24:37 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You noticed I never swore, unlike JW.
>>
>> Hey you said fuck and told me to piss off you mean
>> there are other words used in OZ for swearing ?
>
>I said "fack".
I'm sorry to correct you, however if you look at the
record you will see you misspelled it on the first
occasion, I was mortified.
Ken
I wouldn't beliee all you read / hear / see about carbon emissions, ozone
layers and global warming. The noises currently being made are more
politically driven than they are scientifically. For example, the greatest
correlation between global temps occurs NOT with CO2 emissions, but with the
activity of our sun. Not only is it heating us directly, but an increase in
its activity deflects the Earth's magnetic field permitting less cosmic
radiation to reach our atmosphere, and this has direct bearings on the
propensity to form clouds which act as reflectors of that sunlight. The CO2
argument was first put forward by Thatcher who was trying to stirr up
anti-fossil fuel fervour, while she tried (successfully) to quosh the miners
in the UK while hating the dependence of Western society on middle eastern
oil. It was a lobby latched on to by the professional activists who were
left with no communism to complain about after the collapse of the Berlin
Wall.
Phew! I think I may have managed to upset everyone in a relatively short
paragraph!
Ken
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Being Easter I could not bring myself to swear, though I did see red. Old
habits die hard, you know.
Lynx
>
> I wouldn't beliee all you read / hear / see about carbon emissions, ozone
> layers and global warming. The noises currently being made are more
> politically driven than they are scientifically. For example, the greatest
> correlation between global temps occurs NOT with CO2 emissions, but with
> the activity of our sun. Not only is it heating us directly, but an
> increase in its activity deflects the Earth's magnetic field permitting
> less cosmic radiation to reach our atmosphere, and this has direct
> bearings on the propensity to form clouds which act as reflectors of that
> sunlight. The CO2 argument was first put forward by Thatcher who was
> trying to stirr up anti-fossil fuel fervour, while she tried
> (successfully) to quosh the miners in the UK while hating the dependence
> of Western society on middle eastern oil. It was a lobby latched on to by
> the professional activists who were left with no communism to complain
> about after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
Whatever you may choose to believe, the fact remains that the northern
hemisphere's far more industrialized than the southern hemisphere. It stands
to reason then, that most of the damage done to the ozone layer originates
from the pollution excreted in the northern hemisphere. Quite elementary,
really.
> Phew! I think I may have managed to upset everyone in a relatively short
> paragraph!
Are you saying there's no relationship between the burning of fossil fuel,
deforestation and the sorry state of our life-giving atmosphere? Our
atmosphere, on which our very existence is totally dependant, is being
destroyed by senseless and uncontrolled burning and polluting of the same.
The question is not whether you really believe your own assumptions, but how
many think as you do.
Jim Watt
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:9qca23hnop6hmkitp...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:19:55 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>>news:kna723dvevrv98ul8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:24:37 GMT, "Lynx" <t...@nquilo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You noticed I never swore, unlike JW.
>>>>
>>>> Hey you said fuck and told me to piss off you mean
>>>> there are other words used in OZ for swearing ?
>>>
>>>I said "fack".
>>
>> I'm sorry to correct you, however if you look at the
>> record you will see you misspelled it on the first
>> occasion, I was mortified.
>
>Being Easter I could not bring myself to swear, though I did see red. Old
>habits die hard, you know.
But you did bring yourself to say fuck. But I forgive you :)
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Now, you see, as it happens I like that attitude. It being most Christian of
you to "forgive" :)
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f03fv...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I wouldn't beliee all you read / hear / see about carbon emissions, ozone
>> layers and global warming. The noises currently being made are more
>> politically driven than they are scientifically. For example, the
>> greatest correlation between global temps occurs NOT with CO2 emissions,
>> but with the activity of our sun. Not only is it heating us directly, but
>> an increase in its activity deflects the Earth's magnetic field
>> permitting less cosmic radiation to reach our atmosphere, and this has
>> direct bearings on the propensity to form clouds which act as reflectors
>> of that sunlight. The CO2 argument was first put forward by Thatcher who
>> was trying to stirr up anti-fossil fuel fervour, while she tried
>> (successfully) to quosh the miners in the UK while hating the dependence
>> of Western society on middle eastern oil. It was a lobby latched on to by
>> the professional activists who were left with no communism to complain
>> about after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
>
> Whatever you may choose to believe,
. . and is THAT not the crux of the problem? Belief. Sod that! Belief
requires an act of faith in the absence of evidence. Give me evidence, the
best evidence you have, and I need not believe, I shall KNOW.
> the fact remains that the northern hemisphere's far more industrialized
> than the southern hemisphere. It stands to reason then, that most of the
> damage done to the ozone layer originates from the pollution excreted in
> the northern hemisphere. Quite elementary, really.
>
>> Phew! I think I may have managed to upset everyone in a relatively short
>> paragraph!
>
> Are you saying there's no relationship between the burning of fossil fuel,
> deforestation and the sorry state of our life-giving atmosphere? Our
> atmosphere, on which our very existence is totally dependant, is being
> destroyed by senseless and uncontrolled burning and polluting of the same.
> The question is not whether you really believe your own assumptions, but
> how many think as you do.
I am assuming nothing. I have seen the data. I need not BELIEVE in global
warming brought about by the burning of fossil fuels. I KNOW that SOME
warming can occur that way, but I also KNOW (having studied the EVIDENCE)
that solar activity has a greater bearing on the planet's temperatures and
weather patterns. The correlation between CO2 levels and world temps is
poor. Remember correlations can be brought about by coincidences and are not
necessarily demostrative of CAUSAL relationshipos they are as often as not
CASUAL.
Only in the 1970s many scientists were advocating that we should take active
steps to warm the planet!
An example- the entire world industrial output of greenhouse gases in ONE
YEAR matches volcanic activity's output of greenhouse gases every SIX HOURS.
Our output of said gases is a mere 0.07% of what nature is up to.
Suppose you earn Aus$ 48,000 per annum. An 0.07% wage rise would see you
earning an extra Aus$33.60 each year. Would you notice the difference?
K
Ken
Are you suggsting that people of other denominations of indeed those who
have no religious affiliation at all are incapable of forgiveness? :))
K
Lynx
>
> . . and is THAT not the crux of the problem? Belief. Sod that! Belief
> requires an act of faith in the absence of evidence. Give me evidence, the
> best evidence you have, and I need not believe, I shall KNOW.
Wooow! We cannot possibly know everything. So we rationalize and reason. Of
course, we cannot forget that we are both rationale and spiritual beings.
You get what I mean Marx?
> I am assuming nothing. I have seen the data. I need not BELIEVE in global
> warming brought about by the burning of fossil fuels. I KNOW that SOME
> warming can occur that way, but I also KNOW (having studied the EVIDENCE)
> that solar activity has a greater bearing on the planet's temperatures and
> weather patterns. The correlation between CO2 levels and world temps is
> poor. Remember correlations can be brought about by coincidences and are
> not necessarily demostrative of CAUSAL relationshipos they are as often as
> not CASUAL.
Excuse me. You know everything about your profession and the many things
that might interest you, hobbies, etc. But given that you have started your
sentence with the term "I am assuming", I categorically state that you know
nothing about the subject. As indeed, neither do most of us. We therefore
should listen to the experts. Comprende?
> Only in the 1970s many scientists were advocating that we should take
> active steps to warm the planet!
Over thirty years ago Berlin was devided, and many were running scared of
the communist and yellow peril. What a load of crap that turned out to be.
The Javanese did alright, playing the capitalist and communist cards, they
were granted "sovereignty" over the whole archipelago known today as
Indonesia. Cirque du soleil's nothing new really. The world's been a
frigging circus ever since we started roaming on it!
> An example- the entire world industrial output of greenhouse gases in ONE
> YEAR matches volcanic activity's output of greenhouse gases every SIX
> HOURS. Our output of said gases is a mere 0.07% of what nature is up to.
>
> Suppose you earn Aus$ 48,000 per annum. An 0.07% wage rise would see you
> earning an extra Aus$33.60 each year. Would you notice the difference?
our argument is that this is all a natural cycle and there's nothing we can
do about it. Why didn't you say that in the foirst place?
Lynx
Not when you're raised with the concept of an eye for an eye... :)) I find
the Buddhist an interesting lot, none of them seem to be half as canning as
the Indians.
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f05ta...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> . . and is THAT not the crux of the problem? Belief. Sod that! Belief
>> requires an act of faith in the absence of evidence. Give me evidence,
>> the best evidence you have, and I need not believe, I shall KNOW.
>
> Wooow! We cannot possibly know everything. So we rationalize and reason.
> Of course, we cannot forget that we are both rationale and spiritual
> beings.
> You get what I mean Marx?
We cannot know everything indeed - but why do we construct a belief system
for those things we do not know? Why can we just not accept the ignorance?
So, I really have no idea what the meaning of life is. Further, I don;t know
that there HAS to be a meaning to it. Therefore I do not seek meaning where
there may be none in some religious belief system which purports to know, or
pays obediance to one purported to know.
>
>> I am assuming nothing. I have seen the data. I need not BELIEVE in global
>> warming brought about by the burning of fossil fuels. I KNOW that SOME
>> warming can occur that way, but I also KNOW (having studied the EVIDENCE)
>> that solar activity has a greater bearing on the planet's temperatures
>> and weather patterns. The correlation between CO2 levels and world temps
>> is poor. Remember correlations can be brought about by coincidences and
>> are not necessarily demostrative of CAUSAL relationshipos they are as
>> often as not CASUAL.
>
> Excuse me. You know everything about your profession and the many things
> that might interest you, hobbies, etc. But given that you have started
> your sentence with the term "I am assuming", I categorically state that
> you know nothing about the subject. As indeed, neither do most of us. We
> therefore should listen to the experts. Comprende?
"I assume nothing" means that I have no preset ideas which I seek to
reinforce by being selective as to what evidence I gather and refer to. I
know what I know based on the evidence that I have come across, rather than
assume the herd has the answer and follow it blindly. Just because everyone
and his dog appears to be bleating on about global warming does not make
them correct, just as the establishment was at various times incorrect about
the earth being at the centre of the universe, that heavy things fell faster
than light things etc etc.
>
>> Only in the 1970s many scientists were advocating that we should take
>> active steps to warm the planet!
>
> Over thirty years ago Berlin was devided, and many were running scared of
> the communist and yellow peril. What a load of crap that turned out to be.
> The Javanese did alright, playing the capitalist and communist cards, they
> were granted "sovereignty" over the whole archipelago known today as
> Indonesia. Cirque du soleil's nothing new really. The world's been a
> frigging circus ever since we started roaming on it!
>
>> An example- the entire world industrial output of greenhouse gases in ONE
>> YEAR matches volcanic activity's output of greenhouse gases every SIX
>> HOURS. Our output of said gases is a mere 0.07% of what nature is up to.
>>
>> Suppose you earn Aus$ 48,000 per annum. An 0.07% wage rise would see you
>> earning an extra Aus$33.60 each year. Would you notice the difference?
>
> our argument is that this is all a natural cycle and there's nothing we
> can do about it. Why didn't you say that in the foirst place?
There is probably very little we can do indeed. Therefore enjoy your 4.8L
v8!
K
Lynx
>
> We cannot know everything indeed - but why do we construct a belief system
> for those things we do not know? Why can we just not accept the ignorance?
> So, I really have no idea what the meaning of life is. Further, I don;t
> know that there HAS to be a meaning to it. Therefore I do not seek meaning
> where there may be none in some religious belief system which purports to
> know, or pays obediance to one purported to know.
In part, you're preaching to the converted. Spirituality, like technology,
has a language and a rationale of its own. I read it somewhere that man
started believing in a superior entity when he realized the concept of
infinity. With our sciences we come close to understanding the elements,
little more.
> "I assume nothing" means that I have no preset ideas which I seek to
> reinforce by being selective as to what evidence I gather and refer to. I
> know what I know based on the evidence that I have come across, rather
> than assume the herd has the answer and follow it blindly. Just because
> everyone and his dog appears to be bleating on about global warming does
> not make them correct, just as the establishment was at various times
> incorrect about the earth being at the centre of the universe, that heavy
> things fell faster than light things etc etc.
The evidence shows the polar caps melting, our weather patterns' running
amok, species disapearing. In the midst of which we are ever more threatened
by viruses the likes of which humanity has not encountered before. As a
species we may well be under threat, yet you ask for more evidence. Whatever
the causes, the fact is that we're under the pump.
> There is probably very little we can do indeed. Therefore enjoy your 4.8L
> v8!
I've driven just about everything, but personally never went for a V8, the
most I ever had was a V6. Back in 1970 I used to put my point forward to
fellow aussies, that we should embrace the bicycle, together with better
planned residential and industrial regions, allowing for massive commuting
services between these two. They could see my point, but complacency has
always reigned in the land of plenty.
Ken
>> reinforce by being selective as to what evidence I gather and refer to. I
>> know what I know based on the evidence that I have come across, rather
>> than assume the herd has the answer and follow it blindly. Just because
>> everyone and his dog appears to be bleating on about global warming does
>> not make them correct, just as the establishment was at various times
>> incorrect about the earth being at the centre of the universe, that heavy
>> things fell faster than light things etc etc.
>
> The evidence shows the polar caps melting, our weather patterns' running
> amok, species disapearing. In the midst of which we are ever more
> threatened by viruses the likes of which humanity has not encountered
> before. As a species we may well be under threat, yet you ask for more
> evidence. Whatever the causes, the fact is that we're under the pump.
I do not doubt for one minute that there is climate change occurring - you
misunderstand or misinterpret me, or I misrepresent myself. What I am NOT
convinced - what I have seen no evidence for - is that the climate change
which is occurring is brought about by mankind's industrial pursuits or our
use of fossil fuels. These may have a part to play in the matter - a small
part - but by no means are our activities on the planet proved conclusively
to be even important drivers of the process. We are after all still emerging
from the last ice age to have gripped the northern hemisphere of our planet,
and frankly, in emergence from an ice age what do you expect should happen
if not a warming tendency?
Species may be becoming extinct. To attempt to ensure survival of all
species for all time is a pointless and ultimately exasperating pursuit.
Species have been coming and going from the face of our planet from the very
first moment that life started. It is the natural order of things. I put it
to you that there may have been different FORMS of life from that which we
currently experience. I don;t mean just species, or genera, phyla or even
kingdoms. I mean that there may have been different chemistries on which
life bases itself, distinct from our current experience. All we know is for
a DNA/RNA based method of replication and transission of characteristics.
EVERYTHING tat is alive or we know to have been alive conforms to this.
There MAY have been a time when a different chemical structure may have been
the basis of such transmission butu it may have been wiped out very early
on - at the time of a primordial soup - so that there is no fossil evidence.
Why should we cry over that loss? It happened, that's that. Nature has no
purpose. "Survival of the fittest" has no ultimate goal, it's an ongoing
process. If eventually everything becomes extinct it's because nothing was
fit to survive.
>
>> There is probably very little we can do indeed. Therefore enjoy your 4.8L
>> v8!
>
> I've driven just about everything, but personally never went for a V8, the
> most I ever had was a V6. Back in 1970 I used to put my point forward to
> fellow aussies, that we should embrace the bicycle, together with better
> planned residential and industrial regions, allowing for massive commuting
> services between these two. They could see my point, but complacency has
> always reigned in the land of plenty.
I hired a Cadillac deVille 4.8L v8 when in canada a few years ago. Very
comfortable, but as much performance as a 2CV. for performance, you have to
buy anything other than USA. Their notion of a more powwerful engine is a
bigger - and heavier - one. Whihc needs heftier brakes and abigger chassis
etc etc so that there is so much intertia the acceleration is pants. And I
mean "acceleration" in the engineering sense of the word i.e. they dont take
kindly to change of direction either - they dn;t go round corners very well.
K
Lynx
>
> I do not doubt for one minute that there is climate change occurring - you
> misunderstand or misinterpret me, or I misrepresent myself. What I am NOT
> convinced - what I have seen no evidence for - is that the climate change
> which is occurring is brought about by mankind's industrial pursuits or
> our use of fossil fuels. These may have a part to play in the matter - a
> small part - but by no means are our activities on the planet proved
> conclusively to be even important drivers of the process. We are after all
> still emerging from the last ice age to have gripped the northern
> hemisphere of our planet, and frankly, in emergence from an ice age what
> do you expect should happen if not a warming tendency?
There have been detractors of climate change and our need to change our
practices. But sceptics have been few and more recently they have come to
acknowledge our input into climate change and the need to address the issue.
I suppose the Kyoto Protocols to be a waste of time then.
> Species may be becoming extinct. To attempt to ensure survival of all
> species for all time is a pointless and ultimately exasperating pursuit.
> Species have been coming and going from the face of our planet from the
> very first moment that life started. It is the natural order of things. I
> put it to you that there may have been different FORMS of life from that
> which we currently experience. I don;t mean just species, or genera, phyla
> or even kingdoms. I mean that there may have been different chemistries on
> which life bases itself, distinct from our current experience. All we know
> is for a DNA/RNA based method of replication and transission of
> characteristics. EVERYTHING tat is alive or we know to have been alive
> conforms to this. There MAY have been a time when a different chemical
> structure may have been the basis of such transmission butu it may have
> been wiped out very early on - at the time of a primordial soup - so that
> there is no fossil evidence.
>
> Why should we cry over that loss? It happened, that's that. Nature has no
> purpose. "Survival of the fittest" has no ultimate goal, it's an ongoing
> process. If eventually everything becomes extinct it's because nothing was
> fit to survive.
You're not a fatalist, are you?
> I hired a Cadillac deVille 4.8L v8 when in canada a few years ago. Very
> comfortable, but as much performance as a 2CV. for performance, you have
> to buy anything other than USA. Their notion of a more powwerful engine is
> a bigger - and heavier - one. Whihc needs heftier brakes and abigger
> chassis etc etc so that there is so much intertia the acceleration is
> pants. And I mean "acceleration" in the engineering sense of the word i.e.
> they dont take kindly to change of direction either - they dn;t go round
> corners very well.
Well, yes, they do have the largest of everything now, don't they. You might
be interested in a book, came out some years ago, by Umberto Ecco on his
travels around the USA. Interesting reading.
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f0b62...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I do not doubt for one minute that there is climate change occurring -
>> you misunderstand or misinterpret me, or I misrepresent myself. What I am
>> NOT convinced - what I have seen no evidence for - is that the climate
>> change which is occurring is brought about by mankind's industrial
>> pursuits or our use of fossil fuels. These may have a part to play in the
>> matter - a small part - but by no means are our activities on the planet
>> proved conclusively to be even important drivers of the process. We are
>> after all still emerging from the last ice age to have gripped the
>> northern hemisphere of our planet, and frankly, in emergence from an ice
>> age what do you expect should happen if not a warming tendency?
>
> There have been detractors of climate change and our need to change our
> practices. But sceptics have been few and more recently they have come to
> acknowledge our input into climate change and the need to address the
> issue. I suppose the Kyoto Protocols to be a waste of time then.
IF the modification of our activities are to make any difference however
small, it is obvious that those whose activity is greatest need to be
on-message than those who do less, and those who do most are not playing
ball. What ever then is the point of the rest of us breaking our collective
skulls when manifestly we shall get nowhere? China's output of smoke in a
DAY is the same as the UK does in a year.
>
>> Species may be becoming extinct. To attempt to ensure survival of all
>> species for all time is a pointless and ultimately exasperating pursuit.
>> Species have been coming and going from the face of our planet from the
>> very first moment that life started. It is the natural order of things. I
>> put it to you that there may have been different FORMS of life from that
>> which we currently experience. I don;t mean just species, or genera,
>> phyla or even kingdoms. I mean that there may have been different
>> chemistries on which life bases itself, distinct from our current
>> experience. All we know is for a DNA/RNA based method of replication and
>> transission of characteristics. EVERYTHING tat is alive or we know to
>> have been alive conforms to this. There MAY have been a time when a
>> different chemical structure may have been the basis of such transmission
>> butu it may have been wiped out very early on - at the time of a
>> primordial soup - so that there is no fossil evidence.
>>
>> Why should we cry over that loss? It happened, that's that. Nature has no
>> purpose. "Survival of the fittest" has no ultimate goal, it's an ongoing
>> process. If eventually everything becomes extinct it's because nothing
>> was fit to survive.
>
> You're not a fatalist, are you?
There are things I can change, and there are things which I cannot. There
are things which are outside the realm of possibility of change by us as a
species, let alone a group of us.
>
>> I hired a Cadillac deVille 4.8L v8 when in canada a few years ago. Very
>> comfortable, but as much performance as a 2CV. for performance, you have
>> to buy anything other than USA. Their notion of a more powwerful engine
>> is a bigger - and heavier - one. Whihc needs heftier brakes and abigger
>> chassis etc etc so that there is so much intertia the acceleration is
>> pants. And I mean "acceleration" in the engineering sense of the word
>> i.e. they dont take kindly to change of direction either - they dn;t go
>> round corners very well.
>
> Well, yes, they do have the largest of everything now, don't they. You
> might be interested in a book, came out some years ago, by Umberto Ecco on
> his travels around the USA. Interesting reading.
Do you know of Clive James? One of your better exports. I saw an interview
of his when visiting the USA (he resides in the UK). He was asked by a smug
interviewer if there was any discernable differnece in the technological
nature of society in the US v "Yurp". Clive cleverly responded that yes
indeed it was v obviously the case that the USA was much more advanced than
"Yurp" as illustrated by how much larger Japanese cars the Americans drove
comapred to Europeans. It went over the interviewer's head.
K
Lynx
>
> IF the modification of our activities are to make any difference however
> small, it is obvious that those whose activity is greatest need to be
> on-message than those who do less, and those who do most are not playing
> ball. What ever then is the point of the rest of us breaking our
> collective skulls when manifestly we shall get nowhere? China's output of
> smoke in a DAY is the same as the UK does in a year.
Point taken.
> Do you know of Clive James? One of your better exports. I saw an interview
> of his when visiting the USA (he resides in the UK). He was asked by a
> smug interviewer if there was any discernable differnece in the
> technological nature of society in the US v "Yurp". Clive cleverly
> responded that yes indeed it was v obviously the case that the USA was
> much more advanced than "Yurp" as illustrated by how much larger Japanese
> cars the Americans drove comapred to Europeans. It went over the
> interviewer's head.
Of course I do Clive James, he's most entertaining and witty. Ha ha ha!! How
typical an encounter! The 'interviewer' would never have had a chance! One
has to wonder, why it that we allow our young to be bombarded with the
daily-hourly TV and other media crap that emanates from such 'cultures'. :)
Ken
>> interview of his when visiting the USA (he resides in the UK). He was
>> asked by a smug interviewer if there was any discernable differnece in
>> the technological nature of society in the US v "Yurp". Clive cleverly
>> responded that yes indeed it was v obviously the case that the USA was
>> much more advanced than "Yurp" as illustrated by how much larger Japanese
>> cars the Americans drove comapred to Europeans. It went over the
>> interviewer's head.
>
> Of course I do Clive James, he's most entertaining and witty. Ha ha ha!!
> How typical an encounter! The 'interviewer' would never have had a chance!
> One has to wonder, why it that we allow our young to be bombarded with the
> daily-hourly TV and other media crap that emanates from such 'cultures'.
> :)
Oone thing which the USA is doing far better in entertainment circles than
it used to is comedy. There was a time when all they could do was a sit-com,
which was often entirely played out in the living room of the fictional
family in question. Of late they've come a very long way, or perhaps it's
just an individual company or two. Series such as Ally McBeal and Boston
Legal immediately spring to mind - and curiously both set in the legal
profession as a backdrop and both by the same production company.
K
Lynx
Nothing but nothing compares to the true 'dry British humour'. Fortunately
this is a trait which we still see today, despite some eventful crap coming
out of the UK lately. As for the yanks, they're best at slapstick, action
and second to none when it comes to special effects. Their tv comedy series,
with the exception of the simpsons and sth park, do little for me. But don't
get me wrong, I'm not a tv person anyway.
Ken
Try Futurama. Simpsons for grown ups. As to South Park, while not easily
shocked nor a prude, I find as often as not they try to raise a laugh simply
by being crude - which is not necessarily funny by dint of being crude.
K
Lynx
>
> Try Futurama. Simpsons for grown ups. As to South Park, while not easily
> shocked nor a prude, I find as often as not they try to raise a laugh
> simply by being crude - which is not necessarily funny by dint of being
> crude.
Seen Futurama, quite funny too. Like I said I'm not a tv person, I only
catch these shows on the hop.
Been reading some chronicles related to Gib ante and post 1704, our families
names were already well established in the vicinity since ancient times. A
most interesting read.