Honest Environmental Manifesto

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 3:45:51 PM7/22/06
to

I'm an Environmentalist.

I want to Save the Earth!

Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.

Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
visit or live or work in the future.

I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
polluted!

And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!

And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
order to make all the stuff I want.

Alan

--
See my headers.

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 3:59:52 PM7/22/06
to
Alan - I'm a little unsure what your point is, here.

Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their own
excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing the planet
with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?

Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are hypocrites
or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore it's fine to ignore
what they're saying, and to keep wrecking large pieces of the planet?

If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of whom are
upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job - as a green
radical, I have to agree with you.

If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as everyone else
on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's okay for the work to
ignore problems like global climate change and the destruction of the
world's fisheries - I think you're not showing good judgment.

A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in the coal
mine.

The point of having a canary in the coal mine is not to learn superior
morality and ethical behavior from the bird -- it's to have a warning
system against disaster. Environmentalists clearly don't have to be
morally perfect -- which we're not, of course -- to be providing the
world with an urgent warning against disaster.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 5:16:51 PM7/22/06
to
On uk.environment, in
<1153598392.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "john
fernbach" wrote:

Top posting corrected. Please put your comments after the
material you are responding to. Makes for much more readable
articles, eh?

>
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> I'm an Environmentalist.
>>
>> I want to Save the Earth!
>>
>> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth
>> after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>>
>> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
>> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang
>> out, and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might
>> want to visit or live or work in the future.
>>
>> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
>> polluted!
>>
>> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and
>> yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
>> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
>> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>>
>> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any
>> of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet
>> in order to make all the stuff I want.

John,

> Alan - I'm a little unsure what your point is, here.
>
> Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their
> own excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing
> the planet with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?

Close enough. And very perceptive.

>
> Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are
> hypocrites or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore
> it's fine to ignore what they're saying, and to keep wrecking
> large pieces of the planet?
>

Again, you are right on the money (so-to-speak...).

But you are also implying that the 'environmentalists' are doing
something that is saving the planet, and they are not.

The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
them.

They want to have their Earth and eat it too, and that won't
work.

They simply will not accept the obvious fact that this
civilization/culture/economy is _based_ on trashing the planet to
turn resources into material things.

The only thing that will save the planet is to quit trashing
it, and they cannot do that or even advocate that.

After all, they have a lot material expectations, don't they?
And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations
who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
out from under them.

I do realize that there are many educated, intelligent,
dedicated, and hard working people in the environmental movement
who really believe that they are saving the planet.

But they aren't, and this is obvious as hell.

It is being trashed at a faster rate, every year now, with China
and India and Russia successfully adopting variants of the Middle
Class American lifestyle.

With the very active help of the Corporations that finance
the 'environmental' movement. And the help of all the
'environmentalists' who love all that investment income and all
those cheap goods. And work for those Coporations, directly or
indirectly.

> If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of
> whom are upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job
> - as a green radical, I have to agree with you.

It's obvious that you aren't one of them. You have your mind
open.

>
> If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as
> everyone else on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's
> okay for the work to ignore problems like global climate change
> and the destruction of the world's fisheries - I think you're
> not showing good judgment.

No. I don't mean that at all. I'm just saying that if we don't
radically change how we live, then the fate of a people who
trash the environment they depend on is going to be ours.

It's looking like increased competition for resources and
ecosystem services (cheap labor and markets too) have already
started WWIII, which is probably what will cause the collapse of
Industrial Civilization, which is a house of cards in its most
stable state.

>
> A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in
> the coal mine.

Talking about it is the first step.

But if it's also the last, then nothing is accomplished.

>
> The point of having a canary in the coal mine is not to learn
> superior morality and ethical behavior from the bird -- it's
> to have a warning system against disaster. Environmentalists
> clearly don't have to be morally perfect -- which we're not,
> of course -- to be providing the world with an urgent warning
> against disaster.

Sure.

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 5:22:53 PM7/22/06
to
Alan Connor throws fecalballs at the newsgroup Like A Monkey in a Zoo.

Alan Connor wrote:

> The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
> real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
> them.

> And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations


> who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
> out from under them.

Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy Research
Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received
$95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.


KOCH OIL Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and
Liberty = $212,500
KOCH OIL Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research = $50,000
KOCH OIL Funding American Legislative Exchange Council = $393,000
KOCH OIL Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Aspen Institute = $1,115,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $20,000
KOCH OIL Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation = $68,500
KOCH OIL Funding Brookings Institution = $829,400
KOCH OIL Funding Cato Institute = $12,999,240
KOCH OIL Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$12,906,712
KOCH OIL Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute = $666,420
KOCH OIL Funding Consumer Alert = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $55,000
KOCH OIL Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies = $1,262,200
KOCH OIL Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and the
Environment (FREE) = $1,205,500
KOCH OIL Funding Fraser Institute = $23,221
KOCH OIL Funding Free Enterprise Education Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $30,000
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University = $4,753,754
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc. =
$19,194,643
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane
Studies = $3,111,457
KOCH OIL Funding Heartland Institute = $77,578
KOCH OIL Funding Heritage Foundation = $1,952,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace =
$5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $32,650
KOCH OIL Funding Independent Institute = $160,000
KOCH OIL Funding Institute for Energy Research = $62,000
KOCH OIL Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy = $5,000
KOCH OIL Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research = $575,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Institute = $80,000
KOCH OIL Funding Media Research Center = $975
KOCH OIL Funding Mercatus Center, George Mason University = $427,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $517,000
KOCH OIL Funding National Environmental Policy Institute = $12,500
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $10,000
KOCH OIL Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy =
$1,070,800
KOCH OIL Funding Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) =
$135,000
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Foundation = $2,231,212
KOCH OIL Funding Reason Public Policy Institute = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Tech Central Science Foundation = $25,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Justice Foundation = $40,000
KOCH OIL Funding Texas Public Policy Foundation = $110,874
KOCH OIL Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $602,500

OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research = $7,022,124
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Legislative Exchange
Council = $215,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Americans for Tax Reform
Foundation = $525,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation =
$210,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlas Economic Research
Foundation = $5,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Brookings Institution =
$1,217,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation =
$150,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Media and Public
Affairs = $730,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Security Policy =
$261,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Strategic and
International Studies = $2,112,318
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy
Foundation = $1,375,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Competitive Enterprise
Institute = $230,300
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Consumer Alert = $28,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Federalist Society for Law and
Public Policy Studies = $4,008,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding for ASCH = $865,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Foundation for Research on
Economics and the Environment (FREE) = $484,250
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Fraser Institute = $10,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute =
$350,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University =
$6,665,824
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University
Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heritage Foundation =
$8,320,835
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hoover Institution on War,
Revolution and Peace = $5,015,660
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. =
$3,034,840
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Independent Institute =
$65,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding John Locke Institute = $15,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation =
$320,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research = $4,899,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Media Institute = $148,750
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Policy
Analysis = $1,069,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Public
Policy Research, Inc = $100,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The
Public Interest = $63,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Wilderness Institute
=$25,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation =
$75,200
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation =
$665,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Research Institute for
Public Policy = $735,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Property and Environment
Research Center (PERC) = $640,775
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Reason Foundation = $276,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation
= $145,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation =
$2,460,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Weidenbaum Center = $94,650
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Media Research Center = $495,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason
University = $80,000


SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Accuracy in Media, Inc. = $4,075,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Acton Institute For The Study of Religion
and Liberty = $565,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Council on Science and Health =
$205,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research = $6,251,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding American Legislative Exchange Council =
$1,545,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation =
$700,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $1,530,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation =
$2,325,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $425,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Cato Institute = $2,057,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Media and Public Affairs =
$1,272,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Security Policy = $4,001,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Strategic and International
Studies = $8,443,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change = $100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation =
$2,335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow =
$1,020,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute =
$1,800,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Defenders of Property Rights = $1,265,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies = $,980,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and
the Environment (FREE) = $1,405,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Fraser Institute = $275,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $2,827,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heartland Institute = $335,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Heritage Foundation = $22,296,640
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace = $9,768,900
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $3,329,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $6,260,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mackinac Center for Public Policy =
$100,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research =
$3,813,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Institute = $645,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Media Research Center = $1,652,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Mountain States Legal Foundation =
$280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis =
$2,010,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Public Policy
Research = $925,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Legal Center for The Public
Interest = $125,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding New England Legal Foundation = $855,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $3,280,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public
Policy = $2,472,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Property and Environment Research Center
(PERC) = $2,292,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Reason Foundation = $2,043,500
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation =
$1,750,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $3,870,000


White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Acton Institute
For The Study of Religion and Liberty = $166,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research = $448,800
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Atlas Economic
Research Foundation = $1,524,742
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Cato Institute
= $217,600
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Center for Media
and Public Affairs = $110,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Citizens for a
Sound Economy Foundation = $35,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Competitive
Enterprise Institute = $90,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Defenders of
Property Rights = $7,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Federalist
Society for Law and Public Policy Studies = $380,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George C.
Marshall Institute = $100,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
Universit = $980,155
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
University (Arlington) = $59,500
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace = $380,474
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Hudson
Institute, Inc. = $71,783
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Independent
Institute = $58,095
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Institute for
Energy Research = $5,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Institute of
Economic Affairs = $542,291
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding John Locke
Institute = $5,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Mackinac Center
for Public Policy = $113,300
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research = $315,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Center
for Policy Analysis = $35,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Center
for Public Policy Research = $25,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding National Legal
Center for The Public Interest = $63,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Legal
Foundation = $10,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy = $134,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Property and
Environment Research Center (PERC) = $386,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding Reason
Foundation = $10,000

--- http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/kochaggregate.php
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=13
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7
--- http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php

R Philip Dowds

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 5:59:07 PM7/22/06
to
There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel as you do.
Mostly, however, they do not call themselves environmentalists. They
call themselves fundamentalists, I think. Or maybe Republicans?

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 6:44:23 PM7/22/06
to
On uk.environment, in <1153603373.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:

Sure. It's all somebody else's fault. You and all of the scores
of millions of people like you, who couldn't live as you do
without cheap oil, don't have anything to do with it.

You _are_ an Exxon stockholder/investor, Fool. Through your
insurance company(s) or pension fund or bank, etc.

And no Corporation could exist for a week without customers.

You need to sue yourself, Fool.

Make that "Obnoxious Fool".

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

You are denied permission to send articles to my newsreader via
the Usenet. Nor will any responses to them be downloaded.

Regardless of which alias you are cowering behind at the moment
with your tail between your legs where your balls should be.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 6:44:24 PM7/22/06
to
On uk.environment, in
<Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
Dowds" wrote:


> There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
> as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
> environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
> think. Or maybe Republicans?
>


Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.

And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
dares to disagree with him.

You needn't bother posting to me again. I won't be downloading
your articles from the server.

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
R Philip Dowds
Results 1 - 86 of 86 posts in the last year
1 alt.agriculture
1 alt.california
1 alt.coffee
1 alt.conspiracy
1 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
9 alt.global-warming
1 alt.law-enforcement
1 alt.org.sierra-club
1 alt.politics.bush
2 alt.politics.democrats
3 alt.politics.greens
1 alt.politics.usa.republican
3 misc.headlines
10 ne.general
18 ne.general.selected
6 ne.politics
2 rec.backcountry
2 sci.energy.hydrogen
8 sci.environment
1 sci.med.diseases.cancer
1 sci.physics
1 soc.culture.usa
1 soc.retirement
1 talk.bizarre
8 talk.environment
1 talk.politics.misc

I thought your posting history looked weird. This certainly
isn't your only alias.

But not to worry. None of your other ones will make it past
my newsfilter either. Trust me here. I eat trolls for
breakfast.

<snip>

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 6:53:19 PM7/22/06
to

Alan Connor wrote:

> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
>
> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 7:46:45 PM7/22/06
to
On uk.environment, in <1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:

> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>

When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
between Left and Right.

Except in their rhetoric.

They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
the same ecological footprint within an economic class.

The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
really _want_ to save the planet.

But they want all of their material priveleges a
_whole_lot_more_.

Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.

They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.

They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
their tanks after the protest.

And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
profitable oil stocks and bonds. Or their pension fund does it
for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
Big Oil too.

And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
company to their environmental org? Not a chance.

Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?

They cost a bundle.

The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
the planet or not. They are going to take what they want and die
and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.

But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
any different outcome, so how are they different?

In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
an incredible rate.

-------------------

To the clueless hypocrite whose subject line I responded to
above:

You won't be able to suppress my right to free speech. Really.

I'll post what I want and you'll live with it, and your articles
will be left on the server.

No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
post anything you want.

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 7:54:57 PM7/22/06
to
Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor Flings Fecesballs at the newsgroup and
runs away, like a Monkey in a Zoo.

Alan Connor wrote:

> No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
> post anything you want.
>
> Alan


OK. I want to post this:

Sun Myung Moon's Gun-Running and Olin's Right Winger Ammo Smuggling
linked to Anti-Environmentalism.

The crazed psychopathic killers will tell any lie to keep flowing
weaponry into Bush Wars and bushwars. Keeping people-with-consciences
occupied defending Global Warming Science keeps the heat off of the
gunmen's suppliers. While both MOON and OLIN have pollution concerns,
and anti-environmental axes to grind, they support the petrochemical
lobby on Global Warming obfuscation in exchange for return favors to
keep the peaceniks helpless, using the exact same network of propaganda
mills, think tank$ and in$titute$.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/analysis/1101moon.htm
One piece of the Moon corporate puzzle, Kahr Arms, manufactures weapons
at a factory in Worcester, Massachusetts. Justin Moon, son of Sun Myung
Moon, serves as the Chief Executive Officer. (60) The Kahr website says
that the younger Moon designed the ultra-compact Kahr semi-automatic
pistol, a popular product which is "designed for concealed carry."
(61) In 1999 Kahr expanded by buying additional weapons lines from
Numrich Arms, including both handguns and the famous Thomson submachine
gun known as the "Tommy Gun," a weapon best-known for its use by
gangsters in the 1920s but still selling in modernized versions.

Kahr Arms is a part of Saeilo USA whose operations include a machine
tool and machining company with facilities in four states. (62) The
corporate parent, Saeilo Inc., a large international group
headquartered in Blauvelt, N.Y., is believed to be owned by One Up
Enterprises(63) The Moon organization also manufactures arms such as
M-16 automatic rifles in other countries, including Korea and Japan,
and it has acted as a dealer for arms exports and imports to and from
Korea, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. (64) Tongil [or Tong Il]
Heavy Industries of Korea, a branch of Saeilo, says on its web site
that it manufactures anti-aircraft canon, heavy machine guns, mine
launchers, decoy systems and parts for armored vehicles. (65) The mine
launcher is designed for land mines, a type of weapon now almost
universally condemned.


(Source ---
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7 ---)
OLIN = Winchester Arms, Black Talon Bullets, Dioxins, Chlorine, DDT
puppetmaster.

OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding ASCH = $865,500

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 8:16:30 PM7/22/06
to
In message <slrnec55b9....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes

>On uk.environment, in
><1153598392.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "john
>fernbach" wrote:

>> Are you challenging honest environmentalists to confront their
>> own excessive consumption, and to do a better job of sharing
>> the planet with black, brown, and other nonwhite people?
>
>Close enough. And very perceptive.
>
>
>> Or are you mostly saying that too many environmentalists are
>> hypocrites or otherwise flawed human beings - and therefore
>> it's fine to ignore what they're saying, and to keep wrecking
>> large pieces of the planet?
>
>Again, you are right on the money (so-to-speak...).
>
>But you are also implying that the 'environmentalists' are doing
>something that is saving the planet, and they are not.

Depends what you mean by "saving the planet".

Seems to me that the planet is just fine. It's the green and pink scum
in the ecosystems on the surface that's in trouble.


>The so-called 'environmentalists' are the biggest impediment to
>real environmentalism on the planet, because people believe in
>them.

I'm not at all sure that the 'believe them', never mind 'believe in
them'.

And even if they are believed, what's the problem ? Especially where
they are correct ?


>They want to have their Earth and eat it too, and that won't
>work.

Environmentalists need much the same tools as everybody else to do what
they do. That doesn't mean that their observations are inaccurate, or
their interpretations incorrect.


>They simply will not accept the obvious fact that this
>civilization/culture/economy is _based_ on trashing the planet to
>turn resources into material things.

As far as I can see, all the numerate ones accept it, but maybe you are
making the mistake of lumping all environmentalists together in your
mind, and making hopelessly naive assumptions about what they think and
how ?


>The only thing that will save the planet is to quit trashing
>it, and they cannot do that or even advocate that.

Errrrrr... Well as far as I can see, pretty much most of them do.

What planet are you on ?


>After all, they have a lot material expectations, don't they?

They generally choose to live more modestly than most of their
neighbours, but not necessarily like church mice. Nor do they generally
commit suicide to reduce their environmental impact.


>And if they advocated minimizing consumption, the Corporations
>who finance them through charitable donations would pull the rug
>out from under them.

Doesn't sound as if you've heard of ideas like 'contraction and
convergence' yet.


>I do realize that there are many educated, intelligent,
>dedicated, and hard working people in the environmental movement
>who really believe that they are saving the planet.
>
>But they aren't, and this is obvious as hell.

There is a difference between succeeding you your goal, and working to
achieve it.

Environmentalists may be acting to 'save the planet', and their actions
may be consistent with that. But that doesn't mean that people will
want to hear their message even when it's correct, never mind act upon
it.

As it was once put at a meeting I attended,

"it may not be about saving the earth, so much as
going down with dignity...".


>It is being trashed at a faster rate, every year now, with China
>and India and Russia successfully adopting variants of the Middle
>Class American lifestyle.

:) They are no where near a Middle Class American lifestyle yet, nor
will there necessarily ever be the resources to get them there !


>With the very active help of the Corporations that finance
>the 'environmental' movement.

Can't think of any that finance it much round here !


> And the help of all the
>'environmentalists' who love all that investment income

All which investment income ?


> and all
>those cheap goods. And work for those Coporations, directly or
>indirectly.

We all like cheap goods - environmentalists are not alone in that, so
if you are trying to imply some criticism, I think you are out of luck
unless you can show that the purchasing decisions of the 'environmental
community' are actually less ethical than the wider population ?


>> If you're challenging most Western environmentalists, many of
>> whom are upper-middle-class and white, to do a much better job
>> - as a green radical, I have to agree with you.
>
>It's obvious that you aren't one of them. You have your mind
>open.

Well, he may still be an environmentalist by his definition, though
perhaps not by yours. Maybe you should open your mind to the breadth,
diversity, and very wide range of skills and skill sets within the
environmental community ?


>> If you're saying that we're just as imperfect morally as
>> everyone else on the planet, however, and that "THEREFORE" it's
>> okay for the work to ignore problems like global climate change
>> and the destruction of the world's fisheries - I think you're
>> not showing good judgment.
>
>No. I don't mean that at all. I'm just saying that if we don't
>radically change how we live, then the fate of a people who
>trash the environment they depend on is going to be ours.

Ours ? Who are the WE here ?

You mean that the unethical mass of consumers and greedy corporates will
destroy the back yard of the righteous ?

Yup ! Sounds about right !


>It's looking like increased competition for resources and
>ecosystem services (cheap labor and markets too) have already
>started WWIII,

Hmmmm... That might be a premature conclusion...


> which is probably what will cause the collapse of
>Industrial Civilization,

Some risk of that.


> which is a house of cards in its most
>stable state.

OK. Now you're beginning to sound like an environmentalist, (or
economist), your self !


>> A lot of environmentalists think of ourselves as canaries in
>> the coal mine.
>
>Talking about it is the first step.
>
>But if it's also the last, then nothing is accomplished.

But it's not the last.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 8:46:25 PM7/22/06
to
In message <slrnec5dm6....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes

>On uk.environment, in
><1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
>EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
>
>When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
>between Left and Right.

Well, there are certainly people with differing environmental
performances in both camps, but left and right are very blunt
instruments when it comes to describing environmental perceptions and
attitudes.


>Except in their rhetoric.

If it's a cross cutting issue, what do you expect ?


>They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
>the same ecological footprint within an economic class.

But the distribution of economic classes may be different.


>The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
>really _want_ to save the planet.

And the right have any more clue ??


>But they want all of their material priveleges a
>_whole_lot_more_.

And indeed to do anything very effective in our society, you probably do
need access to phone, internet, a car etc. Though maybe the
environmentalist will tend to get a smaller one.


>Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
>strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
>giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
>
>They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.

Well - in some situations mass transit works really well, but there a
vast raft of transport problems it doesn't address well. What do you
expect ?


>They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
>their tanks after the protest.

Yes - but maybe with smaller cars they will use less and have a smaller
environmental footprint ?


>And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
>profitable oil stocks and bonds.

Some will and some won't. There is an ethical investment market, over
here at least.


> Or their pension fund does it
>for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
>Big Oil too.

Quite so, but short of dropping out of society altogether, there's not
much they can do about that. It's a matter of having what influence you
can, and not giving up because you can't influence everything.


>And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
>company to their environmental org? Not a chance.

This is just tosh. There are plenty of sound grass roots environmental
groups who won't accept money from oil.


>Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?

A few are like that. Most I know can't afford that sort of thing, and
the few that can choose not to.


>They cost a bundle.

Though carbon may be the bigger 'cost'.


>The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
>the planet or not.

A perilous generalisation.


> They are going to take what they want and die
>and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
>
>But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
>any different outcome, so how are they different?

:) With reduced consumption, the L will take longer to screw it up
totally.


>In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
>both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
>an incredible rate.

A good sound bite, but maybe your bird would fly in circles.


J/.
--
John Beardmore

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 9:04:36 PM7/22/06
to
Excuse the top posting, but I'm responding to your whole message, I
think.

To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"

You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
correct things, or aren't doing enough. Okay ..we'll accept that for
the sake of argument.

Well - so What Is to Be Done?

In your opinion, that is.
------------

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 9:10:50 PM7/22/06
to
In message <1153616676.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes

>Excuse the top posting,

I find it hard...


> but I'm responding to your whole message, I
>think.

So post at the bottom ?


>To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
>consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"
>
>You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
>correct things,

If so, what would have them do ?


> or aren't doing enough.

Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
disingenuous unless

a) they are doing less than the rest of the population

which clearly isn't the case, or

b) they are doing less than you

which isn't easy to see from here.

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 9:20:23 PM7/22/06
to
It seems to me that the rival charges of "throwing fecalballs" and
"cowering" with one's balls between one's legs don't add a damned thing
to this discussion, frankly.

Why don't we just drop all of the personal insults and counter-insults
as NOISE, therefore.

As for Alan's accusations that we're "all stockholders" of Exxon Mobil
... uh, what's the point here?

Are you saying THEREFORE, as "stockholders," we should cheerfully go
along with Exxon Mobil and its competitors and colleagues in the fossil
fuel industry continuing to trash the planet?

If not, Alan, what are you saying?

Again, the question is, if the mainstream environmental groups aren't
doing the
right things -- a debatable point, but a point -- what SHOULD they and
we be doing?

All of the blame game to the side --
"What Is to Be Done"?

--------------------


Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1153603373.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
>
> Sure. It's all somebody else's fault. You and all of the scores
> of millions of people like you, who couldn't live as you do
> without cheap oil, don't have anything to do with it.

Well, it's a problem, admittedly. I certainly try not to minimize my
use of Exxon products
by not driving a car, and by mostly going without AC this hot summer in
Washington, D.C., and by unfortunately not having any insurance at the
moment.


>
> You _are_ an Exxon stockholder/investor, Fool. Through your
> insurance company(s) or pension fund or bank, etc.

There's a difference between being A, a customer, and B, a
stockholder/investor.

And there's also a difference between being a "stockholder/investor"
and being a
VOTING stockholder/investor.

Are you recommending that those of us with pensions from pension funds
invested in
the big oil companies also do our best to help the "investor
responsibility" groups -- radical
Catholic nuns, etc. -- to challenge the decisions of corporate
management at
stockholders' meetings?

Or are you just saying "we're all guilty ... THEREFORE let's allow
Exxon Mobil to do whatever it damn well wants, and too bad about the
environment"?

> And no Corporation could exist for a week without customers.

Granting that we're all energy users, and therefore in a sense "Exxon
Mobil" supporters -- we still don't do much to shape corporate
policies, which tend to be set by corporate management
or the holders of the biggest blocks of stock -- the Rockefeller
family, maybe, or corporate
raiders like Warren Buffett and George Soros, tc.

So what about a campaign to have the government nationalize Exxon, and
put the EPA on the board of a reorganized public/private corporation,
along with representatives of some leading environmental groups and
consumer protection groups? That would give the average American
voter/American consumer a real voice in running this corporation, which
has such an overwhelming effect -- not just on the profits of
stockholders, but also on the environment, the American economy, and
the profitability of so many other private corporations and industries.

In a sense, what you're saying is that Exxon, by its sheer size, is in
reality a "public" enterprise, not a strictly private one. Exxon is
"all of us," according to your logic. So shouldn't all of us have
equal votes in deciding how it should be run?

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 9:30:06 PM7/22/06
to
John - when I have a little money, I contribute to the mainstream
environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them. Although I do
criticize them from time to time

But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.

So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?


John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <1153616676.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
> fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >Excuse the top posting,
>
> I find it hard...
>
>
> > but I'm responding to your whole message, I
> >think.
>
> So post at the bottom ?

Is that any better? I was trained as a journalist, at least somewhat.
And in journalism, you want to have a "gripping lead." You want to get
your main point across in the first paragraph. Or you at least want to
say something interesting enough in your first paragraph to keep people
reading.

If the internet etiquette is to weave comments and counter-comments in
among the texts, which people have already ready, I can do that, too.


>
> >To quote the title of one of Lenin's books, although I don't currently
> >consider myself a Leninist, "What is to be done?"
> >
> >You're saying that the mainstream environmentalists aren't doing the
> >correct things,
>
> If so, what would have them do ?
>
>
> > or aren't doing enough.
>
> Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
> disingenuous unless
>
> a) they are doing less than the rest of the population
>
> which clearly isn't the case, or
>
> b) they are doing less than you
>
> which isn't easy to see from here.

John - I don't know if you're responding to me, or responding to Alan.
If you're responding to me, I guess I didn't communicate my message
that well. I'm not
especially antagonistic to mainstream environmental groups -- and as I
indicated above, I give them small donations when I can. I think they
perform an essential function in keeping the global environment from
being trashed worse than it already is.
>
Alan, on the other hand, is damning "environmentalists" in general for
being ineffective, or hypocritical, or just generally bad. I want to
know -- what's his alternative? What should people be doing?

Seems like this is your concern, too, right?

Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 9:54:12 PM7/22/06
to
Windbag Fernback teases the Zoo Monkeys to Fling more fecalballs into
the newsgroup.

john fernbach wrote:
> John - when I have a little money, I contribute to the mainstream
> environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them. Although I do
> criticize them from time to time
>
> But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
> undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.
>
> So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?

His proposed alternative is to throw balls of shit at the newsgroup --
can't you read you freaking moron?

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 10:06:22 PM7/22/06
to
I'm not sure at this point whether I'm responding to Alan or to John,
or both.

But I'd like to suggest that SOME environmentalists in fact do use mass
transit,
and don't fly to Costa Rica on vacations, and don't have any major
investments in the oil companies.

And since we don't own cars, we don't put our bicycles on top of the
car and then drive to a place where we bicycle -- because we don't
drive to those places.

However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
very radical sense?

Or are you just saying that because Al Gore, for example, has owned an
SUV and has flown places on jetliners, THEREFORE he can't say anything
about the environment?

-----


John Beardmore wrote:
> In message <slrnec5dm6....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
> <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes
> >On uk.environment, in
> ><1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
> >EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
> ><article not downloaded:
> >http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> >
> >> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
> >
> >When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
> >between Left and Right.

Depends on WHICH "left" and "right" you're discussing, I think.
Historically, I think, many Marxist socialists of the 1850 - 1950
period were in fact just as "pro-development," pro-industry, and
dedicated to the "conquest of Nature" as the most enthusiastic
capitalists.

Some of us on the Green left have been working to change that, however.
And I think there's a new crop of anarchists (Andre Gorz, Murray
Bookchin), European and Australian social democrats (Australian
eco-writer Hugh Stretton) and even some Marxist socialists (James
O'Connor, "Nature and Socialism" magazine) who are working to get a
greener outlook.


> Well, there are certainly people with differing environmental
> performances in both camps, but left and right are very blunt
> instruments when it comes to describing environmental perceptions and
> attitudes.
>
>
> >Except in their rhetoric.
>
> If it's a cross cutting issue, what do you expect ?
>
>
> >They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
> >the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
>
> But the distribution of economic classes may be different.
>
>
> >The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
> >really _want_ to save the planet.

Depends on who you're talking about on the Left, I think. If you're
one of the Leftists who is out to save the planet, however - well,
congratulations. Keep up the good work.

Insulting the average member of the Sierra Club or the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds on the grounds that they're not as "pure"
as you are, however ,may not be the best way to spread the green
leftist gospel. In fact, it may get your ideas hated.

> And the right have any more clue ??
>
>
> >But they want all of their material priveleges a
> >_whole_lot_more_.

"They" -- being who? ALL of them?
Or 90%? 60%?

>
> And indeed to do anything very effective in our society, you probably do
> need access to phone, internet, a car etc. Though maybe the
> environmentalist will tend to get a smaller one.

Alan - do you have any figures on how polluting/destructive these
different commodities and services are?

For example - you don't NEED a car in many places. Especially not if
you live in a major city with mass transit. Although this probably
will mean that you inadvertently pollute in some other ways.

Telephone service isn't all that energy-intensive, I believe. Although
I may be wrong on this.

Internet -- I believe the energy analysts are discovering that Internet
use is quite energy-hungry. If only because it forces the electric
power companies to maintain a very constant stream of power running
through their lines, so as not to cause surges in power that damage
computers or shut Internet connections down.

Does anyone here have the technical knowledge about IN, computer power
needs and the electric power grid to comment on this topic, one way or
another?


>
> >Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
> >strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
> >giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.

Well, Alan, some of us gave up cars 10, 20 or 30 years and haven't gone
back.
Although I know I cheat by taking cabs. But in a big city with a good
mass transit
system, you don't really need a car to get around.

Secondly, if you as an environmentalist live in a place where you DO
need a car,
or think you do, there's still a difference beween constantly driving
it to go nearly everywhere, and economizing on your driving time as
much as possible. You might live in a place where you drive to the
grocery store and to work, for example, but don't choose to take the
car on long vacations. Or to drive around aimlessly for fun.


> >
> >They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.

Speak for yourself, Alan. I use mass transit and have been using it in
Washington DC for about 25 years now. And I'm not alone in riding on
the buses and the subway here. Especially at rush hour, the buses and
the metro are crowded.

> Well - in some situations mass transit works really well, but there a
> vast raft of transport problems it doesn't address well. What do you
> expect ?
>
>
> >They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
> >their tanks after the protest.

Those of us who don't own cars don't actually do that, Alan. If you're
expressing
a wish that more people who denounce Big Oil also try to avoid using
the product - I agree with you.

> Yes - but maybe with smaller cars they will use less and have a smaller
> environmental footprint ?
>
>
> >And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
> >profitable oil stocks and bonds.
>
> Some will and some won't. There is an ethical investment market, over
> here at least.

In the US there are ethical investment funds, too. Some of us rely on
them.


>
> > Or their pension fund does it
> >for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
> >Big Oil too.
>
> Quite so, but short of dropping out of society altogether, there's not
> much they can do about that. It's a matter of having what influence you
> can, and not giving up because you can't influence everything.
>
>
> >And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
> >company to their environmental org? Not a chance.


> This is just tosh. There are plenty of sound grass roots environmental
> groups who won't accept money from oil.
>
>
> >Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?

Alan - the whole questions of "eco vacations" is a little dicier and
trickier than it first appears.

If you go to East Africa and look at the big game parks for lions,
elephants, rhinos, giraffes, etc. that they have over in Kenya and
Tanzania, you'll find that these animal preserves survive through ...
eco tourism. Before they attracted lots of Western tourists armed with
cameras, they attracted members of the super-rich armed with rifles,
and fees generated by Kenyan hunting safaris -- along with the shooting
of elephants for their ivory -- was essential to the funding of the
East African wildlife agencies.

It's an increasingly crowded planet, and poor people living in the
neighorhood of the East Africa, Costa Rican and East Indian game parks
and national parks need to have some way of making a living from the
preservation of these wild lands .. because if they can't get any kind
of income from preserving the animals or preserving the landscape,
they're just as likely to shoot the animals for food, or for ivory to
sell on the black market. Or they're likely to invade the parks and
start doing farming there.

"Eco Tourism" at its best is a way of generating revenues from the
preservation of wild landscapes, or semi-wild landscapes, in order to
give the poor citizens of East Africa, India, Costa Rica etc. an
incentive to support conservation.

I agree that the jet fuel used to get people to the parks is an
environmental problem. But simply condemning "nature tourism"
automatically, as some kind of indulgence for spoiled rich people,
misses the point that this kind of tourism is important in making
conservation more or less "economic" for these countries.

> A few are like that. Most I know can't afford that sort of thing, and
> the few that can choose not to.
>
>
> >They cost a bundle.
>
> Though carbon may be the bigger 'cost'.
>
>
> >The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
> >the planet or not.
>
> A perilous generalisation.
>
>
> > They are going to take what they want and die
> >and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
> >
> >But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
> >any different outcome, so how are they different?
>
> :) With reduced consumption, the L will take longer to screw it up
> totally.
>
>
> >In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
> >both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
> >an incredible rate.

Again, Alan - if you don't like A) the environmentalists, B) the Right,
and C) the Left - uh, what remains to fix the environmental problems?

If you're impatient for someone to hurry up and for God's sake fix the
major problems -- well, a lot of us feel the same way. But it's not so
damned easy to make major changes, whether you're on the right or the
left or in the middle. And most of us try to do what we can while
scheming, hoping, planning, dreaming of some really effective
alternative. If you have such an alternative - great.

If you're most impatient, scared and angry at how little effective
seems to be getting done - join the club, guy.

Maybe you can help to fix this if you study hard enough, and sacrifice
enough, and get enough practical experience working with people on the
right or the left or in the middle for a better & greener planet.

Your feeling angry and critical about what's not getting done now is
not necessarily bad, I think. The German philosopher Hegel, in "The
Phenomenology of the Spirit," argues that all action, all thought,
indeed all individual consciousness and creativity ultimately have
their roots in "negativity."

Being dissatisfied with existence and society as they are today can
produce the energy, the will power, the zeal for learning and research,
and the creative thinking that lead you to make them better. If that's
where you are right now -- well, good luck in turning your negativity
in action for positive change.

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 10:30:36 PM7/22/06
to

john fernbach wrote:

> However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
> for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
> very radical sense?

Alan the Rightwinger-Troll has already said he is a Zoo Monkey Flinging
Insults wrapped in Fecalballs at people in the Newsgroup. He said that
in every message he wrote. GAWDDD you are a dumbfuck!!!

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 10:59:29 PM7/22/06
to
------------------------------------------------
Prosecute - Thank you for sharing.

To the extent that Alan is just a rightwing hack for the fossil fuel
lobby, who's pretending to be an environmental purist - I guess I'd
like to establish this. I'd like to ask him to explain himself -- it
may take some time, of course -- so that he shows for all the world
just what he is. If he's a fool or a faker, I think he'll show himself
for what he is, if we give him the opportunity.

I like to think of what I'm trying to do as the Socratic method,
although I'm not some big dome thinker like Socrates supposedly was.
But I kind of like the dumb questions that Socrates asked.

If somebody throws a bunch of monkey crap in here, I think it makes
sense to question the monkey crap. To ask it to explain itself.

Because if there's a lie or a delusion at the core of what a troll is
saying, I believe the right kind of questioning will bring it out.
Even if the questioner is as simple-minded as I am.

Above all, I don't think honest environmentalists have much to fear
from trolls paid to defend the fossil fuel industry. To the extent
that they're defending an environmentally indefensible industry - which
I think they are -- honest dialogue and curiosity should bring that out
clearly over time.

To the extent the Greens are right about global climate change being an
urgent problem that our civilization has to tackle, or suffer terrible
consequences, of course -- I think honest debate and questioning,
coupled with attention to the daily news, will bring that out, too.

And if there are a few details about the truth that we greens have
gotten wrong -- hey, let's expose them, by all means, and let's change
our position, so that we get it right in the end. Certainly let's make
sure that our own ego investments in being "right" and "virtuous" don't
get in the way of the important stuff -- which is the state of the
world's climate, and the connections between climate change and the
causes of climate change, and the question of how do we fix the
problems.

Whether Alan is a rotten troll, or whether you are or I am, or whether
we're all misunderstood geniuses, really isn't important compared to
the question of what the climate is doing, and whether our current
world civilization is sustainable, and what needs to happen to make our
civilization sustainable, if it's not.

Certainly whether one or more of us is messing with "monkey shit," or
has no balls, or is gay or straight or brave or cowardly or foolish or
wise has NOTHING to do with the state of the damned climate and the
sustainability or lack thereof of this civilization. So let's focus on
the important stuff, and let the minor stuff go.
-------------------------------
"Only the truth is revolutionary."
-- Antonio Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks

"Of everything, one must doubt." - The Greek philospher Heraclitus

"It is not against men that we struggle, but against principalities and
powers in high places."
-- St. Paul

"NATURE BATS LAST" -- Green bumper sticker.

---------------------------------------------

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 11:26:53 PM7/22/06
to
2nd reply to Prosecute Exxon Stockholders --

In another comment on your complaint that I'm taking "Alan the
Rightwinger-Troll" too seriously, I wonder if you noticed my suggestion
that if, indeed, we all are "stockholder/investors" in Exxon -- which
is Alan's argument -- we should pressure the US government to
nationalize the company, so that we stockholders will actually have
some say in how Exxon-Mobil is run.

As an environmentalist who wants Exxon to get out of the fossil fuel
business, I think I really do not favor nationalization, which of
course also would encounter all kinds of horrified opposition from the
right wing and the Libertarians in the U.S.

But the logic of Alan's position that in some sense, "Exxon R Us," that
we ALL have some economic interest in how well Exxon succeeds, suggests
to me that ALL of us should have a vote in the annual stockholders'
meetings.

A good case also could be made that when a company like Exxon gets to
be so large and so economically powerful that it can affect the
destinies of entire regions, countries, and perhaps even continents, it
is no longer really a "private" business. It is as "public" in its
effects on society and the environment as the US government is -- and
probably more influential economically and environmentally than the
government of France, or Germany, or England, or Canada.

Why shouldn't this vast PUBLIC power for economic good and evil, for
environmental virtue and environmental folly, therefore be subject to
PUBLIC control?

Arguably, not only the people of the United States, but the citizens of
a host of other nations around the world should probably have at least
SOME say in elections to the Exxon board.

Just the way that we need to have some say in the election of our
federal, state and local political leaders -- many of who influence our
lives far less than the board members of Exxon Mobil do.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 2:22:32 AM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <TX+b$gWe$rwE...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John Beardmore" wrote:

We've met. And I quit reading your articles a long time ago.

I guess you were just too busy running your mouth to notice.

You may lift your fat cheeks and fart on the Usenet to your
hearts content. For someone else to read.

Your ilk are the single greatest impediment to progress on
the planet.

Because people believe the psuedo-scientific drivel that comes
from your mouths.

And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
pace as time goes by.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 3:04:49 AM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <1TfSuMYa...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John Beardmore" wrote:

Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
_his_ lifestyle.

He will not give up his material priveleges for anything. And
they are considerable. In fact, he doesn't produce anything
that he consumes.

(Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
he couldn't care less.)

And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
have dreamt of posessing. Such as mounting a giant metal bird
at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
would have taken that king to reach the next town.

And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
footprint.)

Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
harm to the Earth over centuries.

But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.

Just ask him.

After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
instead of drab metal ones.

And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
the first place.

That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
factories galore behind all that stuff you have.

No, really. I'm not kidding. Google it.

Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
throwing the stuff in a landfill.

Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.

Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
planet.

Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB? Yep, that
multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.
And we know how much those good old boys care about the
environment, don't we, JB?

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 4:49:36 AM7/23/06
to
The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to bash
"environmentalism"

He is a sick and demented person who came to start fights and make
trouble. He's out to prove that "enviros" as as piggish as anybody and
therefore don't waste your time with "environmentalism -- just consume,
consume, consume and bash anybody who points it out.


Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in <1TfSuMYa...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John Beardmore" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
> alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
> _his_ lifestyle.

Alan Conner doesn't seem to have given up telephones, computers or
internet servers. That's consumption. Where does Conner start this
fight? He comes with an "Honest Environmental Manifesto" that has seven
brief paragraphs.

The first is a lie. The second is a lie. The third is an insult,
flinging feces like a monkey in the zoo. The fourth is likewise more
feces. 5th, 6th & 7th more feces flinging.

So Alan Conners, likely a fakename, is basically a feces thrower
misrepresenting what the state of the world was when we were born and
what it is now. Especially, he is hiding what it will be if there is no
"environmentalist" successes.


> He will not give up his material priveleges for anything. And
> they are considerable. In fact, he doesn't produce anything
> that he consumes.

More feces flinging. A doctor doesn't "produce" anything but performs
valuable and needed services. Trade is not automatically
anti-environmental, but it certainly can be. It is not known how Conner
gets his personal information about Beardmore -- perhaps they have
known each other well and long, but perhaps Beardmore is only a target
of opportunity for a vicious sniper lashing out at what he perceives as
prey.

> (Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
> he couldn't care less.)

That's as likely to be true for the majority of the people everywhere
in the industrial age. Even 100 years ago when people still sewed much
of their own clothing, most of them didn't know who made the needles or
who wove the cloth. And they couldn't care less. Who tended the weaving
machine that made the cloth for your pants, Conner, and what does it
matter if you know her name or not?

> And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
> have dreamt of posessing. Such as mounting a giant metal bird
> at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
> would have taken that king to reach the next town.

What the hell does this have to do with anything. Put down the damn
crackpipe Conners. You are gibbering like an idiot.

> And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
> of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
> footprint.)

Nobody actually knows this is true or false. It's some number pulled
fresh hot and stinking out of Conner's ass. Some people are forest fire
fighters who rescue more acres than you will ever walk on in a
lifetime. Some invent something new that helps millions live better
(with less waste).

I don't think things pulled out of Conner's ass are the best place to
seek Honesty about environmentalism or anything else.


> Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
> harm to the Earth over centuries.

Ah, the Myth of the Nobel Savage.

In fact native Americans exterminated the Giant Sloths, possibly
contributed the majority to extinction of the Wolly Mammoths, maybe had
a hand in extinguishing the giant cave bear and saber toothed tiger.
The evidence has mostly crumbled to dust and "we" (the human race that
is) may never really know the facts. Forests WANTED to cover the plains
but the indians set fires to them to keep them from doing that. The
reality we do know about is the buffalo changed it's entire life
strategy from mostly soletary animals to herd animals under the
stresses of human predation, and that in turn led to millions of
buffalo in herds trampling down who knows what rare wee things under
foot.

Creatures that used to eat fruit and spread the seeds went extinct, and
indians did that. Critters that used to depend on those seeds likewise
went extinct. We can never recreate the world of the past.

What's your point crackhead? Just an excuse to toss a fusillade of
shitballs at somebody?


> But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.
>
> Just ask him.

More shit flinging, like a monkey in a zoo.


> After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
> instead of drab metal ones.

Putting it in contains at all is a big improvement over throwing it in
the street as has been done in past times. Even human body waste was
tossed in the gutters. What's your point Monkey?


> And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
> environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
> the first place.

How do you know so much stalker, Peeping Tom?


> That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
> factories galore behind all that stuff you have.
>
> No, really. I'm not kidding. Google it.

And your point is, Monkeyman?


> Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
> has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
> throwing the stuff in a landfill.

Now that is really really shit. Fling those turds monkeyboy. You
realize that businesses have to lock up their cardboard, newsprint,
glass and aluminum wastes or people will steal them to sell? There are
places where it doesn't pay to ship the recycleable to where they can
be used and no local industry to use them right there -- true -- but
there are many many places that do have brisk markets for other's
wastes.

You are just flinging shit, monkeyboy.

> Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
> subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.

Probably because they see fools like you coming and jack up the price.
Nobody is subsidizing recycled paper, shitflinger. For longer than you
have been alive there has been a market for used paper.


> Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
> here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
> planet.

The proven pheny here is you. You are the one that began this thread
with lies and insults and nothing you have said is true.


> Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB? Yep, that
> multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.
> And we know how much those good old boys care about the
> environment, don't we, JB?
>
> Alan

The Waste Management trucks in my neighborhood have seperate
compartments for different colored recyclable bins that give you a
wedgie thinking about it. California has a law requiring 55% of solid
wastes be recycled. Petaluma has trash inspectors that will give you a
%50 ticket for putting too many recyclables in the landfill garbage. A
city in Japan has 14 different containers for recycling. Get over it.

Back in the 50s there was a ragman that had a weekly route past my
house to collect peoples recyclable rags. Boy scouts had paper drives
to help pay for summer camp. Get over it. You have the anger that you
can't just throw away your trash and so you fling shitballs at the
people who make you an outlaw if you do that. Grow up monkeyboy -- the
world is not your toilet.

R Philip Dowds

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 6:29:36 AM7/23/06
to
Alan Connor wrote:
> On uk.environment, in
> <Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
> Dowds" wrote:
>
>
>
>>There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
>>as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
>>environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
>>think. Or maybe Republicans?
>>
>
>
>
> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.
>
> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.
>

...

Did I imply that your views are much like those of fundamentalists or
Republicans? I thought that could be taken as a compliment, not an
attack. (Had I called you an "idiot" or a "troll", now that would have
been an ad hominem attack. But I didn't do that.)

RPD / Cambridge

“The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy
is bullshit.” Lars-Erik Nelson.

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:09:20 AM7/23/06
to
In message <slrnec65d6....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes

>On uk.environment, in <TX+b$gWe$rwE...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John
>Beardmore" wrote:

So ?


>We've met. And I quit reading your articles a long time ago.

Well - you still seem to be doing it !


>I guess you were just too busy running your mouth to notice.

How am I supposed to notice ? I guess if you stop arguing, either you
agree or you given up. People come and go from group discussions all
the time - it's no big deal. Why should I notice you in particular ?


>You may lift your fat cheeks and fart on the Usenet to your
>hearts content. For someone else to read.
>
>Your ilk are the single greatest impediment to progress on
>the planet.
>
>Because people believe the psuedo-scientific drivel

I don't see you coming up with any better arguments, though obviously
you invest a lot in name calling. It's clear that you do insults much
better than any quantitative or rational counter argument.


> that comes
>from your mouths.

If people think what I say makes sense, that's fine by me, but up to
them.


>And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
>but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
>pace as time goes by.

So you say, but I don't agree.

It seems to me that either you are in denial about what is happening, if
so, specifically what do you challenge ?

Or perhaps that you think I am somehow standing in the way the problem
being solved. If so specifically how, and in what respect ?

Can you answer such questions specifically without insult ?


J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:19:44 AM7/23/06
to
In message <1153618206.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, john
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes

>John - when I have a little money, I contribute to the mainstream


>environmental groups, so I'm not out to condemn them.

When I had a lot of money so did I, though I guess over time I got
disillusioned with Greenpeace, and many of them seem to take too narrow
a view of specific issues. Over time I got dragged into increasingly
direct action, though more in the technical than the activist sense.


> Although I do
>criticize them from time to time

Seems fair !


>But Alan clearly is condemning them -- uh, I should say "us," because
>undoubtedly he dislikes some groups I support.

Part of the problem seems to be that in his mind we are all one entity
with a shared view, and presumably shared attitudes and objectives.


>So what I'm asking is -- what is Alan's proposed alternative?

A very good question !

Well Alan ??


>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message <1153616676.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
>> fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >Excuse the top posting,
>>
>> I find it hard...
>>
>>
>> > but I'm responding to your whole message, I
>> >think.
>>
>> So post at the bottom ?
>
>Is that any better? I was trained as a journalist, at least somewhat.
>And in journalism, you want to have a "gripping lead." You want to get
>your main point across in the first paragraph. Or you at least want to
>say something interesting enough in your first paragraph to keep people
>reading.

:) OK.


>If the internet etiquette is to weave comments and counter-comments in
>among the texts, which people have already ready, I can do that, too.

Well - I came to the net form a very technical background, but the
notion of a response being a 'close analysis of the text' doesn't seem
to be a bad one.


>> Even if they aren't doing enough, criticising them seems a bit
>> disingenuous unless
>>
>> a) they are doing less than the rest of the population
>>
>> which clearly isn't the case, or
>>
>> b) they are doing less than you
>>
>> which isn't easy to see from here.
>
>John - I don't know if you're responding to me, or responding to Alan.
>If you're responding to me, I guess I didn't communicate my message
>that well.

Both really. I suppose the point is that environmentalists can be
criticised, (not least self-criticised), for not doing enough, but
criticism is perhaps best directed at those who still do nothing, than
those who are doing at least something.


> I'm not
>especially antagonistic to mainstream environmental groups -- and as I
>indicated above, I give them small donations when I can. I think they
>perform an essential function in keeping the global environment from
>being trashed worse than it already is.

Yes - while sometimes technically inept, they do at least keep things
on the agenda.


>Alan, on the other hand, is damning "environmentalists" in general for
>being ineffective, or hypocritical, or just generally bad. I want to
>know -- what's his alternative? What should people be doing?
>
>Seems like this is your concern, too, right?

Yes. The feeling I get is that his preferred outcome is no so much that
we are better at what we do, so much as silent and ineffective. But
let's see what he says for him self I guess.

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:47:47 AM7/23/06
to
In message <slrnec67li....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes

>On uk.environment, in <1TfSuMYa...@wookie.demon.co.uk>, "John
>Beardmore" wrote:

><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>Here's how you spot a phony like "John Beardmore": None of his
>alleged solutions will involve any fundamental changes in
>_his_ lifestyle.

Any how much changes have you made to your lifestyle ?

Seems you know nothing of my history and experience, yet you are really
quick to attack me personally.


>He will not give up his material priveleges for anything.

Depends what you mean by "give up".


> And
>they are considerable.

They certainly are, but none the less, a lot less than they might have
been had I not made some effort to reduce my consumption etc.


> In fact, he doesn't produce anything
>that he consumes.

I'm not sure that's actually all that important. Surely what matters is
the size of your environmental footprint rather than whose hands
resources pass through on the way to you ?


>(Someone is doing all that work, but he doesn't know who, and
>he couldn't care less.)

Obviously someone has to do all the stuff that gets done. This is not
news. No, I don't know them all personally. So what ? Do I care
who ? Well - up to a point I'll try and purchase ethically, but I'm
not going to accept your invitation to beat myself up that I don't know
the first name of every staff member in my 'supply chain'.


>And he enjoys powers that a king of 2 centuries ago would not
>have dreamt of posessing.

So does every internet or bicycle user. Do you have a point ?


> Such as mounting a giant metal bird
>at will and flying to the far side of the planet in the time it
>would have taken that king to reach the next town.

Getting somewhere fast is not a problem per se, that's just so much
emotive baggage.

For what it's worth, I guess I fly less than average, and part of the
reason for that is environmental impact.


>And all by himself, JB will lay waste to approximately 14 acres
>of land during the course of his lifetime. (His ecological
>footprint.)

The point about environmental footprint is that it is the are of land
required to meet your needs WITHOUT the use of irreplaceable resources.

If 14 acres was my footprint, the whole point is that its the area
required such that it was not "laid waste". Maybe you should study the
concept ?


>Entire _nations_ of 'Native Americans' didn't do that much
>harm to the Earth over centuries.

Well - there's a surprise.


>But he's an ENVIRONMENTALIST.

According to some people, including you apparently.


>Just ask him.

I can't get excited about it myself.


>After all, he puts his garbage in colorful plastic containers
>instead of drab metal ones.

More to the point, I try and get them recycled rather than land filled.
Your 'analysis' of waste separation is disingenuous.


>And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
>environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
>the first place.

Well - to be fair, we don't have that much.


>That's right, JB: There are ugly mines and refineries and
>factories galore behind all that stuff you have.

You don't say !!

One of the things I do is industrial energy audit and design advice.
Oddly enough - I have noticed these things.


>No, really. I'm not kidding.

You're not really making much of a point here...


>Nor will he be aware of the fact that every study of recycling
>has shown that it does more harm to the environment than just
>throwing the stuff in a landfill.

Some recycling has been pretty inept I grant, though I'm not at all
convinced that you are right in the general case.


>Which is why, for example, that recycled paper, even with massive
>subsidies, is still far more expensive than freshly made paper.

I suspect not. More likely that environmental harm is reduced by at
lest some paper recycling, but that this has a financial price.

Your suggestion that recycled paper is more expensive BECAUSE of
environmental harm is again disingenuous.


>Recycling is just another ugly industry that phonies like JB
>here can invest in while pretending that they are saving the
>planet.

Not sure that I invest in at all actually.


>Got any Waste Management Inc. stocks or bonds, JB?

Not that I'm aware of.


> Yep, that
>multi-national has taken over a lot of the recycling industry.

No doubt about it.


>And we know how much those good old boys care about the
>environment, don't we, JB?

I don't see most serious environmentalists disagreeing with this, but if
business of any size is reducing environmental impact by recycling
processes that life cycle analysis indicated offers a net benefit, I'm
not going to stand in their way. And why should I ?


Anyway - that's enough snide comments from you about me. What do you
do to make the world a better place ?


J/
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:59:58 AM7/23/06
to
In message <1153644576....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths
<Melch...@USA.com> writes

>The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to bash
>"environmentalism"

> It is not known how Conner


>gets his personal information about Beardmore -- perhaps they have
>known each other well and long,

Not as far as I know.


> but perhaps Beardmore is only a target
>of opportunity for a vicious sniper lashing out at what he perceives as
>prey.

Possible.

But I seem to be a target for both the anti environmentalists and the
less numerate activists, so I must at least be engaged in the debate...


>I don't think things pulled out of Conner's ass are the best place to
>seek Honesty about environmentalism or anything else.

Indeed.


>> And is conveniently unaware of the fact that a real
>> environmentalist would not _have_ that garbage to dispose of in
>> the first place.
>
>How do you know so much stalker, Peeping Tom?

Actually, it's some consolation that he doesn't seem to know so much
about me. :)


>Back in the 50s there was a ragman that had a weekly route past my
>house to collect peoples recyclable rags. Boy scouts had paper drives
>to help pay for summer camp. Get over it. You have the anger that you
>can't just throw away your trash and so you fling shitballs at the
>people who make you an outlaw if you do that. Grow up monkeyboy -- the
>world is not your toilet.

:)

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 8:12:48 AM7/23/06
to
In message <1153620382....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, john
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes

>Internet -- I believe the energy analysts are discovering that Internet


>use is quite energy-hungry. If only because it forces the electric
>power companies to maintain a very constant stream of power running
>through their lines, so as not to cause surges in power that damage
>computers or shut Internet connections down.
>
>Does anyone here have the technical knowledge about IN, computer power
>needs and the electric power grid to comment on this topic, one way or
>another?

Most computing equipment uses switch mode power supplies that are fairly
tolerant. Some will even work form 90 to 300 volts AC or DC.

There were fairly tight restrictions on how far grid voltage could
fluctuate, number of cycles per hour, per day etc long before computers
were common. Not sure that the Internet has much effect that way. The
'always on' infrastructure will consume power though, but CPU power per
watt continues to increase, and use of the internet reduces to the need
to travel for face to face meetings, and for the sending of physical
paper post, so the net effect is likely to be very positive.


> if you as an environmentalist live in a place where you DO
>need a car,
>or think you do, there's still a difference beween constantly driving
>it to go nearly everywhere, and economizing on your driving time as
>much as possible.

Quite so.


>Maybe you can help to fix this if you study hard enough, and sacrifice
>enough, and get enough practical experience working with people on the
>right or the left or in the middle for a better & greener planet.

Now you're getting real !!

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 8:18:17 AM7/23/06
to
In message <1153623569.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, john
fernbach <fernba...@yahoo.com> writes

>Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths wrote:
>> john fernbach wrote:

>> > However, I'd like to ask Alan again -- are you primarily an advocate
>> > for "lifestyle" environmentalism, for simple and ecological living in a
>> > very radical sense?
>>
>> Alan the Rightwinger-Troll has already said he is a Zoo Monkey Flinging
>> Insults wrapped in Fecalballs at people in the Newsgroup. He said that
>> in every message he wrote. GAWDDD you are a dumbfuck!!!
>------------------------------------------------
>Prosecute - Thank you for sharing.

ROFL !!


>To the extent the Greens are right about global climate change being an
>urgent problem that our civilization has to tackle, or suffer terrible
>consequences, of course -- I think honest debate and questioning,
>coupled with attention to the daily news, will bring that out, too.

Yes.


>And if there are a few details about the truth that we greens have
>gotten wrong -- hey, let's expose them, by all means, and let's change
>our position, so that we get it right in the end.

Yes !!

Phil Bradshaw

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 8:43:35 AM7/23/06
to
John Beardmore wrote:

<waves>


>
>
>>And fail to notice that not only are you not saving the Earth,
>>but that its health is being degraded at an ever increasing
>>pace as time goes by.
>
> So you say, but I don't agree.
>
> It seems to me that either you are in denial about what is happening, if
> so, specifically what do you challenge ?
>
> Or perhaps that you think I am somehow standing in the way the problem
> being solved. If so specifically how, and in what respect ?
>
> Can you answer such questions specifically without insult ?
>

:-)

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 10:51:37 AM7/23/06
to

Alan - Is there any way you can say what you think ought to be done,
without also insulting mainstream environmentalists in the process?

I'm not too interested in your anger at environmentalists, including
me. But I might be interested in knowing what you think is needed to
fix the world's problems.

For looking up your archives, I get the impression that you're a
practicioner of Transcendental Meditation. Whether or not you're
really a corporate troll, are you really someone who sees in TM the
answer to all our woes? If so, please explain.

>From what you're writing in here, you're certainly implying that you
major, major lifestyle changes are needed to bring our civilization
into greater harmony with environmental constraints.

I'm not sure that everyone in here really has a problem with that.

Some of us might favor extreme changes in lifestyle, and some of us are
trying to make at least modest changes already. But of course, we're
not likely to heed your message if you combine it with angry attacks on
us for supposedly being "hypocrites." If you uncoupled the angry
personal attacks from the idea of the lifestyle changes, we might
listen a little better.

I think, however, that there are at least two potential problems with
"voluntary simplicity" and "lifestyle environmentalism" as the ONLY
routes to environmental change. And I'd like to share them here -- not
to stop you from explaining the lifestyle changes you may think are
needed, but because I think they're important.

The first problem is that given our existing capitalism economy,
millions of people today have jobs that depend on the production and
sale of one luxurious extravagance or another. If we all just give up
stuff we really don't need, instantly, large numbers of our neighbors
are going to be out of work, and the economy is going to slow
dramatically, and a lot of people will be pushed into poverty.

How does our society create NEW jobs and NEW sources of income for us
and for our neighbors, then, as we move from our resource-hungry,
gluttonous habits towards more frugal and sustainable habits?

Maybe the answer lies in "green capitalism," in the entrepreneurial
creation of new, ecology-friendly products and services and the jobs
that go with them. Maybe the answer lies partly in Big Government
programs to put people to work doing "green" projects -- as Franklin D.
Roosevelt, in the 1930s, created new jobs for the unemployed through
the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Product Administration,
as well as other federal spending programs.

Maybe the basic answer lies in a radical reduction of the average work
week so as to give people more leisure, coupled with a certain
redistribution of work, leisure and income so as to spread the
remaining work around more equally -- an idea that the French anarchist
Andre Gorz was exploring in the 1970s.

Maybe the answer lies in the federal government and Big Business
cooperating in the creation of new "Green industries" -- in something
like the launching of a "Global Marshall Plan" to put US industry to
work making climate-friendly energy technologies available to the Third
World, so as to promote greater economic development overseas, good
jobs and new sources of profit at home, and a greener planet generally.
That's more or less what Al Gore proposed in 1992 in his book on
global climate change.

Maybe the real solution will have to include a mix of these different
strategies.

But SOMEHOW, some way, "real" and "honest" environmentalism has to
address the problem of keeping Americans and other Westerners alive,
and employed, and at least reasonably prosperous as we move toward a
greener future - EVEN if Western society also needs to radically
restrict its consumption of natural resources, so as to lessen
eco-destruction and to leave more oil and minerals behind for other
people to use.

So do you have a sense of how to make the drastic lifestyle changes
you're apparently proposing, while also keeping people employed, Alan?
If so, please share with us. If you haven't thought about this issue --
well, your lifestyle recommendations may still be valid, and important,
but you need to develop a "jobs" perspective, I think.

A second potential problem with your call for drastic lifestyle
changes, of course, is that an "honest" environmental movement
advocating this stuff can easily be caricatured as wanting to destroy
capitalist prosperity and force people to return to living in caves and
gathering roots and berries for a living.

How do you tackle that danger, Alan?

Because we live in a political world; we live among millions of other
human beings who have a healthy regard for their own comfort and their
own material self-interest. If we want these people to listen to us,
then we probably can't follow the example of Jesus, and demand of our
followers: "Sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and pick
up your cross and follow me." I mean - look what they did to Jesus for
saying that stuff.

To sell environmental simplicity and environmental lifestyles as the
cure to eco-crisis, we have to show people that they'll be getting more
by making the change than they'll be giving up in the process.

How should we do that, Alan? I'm not saying it's impossible -- but
it's something that needs to be done IF WE HOPE TO WIN THE SUPPORT OF
THE PUBLIC.

So how do you think we can do it? Because although I personally like
the idea of playing the Prophet Crying in the Wilderness, demanding of
the multitudes that they abandon their lives of Sin -- I don't think
it's the path to winning friends and influencing people.

So I'd really like to hear (a) what you really think needs to be done
(WITHOUT the insults, please!) and if possible, (b) how you would make
your program economically workable, workable for people who need to
work for a living, and also (c) how you plan to make "lifestyle"
environmentalism popular -- popular enough to change habits, and win
elections.

If you're the troll everyone says you are, I don't expect you to answer
these questions. But I think they're valid questions, and if you're
sincere, I'd like to know how you deal with them.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 11:40:25 AM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <slrnec4vtn....@b29x3m.invalid>,
"Alan Connor" wrote:

> I'm an Environmentalist.
>
> I want to Save the Earth!
>
> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth
> after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.
>
> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
> and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
> visit or live or work in the future.
>
> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
> polluted!
>
> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and
> yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!
>
> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any
> of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
> order to make all the stuff I want.


Looks like the above statement really upset the local
psuedo-progressives.

That doesn't surprise me a bit.

<shrug> Gives them the opportunity to do the only thing they
ever do: Run their big mouths.

(for someone other than me to suffer)

While they live just like the people that they want us to believe
they are immeasurably superior to.

Message has been deleted

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 12:52:03 PM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <0RMwg.137$zk7...@fe03.lga>, "Thomas Lee
Elifritz" wrote:

> Hey asshole, I live on an island, in the Atlantic Ocean,

Yeh. That means that even more resources are needed to get the
stuff you consume to you than would be needed for the typical
person living closer to centers of production and commerce.

> with
> solar panels and wind generators I design and construct myself,

From parts that have to be shipped in.

As will any replacement parts. Like when those giant batteries
wear out.

> in a concrete Earth home I constructed myself with local
> materials,

You made the concrete? You quarried and crushed the limestone
and built the kilns and mined the clay?

May I assume that you had to cut down a rather large number of
trees to make the charcoal to fuel those kilns?

And I guess you must have built a glass tank too. Or do you
not have windows?

> and I sail around in a little sailboat I pulled off
> of the bottom of the ocean by myself,

It still had to be manufactured in the first place.

And I doubt that it was just you in your birthday suit and
a rope made from kelp.

And we all know just how expensive boats are.

> and I use hydroponic
> plant growing equipment I designed and constructed, myself.

From manufactured parts that had to be shipped in.

>
> Quoting Dick Cheney ... go fuck yourself.

If you'd like to try, you two-bit phony, mail me and I'll
send you the directions to my place.

But you better be better at combat than you are at being
self-sufficient and Earth-friendly.

Here we have another elitist, psuedo-progressive playing at being
Robinson Crusoe with the help of a hundred factories and mines
and power plants that, just coincidentally, can't be found on his
little island paradise where they'd mess up his view.

You aren't any more self-sufficient than a yuppy in Manhattan.

But your lifestyle does more harm to the world than theirs.

Some achievement.

Listen: You are just a spoiled consumer playing with your toys on
an island somewhere. At the expense of the rest of the world.

That doesn't make you a hero.

Message has been deleted

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 3:09:38 PM7/23/06
to
"Alan Connor" <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnec59q2....@b29x3m.invalid...

> On uk.environment, in
> <Lcxwg.1682$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "R Philip
> Dowds" wrote:
>
>
>> There are certainly a fair number of Americans who feel
>> as you do. Mostly, however, they do not call themselves
>> environmentalists. They call themselves fundamentalists, I
>> think. Or maybe Republicans?
>
> Another arrogant, motormouthed psuedo-intellectual who thinks
> that quippy remarks are intelligent discourse.

Another Irony Meter blown of the dashboard...

> And immediately launches ad hominem attacks against anyone who
> dares to disagree with him.

Damn! Two in one post!

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")


John Smith

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 3:27:57 PM7/23/06
to

"Alan Connor" <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnec5dm6....@b29x3m.invalid...
> On uk.environment, in
> <1153608799....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON
> Stockholders for Global Warming Economic Damages" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: Rightwinger Troll Alan Connor <snip>
>
> When it comes to the environment, there is _no_ difference
> between Left and Right.
>
> Except in their rhetoric.

>
> They all live basically the same way. They all have approximately
> the same ecological footprint within an economic class.
>
> The Left, many of which are as clueless as this obnoxious child,
> really _want_ to save the planet.
>
> But they want all of their material priveleges a
> _whole_lot_more_.
>
> Sure, they'll get a bicycle. And it will spend most of its life
> strapped to the top or rear of their automobile. As for actually
> giving up their automobiles, don't make me laugh.
>
> They lobby for mass transit. They don't use it.
>
> They protest Big Oil and then rush to the gas station to refill
> their tanks after the protest.
>
> And cram their investment portfolios full of those very
> profitable oil stocks and bonds. Or their pension fund does it

> for them. And their insurance companies and banks are invested in
> Big Oil too.
>
> And will they turn down a big charitable donation from an oil
> company to their environmental org? Not a chance.
>
> Gotta have that eco-vacation in Costa Rica, don't you know?
>
> They cost a bundle.

>
> The Right is composed of people who don't care whether they trash
> the planet or not. They are going to take what they want and die

> and leave the suckers after them to live with the mess.
>
> But there's nothing the Left is doing or proposing that will have
> any different outcome, so how are they different?
>
> In their own minds, that's all. The Right wing and Left wing are
> both part of the same bird, and that bird eats the environment at
> an incredible rate.
>
> -------------------
>
> To the clueless hypocrite whose subject line I responded to
> above:
>
> You won't be able to suppress my right to free speech. Really.
>
> I'll post what I want and you'll live with it, and your articles
> will be left on the server.
>
> No, I am not suppressing your right to free speech. You can
> post anything you want.
>
> Alan

Good Grief! Well said!

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 4:53:03 PM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <SPPwg.124687$I61.88469@clgrps13>, "Coby Beck" wrote:

Another psuedo-progressive dodging the important points I raise
and no doubt posting a bunch of snotty, juvenile insults.

That's what they do when they encounter someone who refuses to
believe that every word from their mouths is the Gospel Truth.

They call themselves 'Environmentalists' because they like the
idea of preserving the health of the planet, not because their
lifestyle's are Earth-friendly.

But we aren't supposed to notice that.

Here's what he doesn't want to think about, my original post
on this thread:


I'm an Environmentalist.

I want to Save the Earth!

Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.

Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
visit or live or work in the future.

I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
polluted!

And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!

And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
order to make all the stuff I want.


/quote

Message has been deleted

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 5:20:39 PM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <11536824...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>, "John Smith" wrote:

"John Smith". Right.

You are, of course, one of the people who's already posted to
me under a different alias.

Now you are hiding behind this one in order to post some juvenile
insults to me while evading the responsibility for them.

And of course, I'm not going to download your article.

:-)

Get back to me when you find your balls, Junior.

You must be a psuedo-progressive. Probably call yourself a
'vegetarian' and put on a disguise when you sneak over to Burger
King several times a week.

Message has been deleted

Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 5:39:24 PM7/23/06
to
Rightard Alan Conner Flings Fecalballs at the Newswgroup Like a Monkey
in the Zoo.

Alan Connor wrote:

> Another psuedo-progressive dodging the important points I raise
> and no doubt posting a bunch of snotty, juvenile insults.

Conner never raised any important points. He wrapped insults inside
shitbals and flung them at strangers like he was a Monkey in a Zoo.

> That's what they do when they encounter someone who refuses to
> believe that every word from their mouths is the Gospel Truth.

Nobody cares what you believe. In fact I doubt even your mother cares
if you live or die (unless she has a fat insurance policy on your life,
in which case hire a food-taster for when you drop by for tea and
crumpets).

> They call themselves 'Environmentalists' because they like the
> idea of preserving the health of the planet, not because their
> lifestyle's are Earth-friendly.

More insults wrapped in feces. Conner is just pissed because people
make him feel bad about his massive consumption habits and he wants to
strike back by calling them no better than he is. Imagine that: his
most potent insult is "You are just like ME". That is some form of
confession that he recognizes that he is seriously mentally ill.


> But we aren't supposed to notice that.

But we did notince the confession of your mental illness.

Here's what he doesn't want to think about, my original post
> on this thread:
>
>
> I'm an Environmentalist.

Lie. You are a gross pig.

> I want to Save the Earth!

Lie. You are an advocate of mindless consumption.


> Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after
> me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it.

This is an insult wrapped in shit. Conner's at least honest in
describing his grasping at pieces of the Earth.


> Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into
> all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out,
> and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to
> visit or live or work in the future.

More Feces Flinging by the Monkeyboy. Some things, like concrete, are
always manufactured locally because of the weight transportation price
penalty makes imports non-competitive to locally-produced. Other things
like coffee and tea do not grow well where all the consumers are
located. Some things, like oil, are only found in a few locations.

Mostly, it is Conner's pals in industry who make decisions to exploit
foreign workers by outsourcing, and the consumers have no say-so. The
sweatshops of Nike and iPod are famous examples where a smsall core
group makes decisions that leaves no choices to the general public.
Conner's is saying it is OK to exploit workers whose salary making your
shoes is 3 cents of the purchase price of $100, and it is OK that the
workers get paid $5 a day while the Nike boss get $100,000 a day.

None of this has to do with "environmentalism" -- it has to do with
sociology, a different subject completely.

Since Conner has no "enviro-detector" machine, he flings shit at
everybody, hoping some will stick where he meant it to go. Conner can
see if you have Nike shoes on and are listening to an iPod clipped on
your belt, but he can't tell if you are "enviro" or not from those
clues. He can't tell if the iPod-Nike guy uses public tranportation
mostly, because in cars you can't see the Nikes or the iPods. So he
just flings shit and more shit, at everybody.

> I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air
> polluted!

That is a very sane approach, except that Conner makes the insane
assumption that one must deface views or pollute air or water. There
are at least two other choices not offered in Conner's narrow
selection: (1) don't foul your own nest or anybody elses if there is
known cleaner methods to accomplish the same thing, and (2) tailor your
definitions to suit reality. Neither of these two are an option
considered by Conner.

> And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown
> and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all)
> out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and
> pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around!

More insults wrapped in shit flung by Monkeyboy.


> And I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of
> those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in
> order to make all the stuff I want.

Stated as an insult encased in a gob of turds for flinging purposes, it
actually is good policy to ostracise the malevolent psychopaths who go
to excesses. No, we don't want association with Conner and his Monkey
Zoo shit-flingers.

> Alan
>
> --
> See my headers.

You bright Blue Babbon Butt is notabably conspicuous.

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 5:48:03 PM7/23/06
to
Alan - Thanks again for the insults. But again -- insults aside --
what do you think needs to be done?

You accuse the mainstream environmentalists of being hypocrites who in
fact are consuming a lot. You also accuse us of being elitists and of
considering various Third World people to be "subhuman" -- which,
frankly, doesn't sound like the conclusion that the Green groups were
reading in 1992, at the time of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. But
anyway, that's what your original post indicates.

You have lots of accusations against environmentalists to hand around.

But what would YOU do to tackle environmental problems such as
(a) global climate change
(b) the expansion of deserts and deforestation across much of the
world,
(c) the depletion of important ocean fisheries due to excessive
commercial fishing -- in the Grand Banks, etc.,
(d) the heavy air and water pollution afflicting many rapidly
industrializing Third World cities -- especially in China, but not
exclusively there,
(e) the increasing scarcity of water, and especially clean drinking
water, in much of the world,
(f) the bleaching of coral reefs, which are among the world's most
ecologically diverse and biologically productive kinds of ecoystem,
(g) potential long-term problems in the West with the storage of
long-lived radioactive wastes from nuclear power production,
(h) the contamination of the human food chain, and of course the food
chain of other creatures as well, by "bioaccumulative" chemical wastes
and heavy metals,
(i) pesticide poisonings throughout the Third World, and also the rapid
evolution of new "super pests" that are immune to all existing
pesticides, so that that farmers in much of the world are rapidly
losing the effectiveness of the chemicals they employ to kill
destructive insects and other pests ...

I could go on and on about other global environmental woes, too,, but
there's no need to.

How would YOU fix these things, Alan?

Because if you don't have any real alternatives to suggest, and you're
just damning the existing environmental movement for being imperfect,
you're not helping anything.

Hell, those of us who have long supported the environmental movement
know that it's imperfect. But we think it's better to take imperfect
actions to head off ecological disasters of various kinds than it is to
avoid taking any actions at all.

Tell us what we and the rest of the public need to do better, Alan. If
you have good ideas on this score.

Unless you are a corporate troll, and you just want the environmental
problems to go unaddressed until we really destroy something serious --
like the stability of the global climate, for example -- with continued
industrial activity and human population growth.

Any response, Alan? If you're not a corporate troll, and you really do
ideas on how things could go better, here's your chance to testify.

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 6:23:29 PM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <1153644576....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths" wrote:

> Subject: Re: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to
> bash "environmentalism"

No. I am not bashing environmentalism. I am crticizing a bunch
of people who are _pretending_ to be environmentalists.

But they have the same ecological footprint as the people they
revile for being non-environmentalists.

Where I come from, if you say you can play the violin, then
we make you pull it out of the case and play a tune.

We don't just take your word for it.

You wouldn't like it there.

Message has been deleted

john fernbach

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 6:35:31 PM7/23/06
to
Alan - I keep asking you what you would do differently. And what you
would ask environmentalists to do differently.

And as far as I can tell - you're not answering the question.

Why not, Alan?

I don't care about where you come from and how they "play the violin,"
there. But what I would like to know is what Greens of all
descriptions could be doing better.

As an admittedly imperfect American environmentalist who has tried to
reduce his ecological footprint -- no car, no children, aversion to
using my air conditioner, and damned few vacation trips, etc. -- I
really am interested in seeing practical ideas on how the environmental
movement can do a better job.

And how we can persuade other people to join us -- since averting
global climate change and other eco-disasters obviously is a tremendous
task, and we'll need millions of people cooperating if we want to
succeed at it.

So what are your ideas on what we need to do better, Alan?

And what are you doing in this direction, and what practical tips do
you have to offer the rest of us?

Assuming you're not just a corporate troll, that is.
---------------------

Alan Connor

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:30:56 PM7/23/06
to
On uk.environment, in <slrnec7sf2....@b29x3m.invalid>,
"Alan Connor" wrote:

In response to the posts of:

26:[Thomas Lee E]
58:[john fernbac]

Whose articles were left on the server.

Every year since the first Earth Day, more of the Earth has been
destroyed or seriously damaged or seriously polluted than the
year before.

The rate is dramatically increasing, not decreasing.

At the same time, the number of people claiming to be
environmentalists and who belong to environmental organizations,
has been increasing. The _number_ of environmental organizations
has been increasing. The number of universities that offer
degrees in environmental studies has been increasing.

And so on.

A rational person would conclude that the environmental movement
was an abject failure.

And it is.

2+2=4

And we don't _have_ another 40 odd years to go on pretending that
we can have our Earth and eat it too.

There's only one way to save the Earth, and that's to quit
trashing it.

Which is impossible when you have billions of people with
incredibly high material expectations.

Start preaching non-consumption, guys. Or kiss it all good-bye.

John Smith

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 7:36:02 PM7/23/06
to

"Alan Connor" <i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnec7or4....@b29x3m.invalid...

LOL You are, of course, correct - I am not John Smith. There are too many
"peace or I'll kill you" types running about usenet. Your description of
me is almost 180 degrees out of phase. I was drawn into this news group by
one of the Bush hating, pseudo-"scientists" from this ng spamming another ng
that I read. When I challenged his "data" I got called a bunch of names. I
came over here to see what was going on in this ng and found your post. I
found it very enlightening to find someone besides myself that finds it
ironic that, among other things, someone like Gore burns thousands of
pounds of fuel to fly, then has 10 limos drive him 2 blocks to view his
little film on the environment with a group of the biggest posers on the
planet. I was agreeing with you for what that is worth. And for future
reference I am an omnivore just as nature made me, and although I like
Burger King, I usually go to What-A-Burger.

> --
> See my headers.

Message has been deleted

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 9:30:51 PM7/23/06
to
In message <slrnec7sf2....@b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor
<i3x...@j9n35c.invalid> writes

>On uk.environment, in
><1153644576....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Prosecute
>EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Heat Deaths" wrote:

><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: Re: The DIShonest Ugly Troll Alan Conner just came to
>> bash "environmentalism"
>
>No. I am not bashing environmentalism. I am crticizing a bunch
>of people who are _pretending_ to be environmentalists.

Well, you might take the trouble to get to know them first !


>But they have the same ecological footprint as the people they
>revile for being non-environmentalists.

How on earth did you measure that ?


>Where I come from, if you say you can play the violin, then
>we make you pull it out of the case and play a tune.

And what instrument are you playing ? That seems to be a pretty well
kept secret.


>We don't just take your word for it.
>
>You wouldn't like it there.

Oh I don't know ! Anyway, too bad you have so little idea where I am !

John Beardmore

unread,
Jul 23, 2006, 9:44:19 PM7/23/06