the OSCARS!
 

Well, well, well, well.....

It seems I don't pay enough attention to the popular media. Becky
just informed me that one Al Gore made a documentary film of some sort
and won an oscar for it. Evidently it had something to do with the
former myth called "global warming."

Timing is everything......in Hollywood, as elsewhere, it would
appear. Of course, everyone has heard of it now that it has become
real......in the past six weeks or so......but very few people
probably know that global warming was an extremely popular (among a
certain credulous portion of the population) theory about how the
planet has heated up in the past century or so, supported by little
more than a few billion data points consisting of recorded
temperatures around the world over the course of the last three
centuries......well, that and a few niggling tens of thousands of
climatological studies encompassing pretty much the entire spectrum of
scientific technology and the accumulated knowledge of the past two
millennia. Anyway, it seems this Gore fella (who, it should be
pointed out for the benefit of those few benighted souls who are STILL
ignorant of ancient history, also singlehandedly invented something
called the internet) has capitalized on the agonizing scholarship of
our beloved POTUS (who, it will be remembered, has recently
singlehandedly demonstrated that the eggheads made an unaccountably
lucky guess) and stolen a march by saying "yup" just a few months
before the fact. Hey, nobody can make this **** up.......right?

Truth is indeed stranger than friction.......ainna? :)

Wolfgang
oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an
oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF
COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the
name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize
the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female
vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of
the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous
puddle that is popular music today.

the OSCARS!
 

Wolfgang wrote:
Well, well, well, well.....

Wolfgang
oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an
oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF
COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the
name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize
the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female
vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of
the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous
puddle that is popular music today.


Well, well, well, . . . ah crap. Amen to the above.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

the OSCARS!
 

On Feb 26, 8:12 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
Well, well, well, well.....

Wolfgang
oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an
oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF
COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the
name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize
the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female
vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of
the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous
puddle that is popular music today.

Well, well, well, . . . ah crap. Amen to the above.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37905

"
Thanks to that pesky Freedom of Information Act, we discover that,
last
August alone, Gore used 22,619 kWh - more than an average American
family uses in a year.

Accepting his Oscar last week, Gore said: "It's not as hard as you
might think.
We have a long way to go but all of us can do something in our own
lives to
make a difference."

Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion.
How much
bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have
invented the
Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his
house."

:-),
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

On Feb 28, 11:48 am, " wrote:
Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion.
How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have
invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his
house."

Well, the facts are that he does, in fact run his business from
offices in his house, as does his wife. Throw in the energy demands
for security requirements, etc. and you have a clearly above-average
electricity demand, even for a quaint little 20-room mansion.
Comparing Gore's electricity usage to an average family house is
nothing short of stupid.

Add to that the fact that Gore buys his energy (it's right there in
that FOIA thing) from "green" producers at elevated prices and buys
carbon offsets for the energy he uses, and you're left with the
inescapable fact that Mr. Gore does indeed "walk the walk" where CO2
emissions are concerned. Those who try have tried to use his utility
bill alone while obfuscating the rest of the story to paint him as
some sort of hypocrite are fundamentally dishonest IMHO.

$.02,
Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

On 28 Feb 2007 09:16:00 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

On Feb 28, 11:48 am, " wrote:
Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion.
How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have
invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his
house."

Well, the facts are that he does, in fact run his business from
offices in his house, as does his wife. Throw in the energy demands
for security requirements, etc. and you have a clearly above-average
electricity demand, even for a quaint little 20-room mansion.
Comparing Gore's electricity usage to an average family house is
nothing short of stupid.

Add to that the fact that Gore buys his energy (it's right there in
that FOIA thing) from "green" producers at elevated prices and buys
carbon offsets for the energy he uses, and you're left with the
inescapable fact that Mr. Gore does indeed "walk the walk" where CO2
emissions are concerned. Those who try have tried to use his utility
bill alone while obfuscating the rest of the story to paint him as
some sort of hypocrite are fundamentally dishonest IMHO.

$.02,
Joe F.

I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

/daytripper (!)

the OSCARS!
 

rb608 wrote:
" wrote:
Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion.
How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have
invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his
house."

Well, the facts are ...

WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell
do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with
*facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior
is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left.

--
Ken Fortenberry

the OSCARS!
 

On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell
do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with
*facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior
is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left.

Even if Steven Colbert fades into oblivion, I think his one quote that
will endure will be that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." :-)


Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

" wrote in message
ps.com...


Thanks to that pesky Freedom of Information Act, we discover that,
last
August alone, Gore used 22,619 kWh - more than an average American
family uses in a year.

Accepting his Oscar last week, Gore said: "It's not as hard as you
might think.
We have a long way to go but all of us can do something in our own
lives to
make a difference."

Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion.
How much
bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have
invented the
Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his
house."

Well, wouldn't ya just know it. Global warming was a colossal hoax for
decades......and then Al Gore single-handedly causes it to become real in
less than two months. Talk about yer irony!

Moron.

Wolfgang

the OSCARS!
 

rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell
do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with
*facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior
is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left.

Even if Steven Colbert fades into oblivion, I think his one quote that
will endure will be that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." :-)

Yep, a classic line. Here's a good one:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/editoons/...ich/index.html

--
Ken Fortenberry

the OSCARS!
 

do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with
*facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior
is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left.

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause? To a true leftie I would think _that_ explanation would
be just sooo right-wing. There ain't a single rational universe in
which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life.

Jon.

the OSCARS!
 

the OSCARS!
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with
*facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior
is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left.

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause? To a true leftie I would think _that_ explanation would
be just sooo right-wing. There ain't a single rational universe in
which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life.

What possible difference can it make to anyone? You don't actually BELIEVE
that loonie left-wing "global warming" crap, do you?

Idiot.

Wolfgang

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:
So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate
change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie
masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily
confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no
such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically
extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****.

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

There ain't a single rational universe in
which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life.

I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our
cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the
burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I
believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the
amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO.

Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy
is funny nonetheless.
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy
is funny nonetheless.
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

On 1 Mar 2007 13:27:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:
So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate
change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie
masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily
confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no
such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically
extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****.

OK, what in the story was a "lie?"

And you mentioned in a prior reply about security - what security system
would warrant THAT kind of electrical and NG consumption? In fact, what
sort of security system do you envision that uses ANY NG?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

Er, no, not really. He leads an excessively consumptive lifestyle, and
as such, he consumes (or indirectly causes the consumption of) excessive
amounts of energy. For example, unless he has acquired something else
recently, when he drives, he drives big Cadillacs and a 60-something
Mustang, and when he doesn't, well, let's just say he doesn't regularly
alight from a chauffeur-driven Prius...and GS-V's aren't exactly models
of fuel-efficient transportation...

There ain't a single rational universe in
which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life.

I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our
cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the
burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I
believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the
amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO.

I agree. But Gore doesn't do anywhere near what he could, and could do
easily. It's not like solar systems are new, and I'm pretty sure he
could afford a fuel cell. He's not the biggest hypocrite on the face of
the planet, but a lot of his "lifestyle" is very hypocritical.

TC,
R

Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy
is funny nonetheless.
- Ken

You're bordering on obsession, what with two exact posts :~^ )

You do it again, and folks may et the impression that you are trying to
start a movement!

Op

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote:
The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

If your going for the equation of excessive consumption with
immorality, then I'll go with you that far. I won't go as far as
agreeing that one can subsequently buy their morality back, any more
than using a Hummer to deliver meals-on-wheels somehow mitigates the
excess.

In the end, carbon emissions will need to be a zero sum game, and
everybody's consumption takes away from everyone else's. If you're
an immorally wasteful SOB, buying offsets doesn't change that.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

As above, it's not a matter of innocence or guilt. If, as a global
population, we ultimately embrace the concept of offsets, the
situation will be no different than other resources are today. Some
are scarce, and those with the most money have an advantage over those
who don't. It's Economics 101, not morality. To be sure, there are
moral issues embedded therein, but that's way beyond anything we're
discussing here.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore

I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the
article?

Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote:
The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

If your going for the equation of excessive consumption with
immorality, then I'll go with you that far. I won't go as far as
agreeing that one can subsequently buy their morality back, any more
than using a Hummer to deliver meals-on-wheels somehow mitigates the
excess.

In the end, carbon emissions will need to be a zero sum game, and
everybody's consumption takes away from everyone else's. If you're
an immorally wasteful SOB, buying offsets doesn't change that.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

As above, it's not a matter of innocence or guilt. If, as a global
population, we ultimately embrace the concept of offsets, the
situation will be no different than other resources are today. Some
are scarce, and those with the most money have an advantage over those
who don't. It's Economics 101, not morality. To be sure, there are
moral issues embedded therein, but that's way beyond anything we're
discussing here.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore

I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the
article?

Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

Wolfgang wrote:

Idiot.

Wolfgang



Pot? Kettle?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

the OSCARS!
 

Wolfgang wrote:

Moron.

Wolfgang


Pot!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 3:51 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:

So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can
purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage.

So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the
bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical.

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy
is funny nonetheless.

Yeah, hypocrisy IS funny. :)

You know, I cannot find it in my heart to fault Joe for treating you
and kennie and jonnie and dicklet and stevie and......like adults.
Hell, it's hardly a secret that I derived some amusement from doing so
myself for a couple of years......remember? But, of course, I could
not continue to do so in good conscience because it was obvious that
none of you gained any real benefit from it and it bacame (and
continues to become) increasingly undeniable that as consumers all of
you are a profound embarrassment to American higher education.....and
even secondary education. Worse, several of you are an even greater
embarrassment as putative purveyors of education.

Here's what I should do:

Find out where you boys play on your off time and spend a few evenings
sitting in a dark booth at the end of the bar and listen to you and
your nitwit peers tell each other how hip and cool and smart and nice
you are. Wanna see beer squirt out of my nose? :)

Here's what you (plural) should do:

For good or ill, English is the lingua franca of ROFF. You should
learn to read and write in English. Then you should learn something
about the subject matter in the particular threads in which you choose
to demonstrate yet again what we all already know about you.

None of this will make any difference whatsoever.

Wolfgang
that's right, the fun never stops! :)

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 4:03 pm, wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 13:27:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:
So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can
simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The
Cause?

Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate
change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie
masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily
confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no
such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically
extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****.

OK, what in the story was a "lie?"

And you mentioned in a prior reply about security - what security system
would warrant THAT kind of electrical and NG consumption? In fact, what
sort of security system do you envision that uses ANY NG?

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the
global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He
has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is.

Er, no, not really. He leads an excessively consumptive lifestyle, and
as such, he consumes (or indirectly causes the consumption of) excessive
amounts of energy. For example, unless he has acquired something else
recently, when he drives, he drives big Cadillacs and a 60-something
Mustang, and when he doesn't, well, let's just say he doesn't regularly
alight from a chauffeur-driven Prius...and GS-V's aren't exactly models
of fuel-efficient transportation...

There ain't a single rational universe in
which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life.

I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our
cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the
burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I
believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the
amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO.

I agree. But Gore doesn't do anywhere near what he could, and could do
easily. It's not like solar systems are new, and I'm pretty sure he
could afford a fuel cell. He's not the biggest hypocrite on the face of
the planet, but a lot of his "lifestyle" is very hypocritical.

1: Do you think you could possible get any dumber?

2: If so, how would you go about it?

Seriously.

Wolfgang
who will grant that, at roughly 5,000,000,000 or so, HIS OWN solar
system isn't exactly brand spanking new......but believes that others
are still coming off the line all the time.

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 5:01 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

Moron.

Wolfgang

Pot!

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 2:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the

Ok, so he moved from the top 0.1% of energy users to the top 0.2%(*)
I guess that's progress. So no worries, mon!

(*: yes, I'm guessing, but a big mansion and jetsetting around the
world
ain't exactly being a Bangladeshi)

believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate.

I agree, as long as we throw away any semblence of a first world
lifestyle.
As long as we and the "spokespeople" perpetuate the myth, like Kermit
in the Ford spots, that "it's easy being green" (just gotta buy the
hybrid
SUV), there will be no measurable slowdown in GH emissions.

That anthropocentric global warming is happening is an obvious no
brainer
as far as I'm concerned. But I've not yet met a single first-world
person,
even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to
voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to
significantly do
anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from
driving a Prius.

Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do
something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by
definition
acting inconsistent with their beliefs.

Jon.

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:

Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may
substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the

Ok, so he moved from the top 0.1% of energy users to the top 0.2%(*)
I guess that's progress. So no worries, mon!

(*: yes, I'm guessing, but a big mansion and jetsetting around the
world
ain't exactly being a Bangladeshi)

believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in
conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the
extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation
to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate.

I agree, as long as we throw away any semblence of a first world
lifestyle.
As long as we and the "spokespeople" perpetuate the myth, like Kermit
in the Ford spots, that "it's easy being green" (just gotta buy the
hybrid
SUV), there will be no measurable slowdown in GH emissions.

That anthropocentric global warming is happening is an obvious no
brainer
as far as I'm concerned.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! :)

But I've not yet met a single first-world
person,
even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to
voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to
significantly do
anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from
driving a Prius.

Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do
something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by
definition
acting inconsistent with their beliefs.

Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of
about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses.
How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican,
Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within
walking distance play into the equation?

Wolfgang
who didn't used to think that thinking globally was all that
tough. :(

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 2:57 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote:
FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore

I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the
article?

Joe F.

Because it was funny.

There's no way I can ever prove it to you. You'll just have to trust
me.
I think that Clinton was a lowlife, but think that Gore paid a high
price for being associated with him.
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 2:05 pm, "Opus" wrote:
" wrote in message

FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy
is funny nonetheless.
- Ken

You're bordering on obsession, what with two exact posts :~^ )

You do it again, and folks may et the impression that you are trying to
start a movement!

I made fun of him for inventing the internet back in the 90's, so
I guess it might be 3 posts now.....wait does this post count
too? DAMN!
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

On 1 Mar 2007 15:49:24 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote:

On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote:
[...]
But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW
will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to
significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from
driving a Prius.

Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do
something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by
definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs.

Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of
about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses.
How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican,
Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within
walking distance play into the equation?

ahahahahahaha!

I had to read Jon's post twice (which was at least twice more than it was
worth), but even though it sure sounds like he was talking about GW Bush -
what with the repeated use of the Disaster word and all - he really wasn't....

/daytripper (but he could have - or should have ;-)

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 5:00 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

Idiot.

Wolfgang

Pot? Kettle?

Ok., just what is it you're trying to say here? Are you saying
something about the kettle calling the black pot?.......or is the
black perhaps calling the pot kettle?

English is not your first or second language is it?

Wolfgang
fess up now, who in this place is NOT overjoyed every time someone
even dumber than the kennies, stevie, jonnie.......and
dicklet......shows up? :)

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 8:04 pm, daytripper wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 15:49:24 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote:







On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote:
[...]
But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW
will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to
significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from
driving a Prius.

Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do
something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by
definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs.

Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of
about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses.
How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican,
Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within
walking distance play into the equation?

ahahahahahaha!

I had to read Jon's post twice (which was at least twice more than it was
worth), but even though it sure sounds like he was talking about GW Bush -
what with the repeated use of the Disaster word and all - he really wasn't....

/daytripper (but he could have - or should have ;-)

Whatever some folks step in......it ALWAYS smells the
same......ainna? :)

Wolfgang

the OSCARS!
 

" wrote in message
Because it was funny.

Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've
got an odd sense of humor.

Joe F.

the OSCARS!
 

rb608 typed:
" wrote in message
Because it was funny.

Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives,
you've got an odd sense of humor.

Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a well-known
conservative bias.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, "rb608" wrote:
" wrote in message
Because it was funny.

Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've
got an odd sense of humor.

Joe F.

We've both been here how long?....and you're just figuring this out
now.
:-),
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
" wrote:
Because it was funny.
Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives,
you've got an odd sense of humor.

Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a well-known
conservative bias.

Watch an installment of the Fox Half Hour News Hour. It's
a pathetic right-wing attempt at imitating the Daily Show
and the Colbert Report. Face it Timmay, right-wingers can
no more do funny than liberals can do talk radio.

--
Ken Fortenberry

the OSCARS!
 

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 2, 4:45 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
So in Jon's world unless you live in a mud hut with no electricity
and eat, wear and use nothing that requires CO2 emissions you're a
hypocrite ? Damn man, that's harsh and it reminds me of something
written by Voltaire, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. The perfect is
the enemy of the good."

Come on Ken I expect better than some reductio ad absurdum
response. No one expects people to live a peasant's life.
However when you're living in a mansion, consuming 10x the
energy that the average American uses (100x(?) what the average
person uses) you gotta expect some grief. Doubly so if you are
flying around the world preaching that we need to consume
less.
- Ken

the OSCARS!
 

Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
" wrote:
Because it was funny.
Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives,
you've got an odd sense of humor.

Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a
well-known conservative bias.

Watch an installment of the Fox Half Hour News Hour. It's
a pathetic right-wing attempt at imitating the Daily Show
and the Colbert Report.

I haven't seen that show, but Colbert would be hard to top.

Face it Timmay, right-wingers can
no more do funny than liberals can do talk radio.

Well, one of those statements has certainly been proven true.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

the OSCARS!
 

On Mar 2, 9:41 am, " wrote:

Come on Ken I expect better than some reductio ad absurdum
response. No one expects people to live a peasant's life.

Oh no, you've got it all wrong. We _do_ expect lots of
people to live a peasant's life. Just not us. If we can keep
those pesky Indians and Chinese from building more
coal plants, we can still jetset around the world chasing
fishies, and feel good about the Prius in our garage.

To KenF, I didn't say it _all_ first worlders were
hypocrites, only those that "truly believe global
warming will cause disaster". I'm not pushing
perfection, but if one really believes the disaster scenario,
then nothing short of radically abandoning the first
world lifestyle is even "good", and it is, yes, hypocritical.

(Still to KenF and others)

Look, I like what Al Gore has done in raising this
issue. I didn't nor haven't criticized him for this. The only
thing I said was that the idea that you can live the life
you want and simply purchase your "carbon offsets"
so that you can claim to be carbon neutral is, IMO,
a very elitish, right-wing idea. And I stick by that.

Jon.

PS: From the horse's mouth at
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/carbon_offset.html:
"We do realise that for some individuals ... avoidance
of all CO2 emissions will be almost impossible...
e.g. taking holiday flights". Yep, it doesn't get any
better than that!

the OSCARS!
 

" wrote in message
However when you're living in a mansion, consuming 10x the
energy that the average American uses (100x(?) what the average
person uses) you gotta expect some grief.

Again with the parroting of the smear machine talking points? I was
avoiding this sort of detail, but that comparison to the "average American"
is so bogus, I gotta put a few talking points of my own out there.

The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that
includes apartments and mobile homes.

In Gore's climatic zone (per the Dept. of Energy), the average energy usage
is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters.

Within that zone, Gore's total usage is three (not 20) times the average,
and his usage per square foot is average. That's *average*; not 20x
average, not 100x average; but average.

Lastly, I expect you would concede the point that the Gores are not an
"average" family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has
live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their business and
charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices
and office staff. This clearly precludes an "average" size house.

So, what validity is there in comparing Gore's energy bill to that of an
average American household? The answer: none. It's utter bull****; and it
was only done and only repeated by people who don't give a **** about
portraying the facts in manner that actually reflects the truth. I think I
used the term "lying sack of ****". It's contemptible, IMHO.

Joe F.


p.s. By way of disclosure, a good deal of the above was copied,
paraphrased, or otherwise plageirized from genuine, honest-to-god talking
points at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075.