the OSCARS!

Wolfgang wrote:

Moron.

Wolfgang


Pot!


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

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!

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.

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

Moron.

Wolfgang

Pot!

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

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.

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.

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

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

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 ;-)

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?