At 11:12 AM 6/30/02, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ronn Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: Efficiency in Genocide
>
>
> > At 10:34 AM 6/30/02, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Ronn Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:40 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Efficiency in Genocide
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the point is that there is no need to move everyone on Earth
>into
> > > > one building in Texas, nor is there a need to euthanize 92%+ of
> > > > humanity. There are some places where people are too crowded or lack
> > > > resources, but there are other places that could absorb more people.
> > > >
> > >Agreed!
> > >But it is an interesting thought problem.
> > >If it were a necessary eventuality, how would we do it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Which? Move everyone to Texas, or kill > 5.5e9 humans, preferably without
> > rendering the remains unusable as fertilizer for the crops of the
>surviving
> > elite?
> >
>Moving everyone to Texas of course!
>I havent seen any discussion on how to murder large numbers of people
>quickly and efficiently, or is *that* conversation limited to Xponent-L?
Unfortunately, there are many ways to do that. Some of them are harder on
the rest of the ecosystem than others, of course . . .
--Ronn! :)
"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two
words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't
it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated
from schools too?"
-- Red Skelton
