> Among those who are 'outside' of your snug
> little group of religionists, I am among those who are
> *most* sympathetic to your arguments.
Even if this was an evangelical chapter of some kind, what difference does it make?
Your idea is the unoriginal one that loony millenarian sects are cut off from the
'mainstream' and are also plain wrong in their most cherished beliefs. But (a) there
is no blind faith here, and almost no agreement either. Hardly the basis for a
chiliastic sect, hey? What there is, is an attempt to look at the *science*, of
climatology, palaeoclimatology, energy science, thermodynamics, economics and other
interrelated disciplines. I never EVER see you address the ISSUES. I only see you
either avoid them, or yell at us to stop being 'religious' (meaningless in the
circumstances). One could reverse your simile just as easily. 400 years ago 'most
people' believed in witchcraft and only a few nutters (universally derided) thought
the earth is a globe suspended in space, and orbiting around the sun. Even
Christopher Columbus half expected to fall off the edge of the world when he reached
the Azores.
And (b)
>I think Mark...
> doesn't have a clue as to what to do with his correctness.
Is also beside the point. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. I am not a conspiracy
theorist, and don't agree with the views some people here express, about dark plots
by the ruling elites. But I do see the same fatal lemming-like rush to disaster as
there was for example in Europe before 1914, when all classes and people of all
convictions (including, for eg, Lenin, Trotsky - who in 1916 planned a new career as
a film actor in Hollywood, so engaged was he with global events) were equally
helpless and unable to affect the tide of events. The difference between now and
then is that the underlying global situation is far worse now than then. In 1914
there were around one billion humans and it was still theoretically possible to
create a safe and stable future for the earth, for biodiversity and for human
society. Who thinks there is the same possibility today?
Mark
> So if you can't convince me, you can't convince the
> millions you need to convince. And they aren't in
> the auditorium, so it doesn't make any difference
> how powerful and clear and convincing your argument
> is -- there are no ears to hear in empty seats.
>
> I have devoted half a lifetime to the study of ways
> to get people into the auditorium. You seem utterly
> to disregard that little problem
>
> Carrol
>
> >
> >
> > 1) if one persists in requiring the Marxist Revolution and class justice be
> > reality before attacking the issues of biospherics, the rough calculations
> > of our footprint now provide us with arithmetic to compute when the
> > Marxist endgame must occur, or when -- at least -- Marxists in denial will
> > finally be forced to open an eye
>
> What are you talking about? Go tell it to a roomful of Walmart clerks,
> and if they are in the room and listen to you, then I will listen to you,
>
> This post is too long for me to read unless the first three screens give
> me some reason to believe you are interested in making your views
> count rather than in just basking in the warmth of your own grasp
> of eternal truth.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
>
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
