--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shemp, > > You've been very LOUD in wanting us all to believe that the Global > Warming concept is bogus. I've challenged you to give us a statement > about the "pollution" aspects of the Global Warming debate, and you've > not responded.
I either didn't see it or, if I did, ignored it if it contained insults. Please feel free to reference that particular post by number and I'll revisit it. > If you want me to read your posts, Who says I want you to read my posts? Half the time I post to let off steam. I post for me, not you. As for my anti-Catastrophic-man-made-global-warming posts, you can blame whomever it was on this forum who introduced me to "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Although I was a non-believer BEFORE seeing it, watching that show succeeded in making me a born-again. I've since been able to secure a Region 1 (USA compatible) DVD version of the documentary (something few people in the US have at this time) and have shown it in at least 4 different living rooms of friends. One particular satisfying experience was showing to my friend down the block WHO MADE ME SIT THROUGH "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH", which is probably the single-most evil, vile film ever made. Well, once I had "Swindle" on disc, I could insist that she reciprocate and sit through it. And she did. And she totally turned around from being a believer in global-warming to hating Al Gore for the phony and fear-monger that he is. > you've got to be > honest and communicative -- I asked you, publicly and privately, to > answer me, but nothing came. So, on the theory that you're a good > guy, I'm going to try again -- a little louder, and, yes, a little > more harshly. > > First of all, I'll admit that it's definitely NOT your job to do > anything for me. But when I see your impact on the discussions here, > I'm counting them as distractions at best and, usually, an odd sort of > churlish jingoism, and I'm wanting that to stop, I suggest you ask yourself why it's so important for you to want my posts to stop. What's so difficult, once you see my name on the FFL list of postings, to just ignore and skip over my name? How long could that take...like, 1/3rd of a second for each glimpse of my name and for you to move your cursor down to the next name? No, I think there's something else that's bothering you other than the fact that I'm posting. And I think it's something as simple as: my attempts to show you that there IS another side to this debate moves you out of your comfort zone. You're so convinced that it's the way the Al Gore types say it is, that you have built up a wall of intolerance for dissenting points of view. My posts chip away at that wall...and that's, understandably, uncomfortable for you. But it shouldn't be. Indeed, you should be on your hands and knees wishing for anyone to convince you that it is not as bad as Gore paints it out to be. That would be the rational, logical response to anyone that demonstrates to you that the bad things that you've been led to believe will befall you is incorrect. Say, you were diagnosed with terminal cancer. You're devastated by the news and you've become convinced by the doctor's news that you've only got 6 months to live. But being the astute and wise person that you are, you go to a second doctor for a second opinion and he tells you after examining you: "I have good news! The first opinion you got was flawed. It's a common mistake for your condition and cancer is often misdiagnosed in your condition. It's not cancer but indigestion which a roll of Tums will cure in a day or two. You're going to live until you're 90!" I think it's safe to say that, at the most, you'd be estatic at the news the second doctor gave you and, at the least, you'd be cautiously optimistic. But that is not what happens when global-warming advocates are given news that their dire predictions of doom for the world may be unfounded. No. Almost universally, they get resentful and angry when you suggest to them that melting polar ice caps on Mars suggests that there are other reasons for Earth's current warming period...or present evidence that for the past 5 or 6 years we've started a cooling period. Why is that? I suggest that, perhaps, the reason for their totally irrational response is that global-warming advocates have another agenda and they don't really give a shit about the environment. In many cases, it is because they are anti-capitalists, like yourself, and since the total collapse of socialism and communism in the past 20 years, they've been forced to shift their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism to another area because they can't focus on the usual targets because they've been proven completely wrong. > so perforce, I must > confront you. > > I know I'm getting personal here when, obviously, I don't know you. > My grievences against your concepts are not necessarily "proof of your > having personality defects." I don't know your background, age, etc., > so I'm just guessing where you're really coming from. I don't know if > you're "just stupid and loud" or much worse, a fucking Internet Troll "stupid and loug" or a "fucking Internet Troll". And you expect me to want to dialog with you? Qualifying your insults with a "I know I'm getting personal with you" preamble doesn't excuse the insults. > who thinks it's fun trying to incite anger and general negativity. I > hope a cascade of posters here will correct me if my take on you is > way off base. Maybe my own stupidity is projecting, maybe you have > ten thousand followers who buy your used underwear on eBay. You could > be a saint in disguise and I've failed the "eyesight test." > > Here's your challenge, Shemp. Read the below article. It's the top > 25 news stories that didn't make the headlines -- stories that > BigMedia ignored. I've seen this kind of list every year for what > seems like two decades now, and, year after year, it's always the same > thing: Evil Forces Are Afoot and it rhymes with MONEY. "Money is the root of all good" -- Ayn Rand. > > http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm > > This list is ENOUGH TO START A CIVIL WAR in most countries. It is so > obvious that our cultures are being systematically manipulated to > insure profits for Big Money. > > Read the list, Shemp. Do some research. Google down. First of all, it's a non-issue for me because your initial premise -- and that of the article -- that big media is somehow censoring what we read and hear is nonsense. I DON'T CONSUME BIG MEDIA!!!! I get virtually ALL my news from alternative sources on the internet. I don't watch ABC, CBS, or NBC and I don't read the usual channels of news that, I presume, you do, such as the New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. Secondly, all of the stories are available -- as it was to both you and me -- through the internet which is where I get my news. Thirdly, what becomes "news" -- that is, the popular news item of any given day -- is a function of what the consuming news public chooses. Sadly, it's whether Britney shaved her head or, yet again, showed her pussy as she got out of her limousine. The important stuff -- examples of which are repleat in the article you linked -- doesn't get the attention it needs. > > I like your energy, but, man, you gotta do some homework -- your posts > here are strong evidence that you have a logical brain, and your > energy indicates a big passion for life. I'm guessing you'd be a > righteous dude if you notched up your information banks. > > You almost certainly won't end up agreeing with me on many things, but > we'll both be on the same page in terms of "what's what." But, if, > for instance, you don't think that there's 30,000 toxic dump sites in > the USA that are pumping our aquifers with poisons, then that's a fact > that can be disputed, but if you're unwilling to even examine the > facts, then you're being intellectually worthless. It's not that I'm unwilling...it's just that I've got only so many minutes in the day to do the things that I want to do. So I discriminate. And I'm not as smart as you, so I don't read very fast, so you receive a lot more information than I do. Please, take pity on me. > > But most of all, I want you to respond about the concept Big Money's > moral culpability for the human misery on the planet. I am a student of the Austrian School of Economics (albeit an amateur) which holds that the consumer is responsible for what so- called Big Money creates and makes available on the marketplace. The sellers -- Big Money and all the other evil entities you hold in your mind -- are actually slaves to the marketplace that can, on a day's notice, be voted out of existance by YOU, the consumer, through the ballot known as the greenback. Unlike presidential elections that happen once every four years, on a daily basis, you, the consumer, vote whether the corporations of the world should continue in business by giving them your hard-earned dollars. If you choose to consume polluting products, then look in the mirror. Exxon-Mobile does not consume that much gasoline themselves (at least not relative to their size). They just provide the gasoline for YOU to consume (and they do a pretty fantastic job in providing it, if you ask me). The whole concept of Wal-Mart -- which is, in a sentence -- the concept of economies of scale has more positive effects on the environment than a million Greenpeaces could ever hope to accomplish. Capitalism -- Big Money or whatever you want to call it -- is the worst possible economic system there is...except for every other one. > > Shemp, consider this a love letter. And a big, wet, sloppy kiss from the Easter Bunny to you, too! > > Edg > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html > > > > > > > > > Good! > > > > Now we'll have some balance to the 10s of billions of dollars spent > > annually with the express purpose of trying to fraudulently prove that > > there IS catastrophic man-made global warming. > > >
