Shemp, You did make me squirm with shame on at least one issue. But first, I'll have at you and see if I can make you squirm too.
For starters, I'm not sure Global Warming is due to humans, and I don't think I've said otherwise, but it sure is a theory that rings true to me. I will keep reading. Stay tuned. If you want to post about Al Gore's duplicity, go ahead, but pollution is another issue, and I don't think you've made a statement about the Big Money connection to it. And the sin of Big Money is so bad, that if you're not yelling about it, you're on their side. These are the posts in which I rant about Big Money: 139558, 139478, 139274, 139278. Your name is mentioned in several of them. Yes, rant -- which means I've got goofy-assed psychological clockworks that have yet to find a way to deal with the emotions that the concepts in the above posts trigger in me -- my bad for the negativity, my good though -- perhaps -- for shining a light on an issue. I'm not wanting to get into a long back-and-forthing with you on the below -- simply cuz it's so tiresome to try to find the "new parts" to read. So I'll just write and you can see if you want to respond again. My reason for confronting you is that I think you have a sense of honor and fair play -- otherwise, I would just not read your posts. That's what bothers me -- how can you seem sane on one hand and SEEMINGLY utterly bereft of compassion for the downtrodden masses on the other hand? You say that I'm an anti-capitalist. I'm not. I'm anti-people-who-take-advantage-of-a-system. And capitalism, communism, and every other ism I've ever known the least about is obviously exploitable by the scoundrels. The TM movement is an excellent example of such exploitation, yes? I'm a business person and am comfortable taking money for value given in return, but pollution in America, Russia, China -- don't matter where -- is exploitation of the worst kind: the future is fucked over for a dime, and every child born today may see a day without polar bears in their world and have to face a clean up task that will take an entire generation's best efforts to even "take control of the mess." What would the price of gas be if the oil companies actually tried to stop their pollution? It'd be high, right? How high -- dunno, google it, but for sure you and I cannot afford pollution free gas, and we'd all be riding bikes. You seem to think that their pollution is a small price to pay, but I've driven by their places of business and not seen even a dandelion growing. And under their grounds is a toxic plume spreading out. It's head-in-the-sand EVIL, and I think you're siding with it. Tell me I'm wrong, please, I'm begging you. For instance, you could tell us all that you were joking when you posted this as if it were wisdom: "Money is the root of all good" -- Ayn Rand. I think you were joking, just to pull my chain, but see? -- that's the deal, you're not communicating -- you're fumigating maybe. As for my insults, yes, on the whole, bad form on my part, and to explain it, all I have to say is that you have not responded to my challenges to you in the past, so I upped the energy, and voila, it worked, you finally respond. If you're not a fucking jerk, I apologize, but ignoring pollution and even deriding those who would shine a light on the issue makes you a fucking jerk in my opinion. If Al Gore's what you say he is, fine, tell us, but to ignore pollution and Big Money and instead yell about an ex-politician is serving the forces of evil -- you're bitching about a paper cut while Big Money's shotgun is removing your head. And I'm of the opinion that no one is smarter than anyone else, but that's a very long book I'm going to write. Stay tuned, but at least be aware that I don't think you're stupid, but when you say stupid things, I gotta wonder what went wrong -- to me, you're misinformed mostly. I don't see any depth of scholarship in your posts. You could get educated in short order -- that's me saying you are smart -- but to me it's a moral obligation to get that education, or stop making a fool of oneself. I haven't done enough scholarship about Global Warming -- in my opinion -- to have an opinion of much merit, so I'm circumspect about it. You seem to think that two movies watched make you an expert enough to publish your opinion as truth. Am I wrong about this? Have you done a ton of googling on it at least? Do you or don't you think that you're an expert on this issue -- not that you know everything, but do you think that you know enough to stop studying the matter? And now about the big point you scored. GUILTY AS CHARGED. I am a consumer, and without consumers, Big Money would not bother drilling for oil and polluting everything. Yes, I can vote with my dollar, and I do -- at least a little. My addictions to cheap goods is a very big problem of mine. I try to consume as little as possible, drive a nine year old car, buy unpackaged goods, wear my clothes until they're too ridiculously shoddy to give to Good Will, not drive much, etc.etc. And it is far from enough, and I could do a ton more. So, yeah, it's all my fault, and in order to make amends, I have sentenced myself to hours of community service -- my job: I try to convince others to use less, live simpler, be kinder. I'm not so good at it. I suck at it actually, look how I've alienated you with my tough talk. Geeze. That's my hypocrisy, and every time you point it out to me, I should kiss your feet. Thank you for putting it to me. Now, one last thing: you said: "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." Henry Ford discovered economies of scale long before Sammy Walton. And Hank the Jew-hating union busting bastard did a lot of good in the world, but it doesn't let him off the hook for his crimes. Nor is Sam going to get a free ride from me just because, you know, he's dead now. I've dealt with Walmart directly -- have you? Google the company. Get a feel for their methods. Whatever they've done "good" -- such as "just in time warehousing and merchandising" -- is great modeling for the kinds of efficiencies we'd love to see in other industries, but when it comes to increasing the profit margin, these guys wrote the book on cheating their vendors and the public in general. I've seen them do such bogus things. Just one example: They didn't want to stock a product of a company I worked for -- they'd overbought, sold what they could -- but when they "had had it with the product" -- you won't believe this, but it's the truth -- they smashed up the product, crunched it, twisted it, broke it in two, ripped it up, and then they sent it all back to us saying that the product was shoddy and was damaged in the stores by their customers. I'm talking 40 foot long trailer load after load after load of products obviously destroyed like this. Then they didn't pay for six months for what they DID keep and sell. Then they took "advertising costs" off what they paid us even though they never ran an ad. Then they took of "early pay discount" even thought they were six months late in paying. This company's main theme is: if the vendor is making any profit, nay, if the vendor is not losing money on the deal, we don't stock that product. That's my experience with them. What's yours? If I take a drive around any city, any town, anywhere, how long would it take me to find a toxic dump? Just have to look for a rusted 55 gallon drum leaking. What's your experience? Don't tell me what experts are saying, tell me what you actually are seeing in your world? Is it, similar to what you say in another post, a world where people can shit butterflies. Do you think Exxon and Walmart are excreting insects? Do you really not see the pollution, or are you saying it must all be put SOLELY onto the consumers heads for causing it? And with gasoline at $3.50 a gallon here, what do you think about the fact that a president of an oil company was paid $500,000,000.00? In case you don't want to do that math, that guy "took over a buck" from every living being in America just because he could. Remember when the Arabs slowed oil production and we had the long gas lines here? Remember how we hated them for doing that to us? Well, here's a well respected white guy who's doing it too. Do you think that the oil company would still have paid this guy that much if that guy had insisted on his company not polluting -- instead of, you know, showing himself to be a world class evil prick laughing at the fact that in all of history, only the French seemed to have really a penchant for lopping off the heads of elitist slave masters and that in America anything goes. Profits must be had even if children drink milk with strontium 90, water with MTBE, and, of course, Kool Aid which is about as nutritious as Styrofoam. Edg --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> 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. > > > > > >
