In article <bo8k7j$3lv$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.

Wrong on two counts.

1) Nature often uses cataclysm, like big fires.
2) Big fires are encouraged when the critters (humans) aren't allowed
to consume the deadwood and are going about puting out alot of the fires.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>>
>>>The Ancient One wrote:
>>>
>>>>...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>>
>>been,.
>>
>>>>(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>>>>they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>>
>>>Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>>>mass/matter.
>>>
>>
>>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>>
>>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>>into Iraq,
>
>
> Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>
>
>
>>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>>
>
>
> So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
> morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>
>
>>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>>around
>>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>>first
>>set of facts.
>>
>>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>>believe
>>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>>view,
>>I have never once seen him do so.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>


hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
for christ's sake.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>>
>>>The Ancient One wrote:
>>>
>>>>...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>>
>>been,.
>>
>>>>(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>>>>they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>>
>>>Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>>>mass/matter.
>>>
>>
>>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>>
>>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>>into Iraq,
>
>
> Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>
>
>
>>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>>
>
>
> So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
> morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>
>
>>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>>around
>>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>>first
>>set of facts.
>>
>>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>>believe
>>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>>view,
>>I have never once seen him do so.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>


hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
for christ's sake.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>>
>>>The Ancient One wrote:
>>>
>>>>...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>>
>>been,.
>>
>>>>(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>>>>they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>>
>>>Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>>>mass/matter.
>>>
>>
>>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>>
>>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>>into Iraq,
>
>
> Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>
>
>
>>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>>
>
>
> So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
> morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>
>
>>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>>around
>>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>>first
>>set of facts.
>>
>>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>>believe
>>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>>view,
>>I have never once seen him do so.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>


hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
for christ's sake.

 

"Jonesy" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0311041017.54f8b7a@posting.google.co m...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government.
Especially
> > just starting out - even an engineer. <
> >
> > You are an idiot!
>
> The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
> they always look foolish in debates.
>
What a strange comment! It's the strategy of the LEFT to attach "names" to
conservatives.... "right-winger", "rascist", "greedy", "hate filled". If
you don't like name calling, go have a talk with Lloyd and try to talk some
sense into him. When he loses on points of argument, he always resorts to
name calling. And that includes calling someone a "right-winger".

Conservatives don't look foolish in debates. Poor debaters of any stripe
do. Conservative ideas have dones very well in the competition of ideas and
they do very well in debates. I'll tell you whose ideas don't do well in
detabes; Green party. They go so far outside of the values of most
Americans that it's easy to see why they only garner 2% support.

 

"Jonesy" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0311041017.54f8b7a@posting.google.co m...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government.
Especially
> > just starting out - even an engineer. <
> >
> > You are an idiot!
>
> The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
> they always look foolish in debates.
>
What a strange comment! It's the strategy of the LEFT to attach "names" to
conservatives.... "right-winger", "rascist", "greedy", "hate filled". If
you don't like name calling, go have a talk with Lloyd and try to talk some
sense into him. When he loses on points of argument, he always resorts to
name calling. And that includes calling someone a "right-winger".

Conservatives don't look foolish in debates. Poor debaters of any stripe
do. Conservative ideas have dones very well in the competition of ideas and
they do very well in debates. I'll tell you whose ideas don't do well in
detabes; Green party. They go so far outside of the values of most
Americans that it's easy to see why they only garner 2% support.

 

"Jonesy" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0311041017.54f8b7a@posting.google.co m...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government.
Especially
> > just starting out - even an engineer. <
> >
> > You are an idiot!
>
> The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
> they always look foolish in debates.
>
What a strange comment! It's the strategy of the LEFT to attach "names" to
conservatives.... "right-winger", "rascist", "greedy", "hate filled". If
you don't like name calling, go have a talk with Lloyd and try to talk some
sense into him. When he loses on points of argument, he always resorts to
name calling. And that includes calling someone a "right-winger".

Conservatives don't look foolish in debates. Poor debaters of any stripe
do. Conservative ideas have dones very well in the competition of ideas and
they do very well in debates. I'll tell you whose ideas don't do well in
detabes; Green party. They go so far outside of the values of most
Americans that it's easy to see why they only garner 2% support.

 

In article <newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
>> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
>> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
>> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
>> > speak of more robust.
>>
>> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
>> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
>> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
>> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
>> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
>> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
>> that's just my opinon.

> Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
> and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
> anti-abortion laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.

I didn't mention those because they don't need the standard of living
to be lowered in the USA to achieve. The control of the left, puting
people on the dole, controling the schools, etc does require that people
be economically unable to do anything but turn to the government.

But yes, there are forces in the republican party that seek control too,
but they are dominated and held in check by those seeking money.

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
> think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
> there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
> who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
> subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.

> So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
> get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
> products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
> Nirviana.

My goal is a society of where people have lost this need to control
others. Unachievable, but the goal none the less.

 

In article <newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
>> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
>> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
>> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
>> > speak of more robust.
>>
>> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
>> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
>> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
>> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
>> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
>> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
>> that's just my opinon.

> Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
> and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
> anti-abortion laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.

I didn't mention those because they don't need the standard of living
to be lowered in the USA to achieve. The control of the left, puting
people on the dole, controling the schools, etc does require that people
be economically unable to do anything but turn to the government.

But yes, there are forces in the republican party that seek control too,
but they are dominated and held in check by those seeking money.

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
> think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
> there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
> who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
> subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.

> So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
> get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
> products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
> Nirviana.

My goal is a society of where people have lost this need to control
others. Unachievable, but the goal none the less.

 

In article <newscache$4eotnh$1a$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
>> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
>> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
>> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
>> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
>> > speak of more robust.
>>
>> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
>> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
>> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
>> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
>> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
>> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
>> that's just my opinon.

> Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
> and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
> anti-abortion laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.

I didn't mention those because they don't need the standard of living
to be lowered in the USA to achieve. The control of the left, puting
people on the dole, controling the schools, etc does require that people
be economically unable to do anything but turn to the government.

But yes, there are forces in the republican party that seek control too,
but they are dominated and held in check by those seeking money.

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
> think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
> there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
> who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
> subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.

> So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
> get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
> products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
> Nirviana.

My goal is a society of where people have lost this need to control
others. Unachievable, but the goal none the less.