ForumGarden

Is it just me?

I thought the OP was laughing at the BBC. It was the BBC that claimed the USA wanted to destroy the world. shrike was making fun of them.

koan;523066 wrote: Is it just me?

I thought the OP was laughing at the BBC. It was the BBC that claimed the USA wanted to destroy the world. shrike was making fun of them.


I dunno, I was just making a general point, it wasn't directed at anyone including shrike.

Galbally;523069 wrote: I dunno, I was just making a general point, it wasn't directed at anyone including shrike.


that's fine, a lot of people seemed confused with what the OP was saying.

I believe this is really about whether or not global warming is something to fear and you are the right person to take on that debate. Couldn't think of anyone more prepared.

koan;523079 wrote: that's fine, a lot of people seemed confused with what the OP was saying.

I believe this is really about whether or not global warming is something to fear and you are the right person to take on that debate. Couldn't think of anyone more prepared.


Thank you, but don't build me up too much will ya! :wah: Climate change is something to worry about, but at this stage you might as well just get on with things, because its happening now already, and its too late to stop a lot of what is going to happen at this stage. The things that are going to happen in terms of the climate will make a lot of this speculation and philosophical point-scoring redundant anyway, and the reality of situation is going to be very clear, quite shortly, hopefully the unavoidable stuff will not be catastrophic (hopefully), and we will gradually be able to mitigate the damage and learn to live with a somewhat different climate, while also making our economies carbon neutral over the medium to long term. In the long term we may be alright. Its definetly something that you should worry about it, but fear? No, its too serious and too late to be afraid, we just have to get on with it now.

shrike;522457 wrote: According to the BBC the USA is determined to kill us all by not subscribing to the climate 'change' hysteria that's reached such a pitch in GB that our PM has to defend his use of aeroplanes.



Personally, I think global warming is a load of crap. And even if it isn't I don't bloody care.



What's posterity ever done for me?







Regards,

shrike.




Were not all Republicans. Or Rush Limbaugh.

Nomad;523140 wrote: Were not all Republicans. Or Rush Limbaugh.


The more thinking ones of us across the atlantic realize this, we are not all cafe-drinking, ultra-marxist, petty-borgeuise, big brother housemate, social-welfare obsessed, porno-film making, cheese eating surrender monkey, culture snobs over here either contrary to what some people in the states believe. Its all about talking to each other people.

Galbally;523149 wrote: The more thinking ones of us across the atlantic realize this, we are not all cafe-drinking, ultra-marxist, petty-borgeuise, big brother housemate, social-welfare obessed, porno-film making, cheese eating surrender monkey, culture snobs over here either contrary to what some people in the states believe. Its all about talking to each other people.




Thats funny. The way we stereotype entire nations. And the Middle East, I imagine families eating dinner together and talking about their childrens school day is fairly the norm as well.

I do know the Europeans love their porn in cafes while drinking espresso though. Thats just fact.

Nomad;523168 wrote: I do know the Europeans love their porn in cafes while drinking espresso though. Thats just fact. :DAu contraire, mon brave, je pense que vous voulez dire des profiteroles au lieu des images érotiques. nous ne sommes pas japonais.

spot;523254 wrote: Au contraire, mon brave, je pense que vous voulez dire des profiteroles au lieu des images érotiques. nous ne sommes pas japonais.


I know more French than I thought!

spot;523254 wrote: Au contraire, mon brave, je pense que vous voulez dire des profiteroles au lieu des images érotiques. nous ne sommes pas japonais.




Are you flirting with me ? I am so batting my eyelashes right now

I do know the Europeans love their porn in cafes while drinking espresso though. Thats just fact.

Okay, we do like that alright, thats true, I'll have a tall Americano, and a copy of "Teenage Asian Bum Fest 7" to go please Pierre, oh and pass us the government welfare check, I need to waste some money on impressionist art. Mon Dieu!

koan;523066 wrote: Is it just me?

I thought the OP was laughing at the BBC. It was the BBC that claimed the USA wanted to destroy the world. shrike was making fun of them.


I thought that too...

I thought the title was being sarcastic, and the OP was speaking tongue in cheek, but this thread has turned ugly, and I would like to know what people feel about it all...

I read that the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to slow down democratic industrial growth...I personally find it all to be just another political move, however I would like to see Carbon levels drop and the preservation of forests...Probably won't happen, at least not nearly as effectively, but what can I do?

Tongue in cheek or inflammatory? I searched the BBC site with keywords such as "United States" "world" and "destroys" but I couldn't find one article that was relevant. How about a link to this supposed news story?

I also believe being called "moron" and "idiot" is inflammatory. Has anyone taken into account that BR was being goaded into making some of the comments that have caused concern in another thread?

Yes, I noticed that myself.

SnoozeAgain;523438 wrote: Tongue in cheek or inflammatory? I searched the BBC site with keywords such as "United States" "world" and "destroys" but I couldn't find one article that was relevant. How about a link to this supposed news story?

I also believe being called "moron" and "idiot" is inflammatory. Has anyone taken into account that BR was being goaded into making some of the comments that have caused concern in another thread?


Yes, I think Shrike, whoever he is, wanted to get a certain reaction and he got one, he is stirring and up for a fight, with anyone, thats all.

SnoozeAgain;523438 wrote: Tongue in cheek or inflammatory? I searched the BBC site with keywords such as "United States" "world" and "destroys" but I couldn't find one article that was relevant. How about a link to this supposed news story?How about two?US attacked over climate claims, By Elizabeth Blunt BBC News, Buenos Aires

Environmentalists have attacked US claims that America is doing as much to curb global warming as any other nation that signed the Kyoto deal. They were reacting to statements by the US government delegation at the international meeting on climate change in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires. A speaker from the US section of Greenpeace accused the government for censoring the work of its scientists. Jessica Coven said the US was using the science to delay the need to act. Ms Coven also said the US government's much-vaunted technical innovation was largely misdirected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4080431.stm



US to reject UK climate measures, By Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Correspondent

Tony Blair's vision of a new deal on climate change at the forthcoming summit of G8 industrialised nations looks likely to be heading for failure. President Bush's chief climate negotiator has told the BBC that the USA will agree to only one of three of Mr Blair's targets for the Gleneagles meeting. Mr Blair hopes the Americans will agree that recent developments in climate science have proved the need for urgent action to protect the planet from the risk of catastrophic harm. He wants to tie the Americans into a new international agreement on cutting emissions now they have refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. And he wants the US to commit more of its wealth towards developing new technologies that will allow people to keep their current lifestyles without damaging the climate.

But Mr Bush's climate negotiator Harlan Watson said the president would agree to only one of the three. Mr Watson said the US would continue its investment in technology. But he said the science on climate was still uncertain and did not merit urgent action. Mr Watson said the US would not commit to any new international climate agreement on cutting emissions. He said the president had committed to reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted for every dollar earned in the economy. But he would not agree to the overall cuts in emissions to which most other leading nations aspire. The UK government's chief scientist says industrialised nations need to cut emissions by at least 60% and believes simply making production a little more efficient is irresponsibly inadequate. Scientists are particularly angry that the US' reluctance to move urgently on the issue is holding back the rest of the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4542951.stm

"Oh spot, that's not relevant"? Tosh, dearie, of course it is and it's pretty typical of BBC coverage.

koan;523079 wrote: that's fine, a lot of people seemed confused with what the OP was saying.

I believe this is really about whether or not global warming is something to fear and you are the right person to take on that debate. Couldn't think of anyone more prepared.


That seems to happen a lot here....funny how many ride on certain peoples coat tails without even a clue....:wah:

:rolleyes:

Hello SCT, nice to see you again.

Nice try Spot, but one of your articles was dated May 2005, which seems a bit past it's expiration date considering the OP made it sound as though it was a recent news item.

Try again, and use this as your search criteria:

Why does the USA want to destroy the world?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the BBC the USA is determined to kill us all by not subscribing to the climate 'change' hysteria that's reached such a pitch in GB that our PM has to defend his use of aeroplanes.


By the way, why do you feel obligated to defend this thread? I was actually hoping the originator of this topic could supply the link. You've been known to ask for as much from an unverified source or quote.

SnoozeAgain;523523 wrote: Hello SCT, nice to see you again.

Nice try Spot, but one of your articles was dated May 2005, which seems a bit past it's expiration date considering the OP made it sound as though it was a recent news item.

Try again, and use this as your search criteria:



By the way, why do you feel obligated to defend this thread? I was actually hoping the originator of this topic could supply the link. You've been known to ask for as much from an unverified source or quote.


So are you this Snooze person that seems to be so misunderstood?

You are back?

Why did you leave?

SnoozeAgain;523523 wrote: Nice try Spot, but one of your articles was dated May 2005, which seems a bit past it's expiration date considering the OP made it sound as though it was a recent news item.

Try again, and use this as your search criteria:

Lordie me... the BBC search returns articles in relevance order, not date order, and I'm not going to try to filter just this year's articles out.

As for search criteria, perhaps that's where you need practice, or even a look in Google for Dummies. You need to be aware of synonyms, in this case "planet" for "world" and "catastrophic harm" for "destroy". The term "USA" needs no translation.

I wandered in not so much to defend the OP as to put right the notion that the thread's another terrorist attack on America. The OP makes it quite clear that he's challenging the objectivity of his national broadcaster, not the US administration. Were it me I'd go with the editorial board but that's a different matter.

RhondaLu;523518 wrote: That seems to happen a lot here....funny how many ride on certain peoples coat tails without even a clue....:wah:

:rolleyes:


Which is why I don't want to be anyones spokesperson, or ever claim to be either. So don't turn me into something that I am not.

Galbally;523541 wrote: Which is why I don't want to be anyones spokesperson, or ever claim to be either. So don't turn me into something that I am not.


LOL, Honey I don't have the power to do that, it's an observation.....some people don't bother to read (and respond only to what their piers want to hear):-4

spot;523534 wrote:

I wandered in not so much to defend the OP as to put right the notion that the thread's another terrorist attack on America. The OP makes it quite clear that he's challenging the objectivity of his national broadcaster, not the US administration. Were it me I'd go with the editorial board but that's a different matter.


Let him/her post info to support his/her views, then. They've done no such thing. You have.



:)

Fibonacci;523701 wrote: They've done no such thing. You have.What do you think the words in the OP, "According to the BBC the USA is determined to kill us all by not subscribing to the climate 'change' hysteria that's reached such a pitch in GB that our PM has to defend his use of aeroplanes. Personally, I think global warming is a load of crap" mean, then? It's a comment on the BBC, not the USA.

RhondaLu;523546 wrote: LOL, Honey I don't have the power to do that, it's an observation.....some people don't bother to read (and respond only to what their piers want to hear):-4


Thats cool. I understand where you are coming from RL.

I never said it was a comment on the USA.



I asked them to back up their claim with proof.

Fibonacci;523747 wrote: I never said it was a comment on the USA.



I asked them to back up their claim with proof.You want proof that the BBC actually said what he claims they said? What do you think http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=70 was?

Let me repeat, I asked HIM!



He started the thread. I assume he wanted to have a logical dicussion. Some members replied and he launched an attack.



I'm done with this thread.



:)

Sounds to me like you're just trying to pick a fight with the new guy. Not healthy, that. Gives the place a bad name. We're meant to be welcoming and tolerant.

What do you know about Shrike that we don't, Spot? I ask because I've seen zero from it other than shitstirring. Normally you'd be on someone like this like white on rice. What gives?

shrike;522457 wrote: According to the BBC the USA is determined to kill us all by not subscribing to the climate 'change' hysteria that's reached such a pitch in GB that our PM has to defend his use of aeroplanes.

Personally, I think global warming is a load of crap. And even if it isn't I don't bloody care.

What's posterity ever done for me?



Regards,

shrike.


wow. Thats the most selfish thing I have read in many years. !!

A load of crap. ? You don't care. ? We are so lucky that there are not too many of your type in the world, or we really would be 'dead and gone'. To hell with everybody else in the world, women, kids, the poor, the deprived. The animals, life itself. !! "all for me, and to hell with you". Posterity ? What have you ever done for it. ?

Unfortunately, that kind of attitude does exist and does lead to the problems we're facing today.

So, Shrike exemplifies the problem.

Lulu2;528482 wrote: Unfortunately, that kind of attitude does exist and does lead to the problems we're facing today.

So, Shrike exemplifies the problem.








Is it possible that the USA can, even at this late date, understand sarcasm?



We are indeed separated by a common language.





Regards,

shrike.

Whooaaa, he's back, that pesky Shrike. Wonder what will happen now! :wah: You sure know how to rile people up shrike, whatever your true intentions.

(Replace that "h" with a "t," and I think we're getting close, here, 'Bally.)

Lulu2;531730 wrote: (Replace that "h" with a "t," and I think we're getting close, here, 'Bally.)


Edna St. Vincent Millay?

I know who she was. Because I 've had an education.

But do you think Garibaldi or whatever his name does, Lulu?



Ask him.



Regards,

shrike.

Galbally;531695 wrote: Whooaaa, he's back, that pesky Shrike. Wonder what will happen now! :wah: You sure know how to rile people up shrike, whatever your true intentions.




Why does an 'Irishman' support a club based in Birmingham, England?

Have you no national pride? You fly the tricolour as a poster.

At least you don't support Manchester United, which is the miserable choice of so many of your countrymen.



Regards,

shrike.

(My "ignore" list has just grown a new member.)

Lulu2;531758 wrote: (My "ignore" list has just grown a new member.)




Enjoy your new-grown member, Lulu.

Just keep the noise down, please.



Some of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation.





Best regards,

shrike.

:rolleyes: Shrike, (again).

shrike;531747 wrote: Why does an 'Irishman' support a club based in Birmingham, England?

Have you no national pride? You fly the tricolour as a poster.

At least you don't support Manchester United, which is the miserable choice of so many of your countrymen.



Regards,

shrike.


Who's your favorite team Shrike, just wondering?

K.Snyder;531786 wrote: Who's your favorite team Shrike, just wondering?
Bury FC :wah:

Galbally;531776 wrote: :rolleyes: Shrike, (again).








I do wish you wouldn't roll your eyes, Galbally.

But as I seem to have your attention at the moment...have you ever heard of Edna St Vincent Millay, the great American poet?



Was she taught in your school or did you discover her at University?





Regards,

Ron.

abbey;531787 wrote: Bury FC


A fine, Northern team with a great tradition.

I wouldn't be ashamed to support Bury. But I don't.







Regards,

shrike.

shrike;531761 wrote: Enjoy your new-grown member, Lulu.

Just keep the noise down, please.



Some of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation.





Best regards,

shrike.


:p ha,ha,ha

tochée:wah: