I hate environmentalists

Jer wrote:

Yeah, that makes it worse, but it isn't an issue of being too strong, I
just find the odor to be so incredibly unpleasant. BO, while not
pleasant, it more tolerable to me than things people do to smell
likable. For me, no odor is far preferable to anything artificial. For
years, I've recommend my special lady friends refrain from adding
anything after their bath - save that nonsense for someone else.

Different perfumes for different skins. If your nose is good you can
identify the perfume that matches her skin type. I've gone 6 for 6 with
my girlfriend. She puts it on lightly and it's great - including last
night's outing. Personally, as long as it's light, I love it.

When a woman has a perfume that does not match her skin type it can reek
badly.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

DRS wrote:

Contrary to popular myth, most scientific progress from the High Middle Ages
to the Rennaisance occurred within the church and with its active support
and blessing. While not wanting to underplay the tensions between doctrine
and science then and now, the idea that the church always has been, is and
always will be opposed to science is an Enlightenment myth and is utterly
ahistorical.

What myth?

The issue here is not science but evolution - something the Christian
churches could not abide any more than strong declarations about earth's
central location in the universe.

US Christian fundamentalists (tradition of no central church authority)
most esp. cannot bridge faith to reason to the point where they stupidly
attack reason. In court case after court case they attempt to remove
evolution from the classroom and/or insist that creationism be taught in
high schools.

Teach creationism in church or at home, not in schools.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote:
C J Campbell added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I think this is what is the root cause of the increasing
polarization and divisiveness in the United States and
throughout the rest of Western Civilization. Calling someone a
Nazi is not going to persuade him to change his mind. He knows
he is not a Nazi, so calling him one only convinces him that you
are an idiot who has no better argument.

There are Nazis and then there are Nazis. For example, there are
Green Nazis who don't bother to be confused by the facts so
attempting to get them to change their absurd notions is futile. And
then, there's the Marxists and Fascist kind of Nazis now in control
of the White House and Congress, which is easy to uderstand and prove
if you are at all aware of the last 100 years of American history.
But, since you are exactly the kind of Far Left Loon most likely to
get tagged one of the genres of "Nazi", I hardly expect you to
understand this.

That goes for all the name-calling in politics these days.
Portraying George W. Bush as a fool or Obama as a socialist or a
helpless imbecile are not constructive arguments, no matter how
much you believe them to be true. It only alienates your enemies
further and even makes some of your friends wonder about you.

Bush was inarticulate so he appeared the fool, but Hussein isn't a
Socialist, he IS a Marxist and a Fascist as well. Whether you agree
with the label or not, it is true. What is sad in our once great
country right now is that it's leader has the unmitigated gall to go
to Europe and insult the very people he is sworn to defend.

Don't bother replying, Soup Man, as I never read your vitriolic
replies.

He need not reply, as you have proven his point beyond any
mere argument he could present with words!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Alan Browne added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Ron Hunter wrote:

How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that
are the most advanced in science and technology are the most
religious? Strange contradiction, isn't it?

Hmm, France, Britain, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden,
Canada... not exactly religious stomping grounds yet leaders in
science and technology. Even Israel, quite the technological
leader, is a largely secular nation.

Israel is a secular nation? Where have you been all your life? Aren't
there plenty of Jewish faith people over there, or are you just
another of the secular progressive Far Left Loons that doesn't want
to be confused by the facts? The rest of this is too idiotic to even
comment on.

As to the US, the most religious people seem to be quite distant
from the centers of the most advanced science and technology.
Boston does not strike me as particularly religious any more
than Silicon Valley.

Further, while many scientists are religious, it reflects their
upbringing and culture, more than some epiphany that ignites
their spiritual longings.

Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual
thought. When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and
then they can decide what course to take in their lives.

Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to
get 'em when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by
whatever means including the fear of eternal damnation, burning,
etc.

Powerful brainwashing, that.




--
HP, aka Jerry

"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker

Alan Browne wrote:
Jer wrote:

Yeah, that makes it worse, but it isn't an issue of being too strong,
I just find the odor to be so incredibly unpleasant. BO, while not
pleasant, it more tolerable to me than things people do to smell
likable. For me, no odor is far preferable to anything artificial.
For years, I've recommend my special lady friends refrain from adding
anything after their bath - save that nonsense for someone else.

Different perfumes for different skins. If your nose is good you can
identify the perfume that matches her skin type. I've gone 6 for 6 with
my girlfriend.

That's an admirable record, but would she agree to an audit?? :-)

--
John McWilliams

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Rich wrote:
These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their
kind,
What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.


Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe,
which is that humans should just disappear from the face of the
earth, and leave it to the animals.
What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about
harmony and balance with the environment.

The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
collectively failing to do so.



Are you saying that there AREN'T those in the environmentalist movement
that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
to pay more attention to them.

Ignoring the logic failing of the paragraph above...

No I don't need to pay attention to them. There are always extreme
fringes in any category of people and the likelihood that they will
cause any great harm is fairly nil in the greater context.

Your assertion that all "rabid" environmentalists advocate the end of
humanity is plain wrong and just tainted propaganda.

Who gave you the right to define my terms? To ME a 'rabid
environmentalist' IS one who goes so far as to advocate extermination of
humans, and return of the earth to the animals.

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
contradiction, isn't it?

Hmm, France, Britain, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada... not
exactly religious stomping grounds yet leaders in science and
technology. Even Israel, quite the technological leader, is a largely
secular nation.

As to the US, the most religious people seem to be quite distant from
the centers of the most advanced science and technology. Boston does
not strike me as particularly religious any more than Silicon Valley.

Further, while many scientists are religious, it reflects their
upbringing and culture, more than some epiphany that ignites their
spiritual longings.

Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
what course to take in their lives.

Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to get 'em
when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by whatever means
including the fear of eternal damnation, burning, etc.

Powerful brainwashing, that.

Ok, IF you will agree that they not be taught any form of scientific
method as well. Fair is fair.

Alan Browne wrote:

Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
what course to take in their lives.

I don't get how this is even possibly reasonable.
When a child asks "why is tonight different from all other nights?"
without prompting (and they will ask some such questions without
prompting), do you have to tell them that you are forbidden to
answer that question until they are 18 because of the Alan Browne law?

Peter.
--

Ron Hunter wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
It certainly is. Where did you get your list of scientifically and
technologically advanced religious nations from? The only one I can
think of is the US, which is generally regarded as strangely anomalous
in that respect.

Germany, Italy, Greece, UK, Australia, Spain, France, need I continue?

Is this meant for scientific/technological leadership or for
particularly religious countries?
I'm asking because I can see some countries for either category but none
that would fit both.

jue

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:56:11 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:24*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:


Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to get 'em
when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by whatever means
including the fear of eternal damnation, burning, etc.

Powerful brainwashing, that.

But I'm here to tell you that it doesn't work worth a damn g on a
kid who keeps asking questions that the teachers can't -or won't-
answer.

Alan's suggestion - tell them nothing until they are 18 - has the same
basic flaw. The best way to interest a child in something is to
refuse to answer any questions they have about it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida