Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:28 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade.
I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.
Hardly.
Then demonstrate it.
Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
That wasn't difficult at all, was it? Now, having said that, there's a
whole line of reasoning behind that statement, but you don't seem
interested in knowing what that is, so I'm not wasting my time trying to
educate someone that chooses to remain clue free.

Buying just about anything contributes to global pollution.

While true, I'll ask again, is buying it really necessary?


The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.
They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.
Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?
And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.
That's part of the problem.
Possibly.
Or that you don't count for much.
If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.
Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?
Are you advocating conservationists stay shuttered? I've managed to
reduce my carbon footprint to a level far beyond most others. All it
takes is a reasonable and honest evaluation of one's energy use. Then,
modify one's lifestyle predicated on leaving the future cleaner that
when you found it. One caveat though... you have to actually give a
**** about not just yourself, but someone else too. It's okay to use
children for the someone else parts, they matter more than you and I do.

Don't even think that because I see you as being "over the top" means
I don't do my share.
And that's a common impression peoiple like you give: that somehow
you're morrally superior.
Get over yourself.
Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.
Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.
When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
sort is bad, and another sort is OK?


The use of any energy pollutes, you and I both know this. The issue is
the quality of one's choices predicated on one's values. AFAIC, if
you're not reducing your carbon footprint as much as you can you're not
trying hard enough, which puts your value system in question. An
education can improve one's value system immeasurably. Sometimes that
education offers a choice of choosing not to do something - like using a
cruise tug.

"As much as you can"?
Obviously, that's not you, since you use a computere for this,when you
obviously don't need to.
Hyperbole doesn't work well, as a rule. The idea that, if I don't do
"as much as I can", then my value system is questionable is a
judgement you must be careful with, because you obviously fail
yourself.
I have no problem with being for a cleaner world; the problem I have
is with people like you who set high goals, then castigate others for
not meeting them, while failing themselves.
Shrieking that others are unclean while being unclean yourself does
your cause more harm than good.


Well, lessee, the only thing I own is a camera, sailboat, scuba gear,
and a two mailboxes, each has a small furnished house - I borrow
everything else including this PC (in a local cafe). I mostly use a
scooter, a bus, two feet, or one thumb to get around (rarely need a
car). The houses are 85-90% solar, water from the clouds. One house is
in New Mexico, the other in Old Mexico. I talk the talk and walk the
walk. What are you doing with your retirement? Your turn grasshopper.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:20 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?
Necessary?
How many *things* are necessary?
Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
Are *you* really necessary?


Someone has to educate the clueless.

And yet, you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted.
On the whole, you're doing more damage than good.



What's the matter Bill, do the hard questions **** you off? I'm not
sure is you're ****ed off more at me or more at yourself. I guess only
you know. Regardless, stop wasting your time being ****ed and do
something about it.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:31 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:28 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade.
I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.
Hardly.
Then demonstrate it.
Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
That wasn't difficult at all, was it? Now, having said that, there's a
whole line of reasoning behind that statement, but you don't seem
interested in knowing what that is, so I'm not wasting my time trying to
educate someone that chooses to remain clue free.

Buying just about anything contributes to global pollution.

While true, I'll ask again, is buying it really necessary?

I've already answered that, but here goes again:
If we are going to put a "needs" test on things, how many would pass?


The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.
They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.
Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?
And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.
That's part of the problem.
Possibly.
Or that you don't count for much.
If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.
Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?
Are you advocating conservationists stay shuttered? I've managed to
reduce my carbon footprint to a level far beyond most others. All it
takes is a reasonable and honest evaluation of one's energy use. Then,
modify one's lifestyle predicated on leaving the future cleaner that
when you found it. One caveat though... you have to actually give a
**** about not just yourself, but someone else too. It's okay to use
children for the someone else parts, they matter more than you and I do.

Don't even think that because I see you as being "over the top" means
I don't do my share.
And that's a common impression peoiple like you give: that somehow
you're morrally superior.
Get over yourself.
Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.
Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.
When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
sort is bad, and another sort is OK?


The use of any energy pollutes, you and I both know this. The issue is
the quality of one's choices predicated on one's values. AFAIC, if
you're not reducing your carbon footprint as much as you can you're not
trying hard enough, which puts your value system in question. An
education can improve one's value system immeasurably. Sometimes that
education offers a choice of choosing not to do something - like using a
cruise tug.

"As much as you can"?
Obviously, that's not you, since you use a computere for this,when you
obviously don't need to.
Hyperbole doesn't work well, as a rule. The idea that, if I don't do
"as much as I can", then my value system is questionable is a
judgement you must be careful with, because you obviously fail
yourself.
I have no problem with being for a cleaner world; the problem I have
is with people like you who set high goals, then castigate others for
not meeting them, while failing themselves.
Shrieking that others are unclean while being unclean yourself does
your cause more harm than good.


Well, lessee, the only thing I own is a camera, sailboat, scuba gear,
and a two mailboxes, each has a small furnished house - I borrow
everything else including this PC (in a local cafe). I mostly use a
scooter, a bus, two feet, or one thumb to get around (rarely need a
car). The houses are 85-90% solar, water from the clouds. One house is
in New Mexico, the other in Old Mexico. I talk the talk and walk the
walk. What are you doing with your retirement? Your turn grasshopper.

So you like to live like a hermit.
Are you seriously expecting the world to turn to your lifestyle?
If you do, you are one reason why environmentalists are laughed at.

--
Rudy Giuliani began seeking
the GOP presidential nomination
on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
and he did a skit in drag that
is on the Internet. If Osama
bin Laden hadn't attacked him
Pat Robertson would have.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:51:04 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Sometimes a bit of pain is necessary. I am in the process of replacing
my lighting with more efficient fluorescent, and LED, lights. I am
replacing the ones that stay on most, such as nightlights, and other
lights that are almost always on. Currently, there are inadequate
substitutes for incandescent lights for some applications (3 way lamp
bulbs). While this change will probably not make a significant impact
on my electricity bill, I find the light more pleasant, and applied
across the whole population, might even result in building fewer new
power plants.

I found 3-way CFLs at Lowes.

--
Rudy Giuliani began seeking
the GOP presidential nomination
on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
and he did a skit in drag that
is on the Internet. If Osama
bin Laden hadn't attacked him
Pat Robertson would have.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:46 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:20 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?
Necessary?
How many *things* are necessary?
Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
Are *you* really necessary?


Someone has to educate the clueless.

And yet, you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted.
On the whole, you're doing more damage than good.



What's the matter Bill, do the hard questions **** you off? I'm not
sure is you're ****ed off more at me or more at yourself. I guess only
you know. Regardless, stop wasting your time being ****ed and do
something about it.

It's certainly not the questios, it's you.
Are you really too dumb to reads that? I specifically said, "And yet,
you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted."
That's *you*, personally.
Do something? Like you did? Move myself back several generations, and
mooch off others?
I, unlike you, like terchnology, and what it can do for me.
I, also unlike you, am able to read and understand what's going on,
instead of simply seeing the extremist alarmist pronouncements of
those who see their funding threatened unless they make dire
predictions of future calamties (see Al Gore's predictions of up to 20
feet(!) of rise in sea levels).
Is pollution a problem? Of course, and you have not seen me say
anything else.
Yet, you take criticism of your tactics as a rejection of your basic
message.
It's not so.

--
Rudy Giuliani began seeking
the GOP presidential nomination
on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
and he did a skit in drag that
is on the Internet. If Osama
bin Laden hadn't attacked him
Pat Robertson would have.

On Feb 6, 7:11 pm, Cynicor wrote:
Rich wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, Jer wrote:
Jim Weaver wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.

Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.

Never said that.

On Feb 6, 9:35 pm, Jer wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Rich wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, Jer wrote:
Jim Weaver wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.

Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.

Oh, it's okay that he feels the way he does. He'll likely continue
feeling that way until his drinking water gets laced with MTBE and his
nuts shrivel to the size of an English pea, and his future progeny has a
third leg growing out of it's pretty pink face. Of course, by then,
it'll be too late for him to give a **** about his own situation, so the
larger question will be does he give a **** about anybody else?


I'm sure that "theory" will go the same way as the idea aluminum
causes alzheimers.
Don't envirokooks EVER give up playing scientist, particular since
most of them can only boast (at most)
having BA degress in English literature?

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:42:11 -0600
Jer wrote:


I've not used incandescents in years, all lights here are LED. For
those interested in this particular issue...

http://www.onebillionbulbs.com

If your lights are all LED's why do you point to a site about low
energy CF lamps?

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:51:04 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Sometimes a bit of pain is necessary. I am in the process of replacing
my lighting with more efficient fluorescent, and LED, lights. I am
replacing the ones that stay on most, such as nightlights, and other
lights that are almost always on. Currently, there are inadequate
substitutes for incandescent lights for some applications (3 way lamp
bulbs). While this change will probably not make a significant impact
on my electricity bill, I find the light more pleasant, and applied
across the whole population, might even result in building fewer new
power plants.

I found 3-way CFLs at Lowes.

Yes, but the price difference is rather more than I am interested in
paying, and the bases are too large for the harps in my lamps....

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:31 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:28 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade.
I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.
Hardly.
Then demonstrate it.
Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
That wasn't difficult at all, was it? Now, having said that, there's a
whole line of reasoning behind that statement, but you don't seem
interested in knowing what that is, so I'm not wasting my time trying to
educate someone that chooses to remain clue free.
Buying just about anything contributes to global pollution.
While true, I'll ask again, is buying it really necessary?

I've already answered that, but here goes again:
If we are going to put a "needs" test on things, how many would pass?

Dunno, it's a question all should ask of themselves. The answer will
depend on how much materialism it takes to make each happy.


The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.
They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.
Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?
And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.
That's part of the problem.
Possibly.
Or that you don't count for much.
If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.
Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?
Are you advocating conservationists stay shuttered? I've managed to
reduce my carbon footprint to a level far beyond most others. All it
takes is a reasonable and honest evaluation of one's energy use. Then,
modify one's lifestyle predicated on leaving the future cleaner that
when you found it. One caveat though... you have to actually give a
**** about not just yourself, but someone else too. It's okay to use
children for the someone else parts, they matter more than you and I do.
Don't even think that because I see you as being "over the top" means
I don't do my share.
And that's a common impression peoiple like you give: that somehow
you're morrally superior.
Get over yourself.
Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.
Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.
When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
sort is bad, and another sort is OK?

The use of any energy pollutes, you and I both know this. The issue is
the quality of one's choices predicated on one's values. AFAIC, if
you're not reducing your carbon footprint as much as you can you're not
trying hard enough, which puts your value system in question. An
education can improve one's value system immeasurably. Sometimes that
education offers a choice of choosing not to do something - like using a
cruise tug.
"As much as you can"?
Obviously, that's not you, since you use a computere for this,when you
obviously don't need to.
Hyperbole doesn't work well, as a rule. The idea that, if I don't do
"as much as I can", then my value system is questionable is a
judgement you must be careful with, because you obviously fail
yourself.
I have no problem with being for a cleaner world; the problem I have
is with people like you who set high goals, then castigate others for
not meeting them, while failing themselves.
Shrieking that others are unclean while being unclean yourself does
your cause more harm than good.

Well, lessee, the only thing I own is a camera, sailboat, scuba gear,
and a two mailboxes, each has a small furnished house - I borrow
everything else including this PC (in a local cafe). I mostly use a
scooter, a bus, two feet, or one thumb to get around (rarely need a
car). The houses are 85-90% solar, water from the clouds. One house is
in New Mexico, the other in Old Mexico. I talk the talk and walk the
walk. What are you doing with your retirement? Your turn grasshopper.

So you like to live like a hermit.

Did I miss another memo? I thought hermits didn't have neighbors.

Are you seriously expecting the world to turn to your lifestyle?

Not at all. But I do expect the world to consider alternatives to
tradition.

If you do, you are one reason why environmentalists are laughed at.

A conservationist has morphed into environmentalist? How quaint.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'