A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Portrait of the average American voter...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old November 15th 06, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

Jan Böhme wrote:
Greg "_" skrev:

I wonder some scientist should correlate tanning booths to skin
cancer....that would make too much sense,......has anyone ever looked at
why so many young females flock to tanning salons?


Oh yes - it's very simple. Back in the olden days, pale skin was the
standard. That was because it signified "I don't have to be out under
the sun in the fields all day" back then. Nowadays, in our urbanised
age of indoor jobs, pale skin instead signifies "I can't afford having
a vacation".

Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful.


Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some
defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown
which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if
they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual
stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is
attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals.
  #172  
Old November 16th 06, 05:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

In article ,
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful.


Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some
defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown
which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if
they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual
stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is
attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals.


I was in a tanning salon awhile back doing a job, seated just inside
the door were two perfectly tanned late middle aged women. They looked
like catchers mitts. I thought that was ironic and a great advertisement
to the young pretty women coming and going from the shop paying $$$.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
  #173  
Old November 16th 06, 05:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

Greg "_" wrote:
In article ,
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful.

Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some
defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown
which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if
they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual
stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is
attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals.


I was in a tanning salon awhile back doing a job, seated just inside
the door were two perfectly tanned late middle aged women. They looked
like catchers mitts. I thought that was ironic and a great advertisement
to the young pretty women coming and going from the shop paying $$$.


There comes a point when your skin "jumps the shark" and takes a turn
for the worse permanently. It seems to hit women in their mid to late
forties and men get little longer. I guess once the skin turns to
rawhide why worry anymore. Those craters from digging out the skin
cancers blend in with the liver spots anyway.
  #174  
Old November 17th 06, 11:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

"Mark²" wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:


edited, for brevity

I have no fear of dying from climate change.


Then what are you waiting for?

I might have to move one
day


No you don't. You can die instead.


There have been some rude things said in this thread, but you've reached a
new low, here, Ray.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson



Hello, by Mark²:

It's all your fault, too, for starting this lengthy, acrimonious and
off-topic thread.

Troublemaker! g


Cordially,
John Turco
  #175  
Old November 17th 06, 11:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:
Greg "_" skrev:

I wonder some scientist should correlate tanning booths to skin
cancer....that would make too much sense,......has anyone ever looked at
why so many young females flock to tanning salons?


Oh yes - it's very simple. Back in the olden days, pale skin was the
standard. That was because it signified "I don't have to be out under
the sun in the fields all day" back then. Nowadays, in our urbanised
age of indoor jobs, pale skin instead signifies "I can't afford having
a vacation".

Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful.


Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some
defects.


edited, for brevity

Hello, Michael:

Tanning's main benefit is "masking" any unsightly, blue veins...which
have a way of showing, through fair complexions. (Such as Jan Böhme's,
I'd imagine. g)


Cordially,
John Turco
  #176  
Old November 18th 06, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:


edited, for brevity

I have no fear of dying from climate change.

Then what are you waiting for?

I might have to move one
day

No you don't. You can die instead.


There have been some rude things said in this thread, but you've
reached a new low, here, Ray.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson



Hello, by Mark²:

It's all your fault, too, for starting this lengthy, acrimonious and
off-topic thread.

Troublemaker! g


Oops.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #177  
Old November 19th 06, 11:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Volker Hetzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.

Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear
as a result, the world will go on just fine.

No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
/not/ to screw up.


They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up".

What is your evidence of that statement?
So far I have only heard you dismissing things as unknown or unknowable.
The CO2 output is real. So is the SO2 output. So is the warming. So is
(was?) the effect of FCKW's on the ozone layer. So is the effect of
large scale wood burning in south east asia.

No one really knows.

Go on then, try to prove an universal negative.

I
do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists
will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the
largest grants or source of future funding revenue.

So you have never read a scientific report? Too cheap to buy articles from
"science" or "nature"? They're there, you know? And the magazines, not
the authors are selecting the peer reviewers.

Here's a great book to get you going. Much of what that guy wrote is clearly
outdated (i.e. wrong from today's point of view) but precisely because of
that, you can learn a lot of how science collects evidence, draws conclusion,
some correct, some incorrect, some estimated correctly (as likely or unlikely)
some estimated wrongly and generally does its best to arrive at the concept of
"current best knowledge".

Here's the amazon URL: http://tinyurl.com/yhxcfr . Go on, buy it. It's
a great read for the scientifically disappointed. Seriously.

And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality,
that (obviously, even if it appears to be new to you) shifting climate
patterns will mean a cooling effect in some areas too, that we cause
it and that the cost of dealing with it is higher than the cost of
avoiding it.
This is particularly true for coastal areas, for colder ones and for
drought affected ones. One example: since most cities (Las Vegas ecxepted)
are situated near fresh water sources and climate shift will affect
water distribution you can start imagining the cost.


The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling?

Who said "global" freezing?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...l_of_knowledge .

You sound more and more like a victim of propaganda, or someone
trying to convince himself and others that the whole thing will
blow over like a fashion and they can go on without really bothering.
The danger with people like you is that we can't just sit back and
wait till you feel it on your own and then let you deal with it
on your own.


Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.

It will change but a lot of money has been invested into the current
climate (heating installations, insulations, power distribution and
generation capabiltiy, even fuel composition).
/Any/ redistribution will carry enormous costs.

I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists.

Yes. So you agree? Which do you prefer, warming or cooling?
Both will be disastrous.


BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point?

Which ones?

Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now?

Go to australia for sunbathing.


Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning
fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception.

People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.

We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?

Evidence of what?

Of the statement you made.


See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just
because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't mean
I need to repeat it.

You didn't.
To quote you:
The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar flares and volcanoes erupt.

Please provide evidence that those are responsible for the current climate
change.

They all have drastic effects on the global climate.

Irrelevant. Notice the nice emotional but wholly useless word
"drastic". Care to quantify that?
Right now there is no evidence that any current solar or natural
earthly activities have an effect that is comparable to the effect
/we/ have. Face it, our influence on the climate is big enough to
keep it in the comfort zone and what we do steers it out of it.

As for:
It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum, before either of these
scenarios happen.

It will be several decades until a smoker dies of cancer. So what?
Besides, what do you suggest? Wait until it has happened and press
the undo button? Halving the electricity and fuel production, tearing
down most houses and throwing away most cars when finally /you/ have
accepted the truth of it too? Will /you/ pay for all that?

We /need/ the next fifty or hundred years to avoid
"these scenarios" happening. Some countries even face them today.
It's great that /you/ can sit back and let them go hang but to deny
their existence is - I don't know how to write it without being
seriously impolite. You know what I mean, so I'll spare myself the
effort.

You question whether the global climate is
effected by the Earth's axis wobble, volcano eruptions and solar
fluctuation's but believe the current global warming hype without
question?

You cleverly mix up quantitative and qualitative statements in
your posts and that's good rhetorics and in an oral discussion
you could probably win that kind of argument.
But here everyone has enough time to think about what you're saying
and therefore it doesn't work.

You must be a politician or are looking for more funding
revenue.

One gets a lot more funding for showing that it's okay to burn
fossil fuel. Or smoke cigarettes. What are you?

Volker
  #178  
Old November 20th 06, 01:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael Johnson, PE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

I guess you didn't get the memo? This thread has "jumped the shark". I
would love to debate with you but we've (or I have anyway) bagged up our
marbles and left.
  #179  
Old November 20th 06, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:48:29 +0100, Volker Hetzer wrote:

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.

Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear
as a result, the world will go on just fine.
No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
/not/ to screw up.


They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up".

What is your evidence of that statement? So far I have only heard you
dismissing things as unknown or unknowable. The CO2 output is real. So
is the SO2 output. So is the warming. So is (was?) the effect of FCKW's
on the ozone layer. So is the effect of large scale wood burning in
south east asia.

No one really knows.

Go on then, try to prove an universal negative.

I
do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists
will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the
largest grants or source of future funding revenue.

So you have never read a scientific report? Too cheap to buy articles
from "science" or "nature"? They're there, you know? And the magazines,
not the authors are selecting the peer reviewers.

Here's a great book to get you going. Much of what that guy wrote is
clearly outdated (i.e. wrong from today's point of view) but precisely
because of that, you can learn a lot of how science collects evidence,
draws conclusion, some correct, some incorrect, some estimated correctly
(as likely or unlikely) some estimated wrongly and generally does its
best to arrive at the concept of "current best knowledge".

Here's the amazon URL: http://tinyurl.com/yhxcfr . Go on, buy it. It's a
great read for the scientifically disappointed. Seriously.

And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality,
that (obviously, even if it appears to be new to you) shifting climate
patterns will mean a cooling effect in some areas too, that we cause it
and that the cost of dealing with it is higher than the cost of avoiding
it.
This is particularly true for coastal areas, for colder ones and for
drought affected ones. One example: since most cities (Las Vegas
ecxepted) are situated near fresh water sources and climate shift will
affect water distribution you can start imagining the cost.


The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling?

Who said "global" freezing?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...l_of_knowledge
.

You sound more and more like a victim of propaganda, or someone trying
to convince himself and others that the whole thing will blow over like
a fashion and they can go on without really bothering. The danger with
people like you is that we can't just sit back and wait till you feel it
on your own and then let you deal with it on your own.


Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.

It will change but a lot of money has been invested into the current
climate (heating installations, insulations, power distribution and
generation capabiltiy, even fuel composition). /Any/ redistribution will
carry enormous costs.

I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists.

Yes. So you agree? Which do you prefer, warming or cooling? Both will be
disastrous.


BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point?

Which ones?

Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now?

Go to australia for sunbathing.


Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning
fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception.
People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.

We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?

Evidence of what?
Of the statement you made.


See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just
because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't
mean I need to repeat it.

You didn't.
To quote you:
The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar flares and volcanoes
erupt.

Please provide evidence that those are responsible for the current
climate change.

They all have drastic effects on the global climate.

Irrelevant. Notice the nice emotional but wholly useless word "drastic".
Care to quantify that?
Right now there is no evidence that any current solar or natural earthly
activities have an effect that is comparable to the effect /we/ have.
Face it, our influence on the climate is big enough to keep it in the
comfort zone and what we do steers it out of it.

As for:
It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum, before either of these scenarios
happen.

It will be several decades until a smoker dies of cancer. So what?
Besides, what do you suggest? Wait until it has happened and press the
undo button? Halving the electricity and fuel production, tearing down
most houses and throwing away most cars when finally /you/ have accepted
the truth of it too? Will /you/ pay for all that?

We /need/ the next fifty or hundred years to avoid "these scenarios"
happening. Some countries even face them today. It's great that /you/
can sit back and let them go hang but to deny their existence is - I
don't know how to write it without being seriously impolite. You know
what I mean, so I'll spare myself the effort.

You question whether the global climate is effected by the Earth's axis
wobble, volcano eruptions and solar fluctuation's but believe the
current global warming hype without question?

You cleverly mix up quantitative and qualitative statements in your
posts and that's good rhetorics and in an oral discussion you could
probably win that kind of argument. But here everyone has enough time to
think about what you're saying and therefore it doesn't work.

You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue.

One gets a lot more funding for showing that it's okay to burn fossil
fuel. Or smoke cigarettes. What are you?


The problem with all this posturing is that it is ignoring the
paleoclimatological evidnce, which suggests that _something_ is preventing
a period of glaciation. If that "something" is human activity that is
being interpreted as "global warming" and if that activity is suddenly
stopped, the result may be far more unpleasant than you expect.


Volker




--
X:\Newsreaders\sig.txt
  #180  
Old November 20th 06, 03:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default Portrait of the average American voter...

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

" and if that activity is suddenly
stopped, the result may be far more unpleasant than you expect.


So is getting hit by a bus, never the less I don't worry about that to a
vast degree. Short term I am more worried about all the mercury Power
plants spew rather than how quickly the ice caps are melting.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your average joe camera question TSKO Digital SLR Cameras 16 November 11th 06 09:10 PM
Nikon D70 average used price? [email protected] Digital Photography 5 October 4th 06 02:08 PM
An average lens for still life photography? Ronin Large Format Photography Equipment 22 December 10th 04 01:48 PM
Massive Voter Fraud -immoral with zero "values" Annika1980 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 11th 04 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.