[LINK] Propaganda, manipulation and the abuse of media [Was: IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes/Science under attack]

[Frank O'Connor]

On 21/02/2012, at 7:57 PM, TKoltai wrote:

> 
>> 
>> P.S. : They don't have Internet or Wireless phones in 
>> socialist Amish style non-mechanised farming co-operatives.
>> 
>> 'Socialist' Amish? You think about twenty minutes after 
>> you've typed ... right?
>> 
>> P.P.S. : Luddites traditionally go for the man in an attempt 
>> to use ridicule to discount their opponents pearls of wisdom.
>> 
>> Luddites are people who stand in the way of progress, who 
>> can't see any way of doing things other than the way it's 
>> been done in the past. They act to secure their position and 
>> protect it from any encroachments by more efficient, 
>> effective and viable technological alternatives.
>> 
>> 
>> Who's the Luddite here, Tom?
>> 
> 
> Context      Synonyms within Context From: http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/Luddites
> Party       Luddites, Confederates, Conservatives, Democrats, Federalists, Federals, Freemason, KKK, Knight Templar, Kuklux, Kuklux Klan, Liberals, Republicans, Socialists, Tories, Whigs.
> 
> That is the question isn't it. To be a luddite or not to be a luddite.
> 
> Lud·dite
> 
> noun /ˈlədˌīt/ 
> Luddites, plural
> 
>   1. A member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16)
> 
>   2. A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology
>          * - a small-minded Luddite resisting progress
> 
Right ... and the difference between your definition and mine was ...... ?????? Ummmmmm....

Do you just copy and paste for the sake of it?

> As to my position on the topic... I'm not actually sure Frank, I can only repeat my earlier comment on my knowledge level about Global Warming/Cooling or the hot topic of the day:
> 
>> I have no Fricking clue. I am merely a Zombie repeating what I have read in an attempted 
>> condensed and hopefully interesting manner.
> 
> But thanks for the excellent data on the different ages. Each one of which culminated in total melt down for all life on planet earth. Oh, you forgot to mention what the extinction level event was for all those different ages.

Gladly Tom. The Great Ice Age ... wiped out about 99% or more of life existent before it. Given that most of it was single cell
The Cambian Explosion ... a huge explosion of complex multi-cellular life ... followed by ...
The Permian Extinction ... which wiped out about 80% of the total Phyla on the planet
Jurassic Age ... an explosion amongst scaled vertebrates (one Phyla) ... all others held pretty much to the levels pre the big heat up.
Cretaceous Age ... bad for everybody for a 10 million year vulcanism and continental break-up period, Particularly bad for the dinosaurs and other big vertebrates after the Chixelbub asteroid impact. Good for grubby little burrowing mammals that didn't even have the status of todays rat.
> 
> In closing, if I could comment on your following statement: 
> 
>> ... under some circumstances vulcanism will cool an environment, in others it 
>> will dramatically increase solar energy absorption and have a heating effect.
> 
> With a link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml (An excellent documentary with extensive references to Australian Climatologists research.)
> 
As always excellent at quoting, Tom.

> And... One last item.
> 
>> (amongst other vehicles I have an electric assisted 
>> bike which gives me 60 km on a single 
>> battery charge, and is as easy as pie to ride around), 
> 
> How much Carbon was created in the mining of minerals and materials and the casting and then  the manufacturing of the said electrically assisted bicycle.
> 
> I think you'll find the amount was substantially greater, than the methane output of a single horse for it's entire life-span.

But probably way less than the amount spent on a 4 cylinder car by a factor of 50, or an 8 cylinder car by a factor of 200. The point is, Tom ... that I'm for INCREMENTAL improvement, not the ABSOLUTES you seem to espouse. I don't reject a technology because it is polluting, because in the final analysis all technology pollutes ... what I look for is technology that pollutes less than competitive products. I look for technology that is more energy efficient than competing products, I look for technology that combined the functionality of multiple competing products. 

Silly me. Right?

> 
> On that topic, if the average human expels methane gas 14 times a day (at 89.25 cu cm per "occurrence"), based on a world population of 7 billion that is 8,746,500,000,000 cubic centimetres of methane. (Approx. 35 Megawatts of power...)

Your gene line must be excessively flatulent, Tom ... so, on the basis of the statistics you've given me I'm prepared to throw away all my previously hard held humanitarian instincts and admit that in the interests of the survival of the rest of us the Koltai's should be killed off. Without delay. I mean ... each one is obviously a walking toxic waste dump.

> 
> Goodness gracious me... Planet Earth can't afford to support all these farters... Quick off with their heads. 
> 

Such utter selflessness, Tom ... that's what I like about you. We don't have to waste your ass ... you'll do it for us.

So ... When can we assume you are shuffling off this mortal coil? And I'd love to know where to send the card.

> Or, stop them eating Potatoes.....
> 
> Quote/ [From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence]
> Certain spices have been reported to counteract the production of intestinal gas, most notably the closely related cumin, coriander, caraway and others such as ajwain, turmeric, asafoetida (hing), epazote, and kombu kelp (a Japanese seaweed). Most starches, including potatoes, corn, noodles, and wheat, produce gas as they are broken down in the large intestine. Rice is the only starch that does not cause gas
> /Quote
> 
> There's ecologically responsible, there's ecologically irresponsible, and then there's ecologically naïve. Which one are you Frank ?

Responsible, Tom ... as I said, I have no time for the absolutes you seem to espouse. I just do my little bit when I have a choice ... I got for efficient, less not totally devoid of, more effective and multi-functional rather than multi-solution. It works for me. You on the other hand with your absolutist mind frame ... well, I guess with you it's all or nothing.

> 
> Get a horse Frank. That bicycle is far too high and the planet can’t afford you to have one., or if you do have one, stop being a hypocrite.
> Stand by your beliefs... Stop polluting the planet. Become a Luddite today !!!!

I thought that, given your definition equated to my original one, we'd already agreed who the Luddite is ... Tom.

You're not sucking on those nasty methamphetamines again are you? I mean your constant congnizance switches can be confusing when you do that.

Have a nice one, Tom ...