Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 4/25/2017 11:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:00, bert wrote: In article , newshound writes On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote: On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote: I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher, etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine to their own beliefs. Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have! The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And it has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money into the NHS. Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it. Throw *someone elses* money at it. And make sures your chums are there to catch it. Yeah, those unprincipled money-grabbing nurses did alright out of it. |
#122
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article ,
newshound wrote: On 4/25/2017 11:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 11:00, bert wrote: In article , newshound writes On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote: On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote: I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher, etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine to their own beliefs. Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have! The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And it has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money into the NHS. Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it. Throw *someone elses* money at it. And make sures your chums are there to catch it. Yeah, those unprincipled money-grabbing nurses did alright out of it. That would never do. After all, the real purpose of taxpayer's money is to make profits for big business. Like May is doing by privatizing bits of the NHS. If there is any left over after paying for the renovations of the Rees-Mogg family home, of course. -- *If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#123
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals, probs us included. TW |
#124
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals, probs us included. Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh. TW -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is. |
#125
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW |
#126
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates But of course they are nothing like this at all. but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis. You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5. Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually civilians isn't it? Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. Its a rough world outside Islington. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD) |
#127
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals, probs us included. Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh. I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either.. Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when you do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story propped up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring. TW -- The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx |
#128
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates But of course they are nothing like this at all. but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis. You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5. Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually civilians isn't it? Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. Its a rough world outside Islington. The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them. War is the natural result. |
#129
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 17:56, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates But of course they are nothing like this at all. but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis. You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5. Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually civilians isn't it? Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. Its a rough world outside Islington. The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them. War is the natural result. Exactly. However the snowflakes cant handle the idea, so we have to go around being 'shocked' If you want to stop war and carbon emissions, don't have kids. -- Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good. Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist) |
#130
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/2017 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. What's your guess at the figures for the Falklands war? |
#131
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/2017 17:56, Capitol wrote:
The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them. War is the natural result. Its war that disrupts the food supply and causes the starvation. Britain nearly starved because of WW2 many in germany did. The wars in Africa aren't over food but power. If they were over food the UN would be able to deliver the famine relief. But the truth doesn't fit crapitall beliefs. |
#132
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. That was not your point at all. You have just made a new point because you can see that the old one was ********, lol! Tim W |
#133
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 18:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote: On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh. I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either.. Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when you do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story propped up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring. Bit like the China Syndrome. More Hollywood cock. Surprising numbers of twerps believed it though. It has slightly more possibility. But not much. Obviously serious volcanic eruptions like pinatubo and krakatoa made a difference for a year or two. But it would taker a lot to duplicate them in terms of ash volumes. Let alone exceed them by orders of magnitude. -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal |
#134
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/17 19:19, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. That was not your point at all. You have just made a new point because you can see that the old one was ********, lol! Tim W Its a mistake to look in the mirror and think you see other people there Tim. -- You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. Al Capone |
#135
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 20:50, Richard wrote:
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 20:01, Richard wrote: [snip] You are the one whining about austerity, so it must be impacting you somehow. Are you saying that you are a lazy **** sponging off the company you work for? BTW, it would help if you could construct sentences which are less than a page in length. poor you, no I care! |
#136
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com... On 26/04/2017 17:04, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. What's your guess at the figures for the Falklands war? 3.5 million refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. |
#137
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 26/04/2017 18:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote: On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh. I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either.. Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when you do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story propped up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring. Bit like the China Syndrome. More Hollywood cock. Surprising numbers of twerps believed it though. Its a shame its not true, letting the core melt its way into the core would be an easy disposal method. |
#138
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"TimW" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear winter Not gunna happen, you watch. which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals, Like hell it would. Even the major events produced by the most spectacular volcano eruptions that affected the climate for years didnt do anything even remotely like that. probs us included. Not a chance. Humans can survive anything climate wise. We survived the ice ages fine. |
#139
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
TimW wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. Even sillier than he usually manages. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Not even possible. Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Even sillier with neutron bombs alone. Utter ****. Yes. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians And the right males to keep the population under control certainly didnt get killed. WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians And the boomers that turned up after that proves that the turnips line is just plain silly. Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Thats not true of some of them like the Gulf War that was in fact much more like 90% combatants, 10% civilians. Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. The Gulf War wasnt and its the only real modern full scale war. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. Thats a lie with the Gulf War and Iraq alone, and now Syria. And previous in Bosnia etc too. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, Britain and the US dont do that. keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, Yes, because the voters will no longer accept the sort of casualtys that were seen in WW2 or even what was seen with the colonisation of India etc. and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. In some cases they did, most obviously with Bosnia. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. Yes, but they dont deliberately kill civilians and are a hell of a lot more effective than the sort of firestorm bombing used in WW2. Corse its very arguable that the west should have ever got involved in Iraq or even attempted to have a military presence in Afghanistan, but it is pretty clear that Bosnia would have been a hell of a lot worse outcome for them if the west hadn't eventually decided that enough was enough. And Syria may well be turning into that now with the use of Sarin by Assad. Are you seriously claiming that he should be allowed to do anything he likes in that regard ? |
#140
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"TimW" wrote in message news On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals, probs us included. Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh. I wouldn't know. Yes. Pretty sure you wouldn't either.. He does on that, it can't happen. |
#141
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"Capitol" wrote in message ... The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates But of course they are nothing like this at all. but something like this: Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis. You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5. Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually civilians isn't it? Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they end up in war zones dying that way instead. Its a rough world outside Islington. The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist a few years back. Nope. People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them. Not anymore, not even in China or India anymore. War is the natural result. How odd that the current war is in Syria which has one of the lower breeding rates and has no problem feeding everyone when there isnt a full scale civil war going on. In spades with Bosnia which actually has a lower birth rate than Britain. Nice theory, pity about the real world. |
#142
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them. War is the natural result. Its war that disrupts the food supply and causes the starvation. Yes, quite a bit of the time. Britain nearly starved because of WW2 Nope. Britain actually did rather better in WW2 than it did just before that, essentially because they ate a lot more home grown veg than they did just before the war. many in germany did. Not many at all did actually. Lots in Japan did tho, particularly after the war had ended. The wars in Africa aren't over food but power. In fact **** all wars are about food. If they were over food the UN would be able to deliver the famine relief. Not always. They pulled out of ethiopia etc because it was too dangerous to provide famine relief there. But the truth doesn't fit crapitall beliefs. Yeah, that line at the top is completely silly with Bosnia alone which actually has a birth rate significantly lower than Britain has. |
#143
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
Othere has been no austerity,
that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) http://www.france24.com/en/20110629-...mf-eu-bailout/ |
#144
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
..
The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Islamonuts would use them. |
#145
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:04:48 UTC+1, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. Socialism always fails where ever implemented. Just as soon as they run out of money. Too busy sharing out the pie to do any baking. |
#146
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:20:01 UTC+1, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 20:11, Richard wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? no mores the pity and I think you would have difficulty finding one to live in, How about Venezuela? http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ion-state.html |
#147
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"harry" wrote in message ... On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:04:48 UTC+1, critcher wrote: On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. Socialism always fails where ever implemented. How odd that Norway didnt. Just as soon as they run out of money. No country ever does. Too busy sharing out the pie to do any baking. Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway. |
#148
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 01:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/04/17 19:25, critcher wrote: [...] And toryism is the answer, is it ****. I never said it was. However using the free market itself to regulate prices, and sensible laissez faire approaches to capitalism with only minimal regulation to prevent the worst excesses is about as good as it gets. Its called Libertarian conservatism. No party espouses it. From which we learn that TNP harbours a fantasy of an ideal society as as unreal and unattainable as ever dreamed up by any utopian. One in which we all treat each other nicely and don't need a government to prevent laissez faire capitalism degenerating into gangsterism, ice-cream wars and protected monopolies, something like the middle ages with firearms, all city states, private armies, walls, tolls, tarriffs, families and feudal classes. God help us. TW |
#149
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 01:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 24/04/17 19:25, critcher wrote: [...] And toryism is the answer, is it ****. I never said it was. However using the free market itself to regulate prices, and sensible laissez faire approaches to capitalism with only minimal regulation to prevent the worst excesses is about as good as it gets. Its called Libertarian conservatism. No party espouses it. From which we learn that TNP harbours a fantasy of an ideal society as as unreal and unattainable as ever dreamed up by any utopian. One in which we all treat each other nicely and don't need a government to prevent laissez faire capitalism degenerating into gangsterism, ice-cream wars and protected monopolies, something like the middle ages with firearms, all city states, private armies, walls, tolls, tarriffs, families and feudal classes. God help us. Well there ya go. A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. NO **** sherlock. TW -- it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984. Vaclav Klaus |
#150
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote: [...] Well there ya go. A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. NO **** sherlock. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not. TW |
#151
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote: [...] Well there ya go. A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. NO **** sherlock. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not. You are confusing me with a socialist. TW -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them." |
#152
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote: [...] Well there ya go. A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. NO **** sherlock. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. |
#153
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , TimW
writes On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote: [...] Well there ya go. A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. NO **** sherlock. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. Well I wouldn't have given you one. -- bert |
#154
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. Well I wouldn't have given you one. Neither would I |
#155
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , TimW
writes On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. Well I wouldn't have given you one. Neither would I What, give yourself a job? -- bert |
#156
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 15:11, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. Well I wouldn't have given you one. Neither would I What, give yourself a job? Yes. |
#157
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 27/04/17 15:11, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote: On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer. Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. You are confusing me with a socialist. Just very surprised to be given a job by the government. Well I wouldn't have given you one. Neither would I What, give yourself a job? I took it as a candid admission of incompetence as well... -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood. |
#158
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:04:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: [...] Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but something like this: These figures tend to forget that a lot of people who died as were civilians before the war(s) started. You now need a lot less civilians to sign up to be killed as soldiers/combatants. Napoleonic Wars, casualties: 95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children WW1 85% combatants 15% civilians WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians Late 20th Century Wars 20% combatants 80% civilians Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties 5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children. So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people. That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the USA are very good at it. Civilian killing. So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country. Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that. TW |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DE-barking a log half | Woodworking | |||
OT Barking mad tealeaf. | Home Repair | |||
De barking? | Woodworking | |||
How do I Stop a Barking God? | Home Repair | |||
Barking Dog | Home Repair |