In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

My wife, a Chartered Biologist, points out that animals in stress
situations turn to homosexuality to limit the population. Are humans doing
this, too?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy BurnsÂ* wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the
NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of CO2
emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make
**** all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is exactly
what most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the
world's population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries
that don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part.Â* I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the first
place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable shopping
bag (always have done even before it was encouraged by a tax). I have my
house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you are
are idiots.

I still eat a little meat and I know in my own mind that it's wrong. And
I use a tumble dryer, car, heating etc. But hey.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 01/12/2019 12:41, charles wrote:
In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

My wife, a Chartered Biologist, points out that animals in stress
situations turn to homosexuality to limit the population. Are humans doing
this, too?

If your wife is a bloke, maybe.

On 01/12/2019 12:44, RJH wrote:
On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy BurnsÂ* wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the
NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of
CO2 emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make
**** all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is
exactly what most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the
world's population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries
that don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part.Â* I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the first
place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable shopping
bag (always have done even before it was encouraged by a tax). I have
my house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you are
are idiots.

We are not far off having legislation which will criminalise anti AGW
talk. Just look at the number of hate crimes one can be found guilty of
these days in comparison to twenty years ago.


I still eat a little meat and I know in my own mind that it's wrong.

Why is eating meat "wrong"?

And
I use a tumble dryer, car, heating etc. But hey.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/2019 11:51, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled

Logic dictates that western civilisation needs to go. The rest will
collapse quite rapidly thereafter.

or if you just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

While we're talking about who should be allowed children, why do we spend
so much money on IVF and such?

Because we can, and it makes no significant difference to the world
population.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

Yeah, I know the bacteria/virus thing is most likely. The pointy teeth
things would be more entertaining though.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 01:05:03 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

REALLY??? 01:05 in Australia? AGAIN????? Why don't you take your Nembutal as
I told you before, you abnormal senile idiot?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

But we know how to get on top of those very quickly now
and even HIV/AIDS flu and even ebola can't do it anymore.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

My wife, a Chartered Biologist,

Fark, didn’t realise that there were such animals.

Fark there is even a Chartered Science Teacher

Dave the sot need to jump on the bandwagon
and become a Chartered Dunny Clearer.

points out that animals in stress situations
turn to homosexuality to limit the population.

That’s radically over stated.

Are humans doing this, too?

Humans aren't in stress situations and
you don’t see an excess of poofters in
HongKong or Somalia or even Syria.

You do in prisons, but not loony bins.

On 01/12/2019 13:30, Richard wrote:
On 01/12/2019 12:44, RJH wrote:
On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy BurnsÂ* wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote
for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is
perhaps the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered
from the NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of
CO2 emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make
**** all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is
exactly what most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the
world's population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries
that don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part.Â* I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the
first place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable
shopping bag (always have done even before it was encouraged by a
tax). I have my house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you
are are idiots.

We are not far off having legislation which will criminalise anti AGW
talk. Just look at the number of hate crimes one can be found guilty of
these days in comparison to twenty years ago.


I still eat a little meat and I know in my own mind that it's wrong.

Why is eating meat "wrong"?

non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues


--
Cheers, Rob

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:13:05 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

OK, this must be a scammer as *the* Andy Burns wouldn't come out with
something so ridiculous! ;-)?

[1] since that how votes actually get counted.

What part of *voting* (for or against) confuses you Andy?

OOI, if you were ever party to a 'show of hands' type vote you would
hear clearly them announcing how many were 'for' and how many
'against' (and I assume they are actually counted not just guessed
at). ;-)

Oh, and what you aren't able to actually 'for' for anything because
there is nothing you are willing to vote for... the only thing left is
to vote against it or if that's likely to make things even worse, the
only thing left to differentiate yourself from those who simply
couldn't be bothered to attend, is to spoil your paper.

HTH. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/2019 06:55, RJH wrote:
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the NHS
to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of CO2
emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make ****
all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is exactly what
most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?


The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

All modern first world countrys and most second world country
arent even self replacing now if you take out immigration.

The TOTAL of India and China, by far the two most
populous countrys now isnt self replacing either now.

you're tying that trick of combing two counties again

it's cheating

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

My wife, a Chartered Biologist,

Fark, didn’t realise that there were such animals.

Fark there is even a Chartered Science Teacher

Dave the sot need to jump on the bandwagon
and become a Chartered Dunny Clearer.


now there's a Wodney post worth keeping :-)

tim

"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the NHS
to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of CO2
emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make ****
all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is exactly what
most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the world's
population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries that
don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part. I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the first
place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable shopping bag
(always have done even before it was encouraged by a tax). I have my
house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming,

As an individual I have little control over that

and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you are are idiots.

It's not individuals, but organisations that make the charge

tim

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/2019 12:44, RJH wrote:
On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote
for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the
NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of CO2
emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make ****
all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is exactly what
most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the
world's population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries
that don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part. I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the first
place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable shopping
bag (always have done even before it was encouraged by a tax). I have my
house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you are
are idiots.

We are not far off having legislation which will criminalise anti AGW
talk.

Oh bull****.

Just look at the number of hate crimes one can be found guilty of these
days in comparison to twenty years ago.

Taint gunna happen with AGW.

I still eat a little meat and I know in my own mind that it's wrong.

Why is eating meat "wrong"?

Because he is a ****wit.

And I use a tumble dryer, car, heating etc.

So your composting just just more mindlessly silly virtue signalling.

But hey.

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 01/12/2019 06:55, RJH wrote:
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote
for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is perhaps
the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered from the
NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to do
anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of CO2
emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make ****
all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is exactly what
most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?


The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

All modern first world countrys and most second world country
arent even self replacing now if you take out immigration.

The TOTAL of India and China, by far the two most
populous countrys now isnt self replacing either now.

you're tying that trick of combing two counties again

it's cheating

Like hell it is when they are the two most populist countrys.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:14:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane trolling asshole's latest troll****

03:14 in Australia? And you've been up and trolling for OVER TWO HOURS, yet
AGAIN???????

Just HOW clinically insane are you, senile Rodent? LOL

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:37:50 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

02:38 in Australia? AGAIN??? And you've been up and trolling for almost TWO
HOURS already!

Just what the **** is wrong with you, you senile pest?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:17:10 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


FLUSH the clinically insane, trolling, senile cretin's latest troll****

02:17??? And you've been up and trolling for OVER AN HOUR, yet AGAIN!

Is your loneliness so unbearable for you, you abnormal cantankerous lonely
senile pest? BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:45:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane trolling senile asshole's latest troll****
unread

03:45 now??? LMAO! NO sleep for you AT ALL?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 12:41:03 +0000, charles wrote:

My wife, a Chartered Biologist, points out that animals in stress
situations turn to homosexuality to limit the population. Are humans
doing this, too?

There do seem to be more poofters around these days, I don't doubt that.
However, I suspect they've adopted this perverse behaviour due to
absorbing BBC propaganda and not as a result of stress. Animals are not
susceptible to such artifice so your comparison is invalid.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 01/12/2019 15:47, RJH wrote:
On 01/12/2019 13:30, Richard wrote:
On 01/12/2019 12:44, RJH wrote:
On 01/12/2019 07:26, tim... wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 30/11/2019 11:34, tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:13:10 UTC, Andy BurnsÂ* wrote:
T i m wrote:

I doubt I'll be actually spoiling either this time as I / we have
something we actually / specifically want to protest against

Why not do what everyone else will be doing and decide to vote
for[1]
someone, rather than against something?

I'd say because in the general election, although Brexit is
perhaps the biggest thing there are other things to be condidered
from the NHS to what to do about climate change (if it's happening)

and wtf difference is voting for one party or the other going to
do anyway?

we are 0.1% of the world population


And consume/produce vastly more per capita than most countries. And
we're (the UK) about 1% of the global population - producing 1% of
CO2 emissions (for example, insofar as that's a measure of it all).

sorry my mistake.

we can reduce our carbon footprint to zero and it's going to make
**** all difference if the other 99.9% does nothing (which is
exactly what most of them are doing)


Why would that stop you doing the right thing?

because it overly inconveniences me in a way that the rest of the
world's population isn't inconvenienced

and it adds to our company's costs of operation that makes them
uncompetitive in a world competing with companies in other countries
that don't have this extra costs.

FTAOD, I do my part.Â* I use PT exclusively, I recycle all my waste
(preferring not to actually take that waste from the shop in the
first place). I never ever throw away uneaten food. I use reusable
shopping bag (always have done even before it was encouraged by a
tax). I have my house heating set to a low level etc etc


I think that sounds quite a reasonable, balanced response.

But apparently I am some climate criminal because I should have the
temerity to have 2 holidays per year (oh and now eating meat as well
makes me a major criminal).


It doesn't make you a 'criminal'. Depending upon how you deal with
questions on morality and non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues, my view is that people who suggest you
are are idiots.

We are not far off having legislation which will criminalise anti AGW
talk. Just look at the number of hate crimes one can be found guilty
of these days in comparison to twenty years ago.


I still eat a little meat and I know in my own mind that it's wrong.

Why is eating meat "wrong"?

non-human animal cruelty, intensive animal
farming, and climate issues

Interesting that you were specific about the non-human cruelty.
Cannibalism on the menu?

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:17:10 +1100, Ray wrote:

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria
or
virus (or group of).

But we know how to get on top of those very quickly now and even
HIV/AIDS ...

Doesn't transfer in the general population very well.

... flu ...

Not been a really nasty or virulent strain for 50 odd years. Asian in
the late 50's? Before that the 1918 Spanish. With a new and virulent
strain one sneeze by an infected person on a plane and the whole
plane goes down with it, potentially spreading it across the globe in
very short time. SARS is still lurking in the background...

... and even ebola can't do it anymore.

It has a damn good try fairly often and is controlled almost entirely
by physical means.

These are all virus based. Don't underestimate simple bacterial
infection. I doubt many here have memory of what an infection really
meant before the days of penicillin and modern antibiotics. An minor
cut finger could easly lead to the amputation of that finger. The
huge tuberculosis isolation hospitals where all being closed down
when I was a lad.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:17:10 +1100, Ray wrote:

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria
or
virus (or group of).

But we know how to get on top of those very quickly now and even
HIV/AIDS ...

Doesn't transfer in the general population very well.

... flu ...

Not been a really nasty or virulent strain for 50 odd years. Asian in
the late 50's? Before that the 1918 Spanish. With a new and virulent
strain one sneeze by an infected person on a plane and the whole
plane goes down with it, potentially spreading it across the globe in
very short time. SARS is still lurking in the background...

But we know how to do isolation now and keep its spread in check.

... and even ebola can't do it anymore.

It has a damn good try fairly often and is controlled almost entirely
by physical means.

Yes, but controlled well that way so we never see
a result like we got with the black death anymore.

These are all virus based. Don't underestimate simple bacterial
infection. I doubt many here have memory of what an infection
really meant before the days of penicillin and modern antibiotics.

Yes, but those don't produce the result seen with black death either.

An minor cut finger could easly lead to the amputation of that finger.

But with not enough people affect to wipe out humans.

The huge tuberculosis isolation hospitals where
all being closed down when I was a lad.

Because the chemical treatment had been developed.

We don't get a problem with cholera or smallpox or polio anymore either

On 01/12/2019 12:41, charles wrote:
My wife, a Chartered Biologist, points out that animals in stress
situations turn to homosexuality to limit the population. Are humans doing
this, too?

Not sure this hasnt been exposed as an urban myth...


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:03:13 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

But we know how to do isolation now and keep its spread in check.

*I* know how to deal with you, senile punching bag!

FLUSH the rest of your usual senile troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.


--

Roger Hayter

On 02/12/2019 10:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

And where is that reliably working in our universe?

On 02/12/2019 10:30, Roger Hayter wrote:

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.


The only one?

Off the top of my head...

War,
Pestilence,
Famine
and of course China's one child policy.

On 02/12/2019 13:05, Richard wrote:


And where is that reliably working in our universe?

Japan, Italy... most first world countries have declining birth rates.

On 02/12/2019 13:14, Pancho wrote:
On 02/12/2019 13:05, Richard wrote:


And where is that reliably working in our universe?

Japan, Italy... most first world countries have declining birth rates.

Requiring the importation of people to fill the voids.

On 02/12/2019 13:49, Richard wrote:
On 02/12/2019 13:14, Pancho wrote:
On 02/12/2019 13:05, Richard wrote:


And where is that reliably working in our universe?

Japan, Italy... most first world countries have declining birth rates.

Requiring the importation of people to fill the voids.

Not so, Japan has annual net migration of approx 0.6% compared to 4.0%
for the UK. It has a declining population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:03:13 +1100, Ray wrote:

... flu ...

Not been a really nasty or virulent strain for 50 odd years. Asian
in
the late 50's? Before that the 1918 Spanish. With a new and
virulent
strain one sneeze by an infected person on a plane and the whole
plane goes down with it, potentially spreading it across the globe
in
very short time. SARS is still lurking in the background...

But we know how to do isolation now and keep its spread in check.

For how many? I doubt the UK could cope with properly isolating a few
hundred people from a plane. That's assuming you could track them
down and all their contacts since...

People would have to be ordered to self isolate in their homes but
would need supplies bringing to them. A small number of those ordered
wouldn't comply 100% "it won't hurt to nip to the shop for a packet
of fags and some tinnies"...

... and even ebola can't do it anymore.

It has a damn good try fairly often and is controlled almost
entirely
by physical means.

Yes, but controlled well that way so we never see a result like we got
with the black death anymore.

These are all virus based. Don't underestimate simple bacterial
infection. I doubt many here have memory of what an infection
really meant before the days of penicillin and modern antibiotics.

Yes, but those don't produce the result seen with black death either.

An minor cut finger could easly lead to the amputation of that
finger.

But with not enough people affect to wipe out humans.

The huge tuberculosis isolation hospitals where all being closed
down
when I was a lad.

Because the chemical treatment had been developed.

We don't get a problem with cholera or smallpox or polio anymore either

Those are all old diseases. Vaccination over many decades has
eliminated smallpox and almost eliminated polio. Cholera is still a
serious problem where there is poor santitation.

The threat doesn't come from these old, known, diseases but from
something new and novel jumping the species barrier. If that
something just happens to be virulent nd easy to transfer with modern
rapid transport it could be all over the world in a very few days.
Well before it is recognised and *any* controlling action taken.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:22:50 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

Though TBH, ISTM the idea that "not allowed to leave the polling
station" for the whole 15 hours it is open, cannot be the case.

Aye depending on how you define "polling station" I wonder how
many
have loo within that boundary.

I'd say most if not all. All our local stations are schools that close
for a day, they have toilets and canteens and many other facilities on
site.

Why on earth does a school used as a Polling Station need to close?

That is in contravention of the WTD and, on the assumption that
the
task is a paid one, then these rules do apply.

WTD, ha! Left home this morning at 0630 got back at 2230.

Traveling time isn't normally included in such calculations.

Travelling time to/from a normal place of work or a base is excluded.
I don't have a "normal place of work" and as I work for a number of
companies and do not go to their location to collect a works van or
WHY. "base" is home.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

That isnt the way China and Japan did it.

And doesn’t explain why the first world had one hell of a birth
rate after WW2 had ended and now none of the modern first
world is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.

Or why that is true of most of the second world with the main
exception being some of the roman catholic countries and muslim
countries.

Ray wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

That isnt the way China and Japan did it.

And doesn't explain why the first world had one hell of a birth
rate after WW2 had ended and now none of the modern first
world is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.

Yes it does! War is not compatible with security.



Or why that is true of most of the second world with the main
exception being some of the roman catholic countries and muslim
countries.


--

Roger Hayter

On 02/12/2019 18:04, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:22:50 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

Though TBH, ISTM the idea that "not allowed to leave the polling
station" for the whole 15 hours it is open, cannot be the case.

Aye depending on how you define "polling station" I wonder how
many
have loo within that boundary.

I'd say most if not all. All our local stations are schools that close
for a day, they have toilets and canteens and many other facilities on
site.

Why on earth does a school used as a Polling Station need to close?

In the case of our local polling station, because a) it take over the
dining hall, so the children would not be able to eat and b) many
parents would not be happy with hundreds of strangers walking into a
school full of primary aged children.

SteveW

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:06:30 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

That isnt the way China and Japan did it.

LOL Auto-contradicting senile idiot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 02/12/2019 10:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

And where is that reliably working in our universe?

Everywhere. Its why birth rates are dropping EVERYWHERE
now except when its already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#1950_and_2015

He's just wrong about it being the only way and china proves that.

Pancho wrote
Roger Hayter wrote

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

The only one?

Yeah,, thats mad.

Off the top of my head...

War,

Even WW1 and WW2 didnt have much effect on that.

Or even the Vietnam war on the population of vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vietnam.

Pestilence,

Its only the black death that has much of an effect
like that, presumably because people keep ****ing.

Famine

Ditto.

and of course China's one child policy.

Yeah, that is the oblivious hole in his claim.

Mao always maintained that the reason that
there are so many chinese is because there
was nothing else to do in the evening before
the advent of TV was to ****.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 02/12/2019 13:14, Pancho wrote:
On 02/12/2019 13:05, Richard wrote:


And where is that reliably working in our universe?

Japan, Italy... most first world countries have declining birth rates.

Requiring the importation of people to fill the voids.

Not with Japan.