On 20 Apr 2021 21:42:26 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

You should always vote, even if the person you vote for is in a no-hope seat.

What 'person'? Which of the several / many are we talking about here?
The canvasser was from the party that currently hold one ward but it's
possible that another (different to the incumbent) party might take it
so I'd have to do the same for all of them?

Equally, an opposition party should always try to put up someone against an
incumbent who regularly gets 60% of the vote.

This is probably more like 90%.

Why? Because if the said
incumbent has too easy a time of it at the election, they get complacent and
start taking the electorate for granted; they start thinking they "own" the
voters who vote for them. That is not good.

That was my question. Can they though, what can they do either as:

One ward out of many ...

or

No wards out of many (as is the case for all the other parties etc)?

You could try to figure out whether your councillor is in it for themselves or
to help their constituents.

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

Being in it for themselves doesn't necessarily
mean they're a crook. It can just mean they want the kudos and perks of being
a councillor without understanding that their job is to be someone people can
turn to for help with some local issue. Even then the councillor may not
always be able to sort it, but they should be seen to have made an honest
effort even if they fail.

But if this special effort is for 'the people' then shouldn't they be
doing it anyway and what can be done if they aren't and if it's just
for 'a person', how many individuals could / would any one councilor
be expected to help in that way?

Democracy has to be tested and people voting is the way to do it.

Of course, and spoiling your paper is better than not voting if you
don't have any particular preference, faith or (therefore) interest.

It's not supposed to be a 'lucky dip' or be based on some bogus /
personal interest (in a real democracy) and given the chances are the
vast majority of those who will vote are politically ignorant / biased
I really don't want to join in as that might indicate I actively
support any of it.

So, my question was, would a party representing say 1 ward in 15, with
the other 14 held by one single party, actually be able to make a
difference in a way that we can be sure *will* benefit the majority?
Could they also thwart positive changes / plans that would be the sort
of thing that the majority that voted for them wanted and so not being
democratic?

Even if it's all bollox, the majority will have voted them in and so
that responsibility rests firmly on their shoulders and I'm only
willing to have my 'say' if that is likely to do no more than ensure
the incumbent do what's best (I don't even care if they don't keep to
any (often bogus) promises (as times / priorities change)).

See, you believe in the system and so are keen to play, I don't and so
therefore aren't ... but I want to retain that (or a known) system
because it's probably better than *some* (but certainly not all)
alternatives.

Now, if they offered a vote for some alternate democratic systems I
might be interested to have my say. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position? Namely that you
don't have information on the what the future will actually hold, so you
can't vote for it? I get the impression that democracy is too difficult
a concept for you to grasp? Best perhaps that you stay home and ignore
it all? Or pull your favourite stunt of 'spoiling your paper'?

--
Spike

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:17:08 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

Namely that you
don't have information on the what the future will actually hold, so you
can't vote for it?

Not even 'information' ... but any idea and as far as Brexit was
concerned ... none of us do to this day.

I get the impression that democracy is too difficult
a concept for you to grasp?

I know 100% that you are a stupid pointless troll.

Best perhaps that you stay home and ignore
it all?

That strawman is the best you can offer as an answer to my question is
it?

Or pull your favourite stunt of 'spoiling your paper'?

I bet you thought you had just worked that out for yourself didn't
you?

The fact that I stated it in the first line of my post whooshing you
completely, because of how thick you really are?

Now, whilst I'm flattered you are so fascinated and obsessed by me you
have to hang onto my every word, how about actually trying to answer
my question rather than faceplanting *again*? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all, and I
also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision - which of course is an impossibility. You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward, and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

In similar fashion, you appear to have been brow-beaten into becoming a
vegan, and have covered your dislike of this by accusing all and sundry
of rape and murder, among many other things and using wild exaggerations
and unsupported claims to try and justify your position, trying to shout
down those that show up the paucity of your thinking by crying "left
brainer!", "faceplant!", "you don't get the spirit of it!" as well as
other assorted ad-homs.

Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet and being your
own person?


--
Spike

On 23/04/2021 09:44, Spike wrote:
On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all, and I
also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision - which of course is an impossibility. You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward, and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

In similar fashion, you appear to have been brow-beaten into becoming a
vegan, and have covered your dislike of this by accusing all and sundry
of rape and murder, among many other things and using wild exaggerations
and unsupported claims to try and justify your position, trying to shout
down those that show up the paucity of your thinking by crying "left
brainer!", "faceplant!", "you don't get the spirit of it!" as well as
other assorted ad-homs.

Have you ever thought of standing on your own two feet and being your
own person?


T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions (few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog), but improve their own health,
reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet' and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that
we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer, the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population. That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


Lets make it even *simpler* for your limited grey matter.

What happens to all those cattle, pigs, sheep, ducks,
geese and hens if they are not for human consumption ?.
Are the public going to be expected to pay huge tax
increases to keep them alive until they peg out naturally,
while at the same time being forced to live on chemical
concoctions masquerading as 'food' ?.
Do you have any idea how many people are employed in the
worlds agricultural and fishing industries and what their
contribution is the GDP ?.
What about the severe developmental issues that will affect
children ?.
Who will keep the countryside looking nice and twee for
the millions of tourists who visit places like Wales,
the lake district, the Dales etc every year ?.
How do you propose to persuade the Chinese, French,
Argentinians and others to give up meat ?.

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

That is the first lie... it may be true for a small subset of the
sufficiently wealthy, but it does not hold true for the large swathes of
humanity who depend on animals (dairy in particular) to get adequate
nutrition (and a multitude of other things).

Therefore,

the rest of the argument fails before it's started...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

snip
We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.


I don't know how you define "we" but it patently excludes people who
would die without pancreatic enzymes derived from pigs.

I wonder if you have an advance decision ("living will" as was) that
makes clear you don't want to be treated by them or anything else
derived from animals.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:49:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

T i m is suffering from a very common complaint. It's called Realism. It
is the utter and total conviction that the way you see the world, is in
fact the actual world, and not just your personal image of it.

Oh the irony! This is coming from a left brainer who lives in a
basement!

To a Realist, Veganism is a thing that *actually exists*, on a par with
pebbles.

We all know 'Pebbles' is a cartoon character. Veganisn actually exists
and has been around for a very long time with many million people
round the world you still have empathy, compassion and benevolence who
put the suffering of others over their own selfish and indoctrinated
desires.

You do realise that 'pebbles' was written without a capital letter, so
only a fanatic vegan could possibly think this was a name.

https://www.bridgetohealth.co.uk/blo...s-for-dyslexia

As a Transcendental Idealist, Veganism is just a word, which may or may
not more or less accurately represent something in a Real World, which
is in itself somewhat of a supposition, based on inadequate data...

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to put that much compete and utter
BS into a paragraph!

Ok, let's make it very simple for you.

We don't need to eat animals or consumes their excretions or exploit
them in any other way.

We do to maintain a natural balanced diet.

Therefore, some people choose not to do that, not only to align their
morals with their actions

That is a personal choice, but like religion is best not foisted upon
others or abusing others who aren't vegans, fanatic or otherwise.

(few meat eaters could kill livestock
themselves or would eat a cat or dog),

Quite. It's dependent on culture and tradition.

but improve their own health,

It doesn't, that is the issue here. We are adapted to eat meat, and
dependent on this source of natural B12.

You give your dogs meat, so you must recognise the need for a natural
balanced diet.

reduce resource consumption, reduce pollution and environmental damage
but most importantly, not take what was never ours in the first place.

So, replace 'vegan' with 'not hurting and exploiting animals' and try
justifying it with yer bs again.

Then you are no vegan. You admit to not caring about animal welfare
whilst alive, but just don't want us to eat them when dead. You're
simply envious we're allowed to eat meat.

Oh, and spare me the 'I have canine teeth', or 'we need to eat meat to
survive' as they are both BS for the vast majority of the worlds
population in 2021.

Successful developed countries consume the most meat. It's the
difference between surviving and 'living'.

ALL of the science is pointing us towards a 'plant based diet'

No it doesn't. Dieticians regularly write about vegan diets lacking some
vital consumption the body needs. Only a fanatic vegan would make such
an unsubstantiated claim.

and the
logical conclusion to that is undoing of the cognitive dissonance that

There is no cognitive dissonance amongst most meat eaters. There is
amongst vegans who own pets and feed them meat.

Fanatical veganism and pet ownership are an oxymoron.

we have been conditioned into from the time when the alternative
choices were fewer,

Not only conditions, but through evolution we have evolved to require
meat as part of our natural diet and consume milk in adulthood.

the population much much smaller and our
understanding of what we *will* need to do to feed the world
population.

No we don't. World population is self limiting. The greater the
population the greater the damage to the environment. Why would you want
the population to grow?

That doesn't include feeding more livestock than humans,
food grown on land that can grow human consumable food instead and us
trying to get the value of that food (and other 'commodities') from
slaughtering billions of animals every year.

So not longer trillions! Will it be millions next?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:44:00 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,

OK, that's not a difference then.

and I
also know that no-one can know it all,

See above.

whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

- which of course is an impossibility.

Of course and hence why it was never a target. Please stop lying.

You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward,

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

IYO of course. The strange thing is, having a significant majority is
used all around the world to determine the outcome of many such
things, including here.

snip further trolling BS

I love how you trolls start with the 'it seems to me' (or similar) and
then build on that as if it's fact, when it's *always* complete and
utter BS!!

Are you really convincing yourselves that what you are saying is
actually anything other than complete bollox?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/04/2021 10:23, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:44:00 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,

OK, that's not a difference then.

and I
also know that no-one can know it all,

See above.

whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

Another lie. You said you spoilt your ballot paper because you said you
weren't informed of the arguments from both sides.

There is no "reasonable idea". No group of economists has ever predicted
any forecast with any certainty. Why do you think differently?

- which of course is an impossibility.

Of course and hence why it was never a target. Please stop lying.

Then stop lying. You said you spoilt your ballot paper because you said
you weren't informed of the arguments from both sides.

You
therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way froward,

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important.

That just show blatant ignorance of the subject matter if you call a
choice the same as a toss of a coin. Some of us made an informed choice.

You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do.

Quite.

You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options.

You've totally lost the plot. Why abuse everyone who has a differing
opinion to yours and actually cast their vote, rather than stupidly
spoiling their paper.

You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

8% more people voted for leave than they did remain.

Those who didn't vote, or those who spoiled their vote, might as well
have voted leave, it would have made no difference.

and
covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

IYO of course. The strange thing is, having a significant majority is
used all around the world to determine the outcome of many such
things, including here.

There was thought there would be no need by politicians of requiring a
significant majority from being so out of touch with the electorate.

Where a referendum has a majority but less than a significant majority
it becomes a failure of democracy, and furthers the cause.

A good case is the Scottish referendum of 1979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_S...ion_referendum

snip further trolling BS

You mean facts you can't stomach?

I love how you trolls start with the 'it seems to me' (or similar) and
then build on that as if it's fact, when it's *always* complete and
utter BS!!

The traits of a narcissist is to dislike good old honest opinion where
it isn't to your liking. If the cap fits wear it.

Are you really convincing yourselves that what you are saying is
actually anything other than complete bollox?

In the bit you snipped it was mentioned you were a brow beaten into
becoming a vegan. Is the truth so painful?

On 23/04/2021 09:23, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 22/04/2021 20:19, T i m wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position?

No, it's the same thing on asking anyone for their position on a
subject they have little knowledge about, little interest in and
therefore unable to make any predictions on. Some of us just aren't
gamblers, especially with other peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe
if I was a racist, bigot or thought I knew it all like you, it would
have been easy.

The difference between us here is that I know I don't know it all,
and I also know that no-one can know it all, whereas you took the fabulous
position of demanding time and again that you needed to know it all in
order to make a decision

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

How do you get to 'a reasonable idea'? Whatever does that mean?

You therefore created for yourself the very excuse you needed in order to
avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the way forward, and covered that position with the most stupid comments such as those
regarding majorities.

Usual ad homs follow:

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

--
Spike

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
On 23/04/2021 09:23, T i m wrote:

snip

Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you *know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?

That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

I wasn't aware it was of this level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...ultural_Policy

Confirms in 2000 "the average dairy cow in the year 2000 under the
European Union received $913 in subsidies annually, while an average of
$8 per human being was sent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa".

I never liked the Common Agricultural Policy, nor saw the point of food
subsidies in a continent full of obese people.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:57:59 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

Nope, complete and utter lies (again). I would have liked to have a
'reasonable idea' of any potential outcome of anything I play an
active part in, something that most responsible citizens with some
level of social awareness would want / do.

How do you get to 'a reasonable idea'? Whatever does that mean?

You really are thick aren't you?

You ask a garage to give you an estimate the cost of repair so you can
have a 'reasonable idea' of the costs to then decide to repair /
replace. It can't be 'the cost' because the 'reasonable idea' is based
on another, called an estimate. The estimated would be created by 'a
guess', 'a guesstimate' (based on similar previous similar scenarios),
or a reasonable in-depth analysis of all the parts and labour
required, after possibly some initial dismantling or investigation
(borescope / diagnostics etc).

I *knew* there was little chance of be being able to come up with a
sufficiently balanced / big-picture overview of our position within
the EU (as is the case for most people of course) so my 'vote' would
have only have been a pure guess (as to what *might* provide most of
us a better future).

It really is strange that you have to ask me to explain such basic
stuff? It's like as if you are either really just very stupid,
trolling (or both)?

snip more troll bs

Cheers, T i m

On 24/04/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
Nope, just not willing to toss a coin on something so important. You
aren't tossing a coin because you*know* the right thing to do. You
*know* because of your bias, bigotry, racism or some 'cause' that
means there are no alternatives options. You do remember that nearly
as many who voted Leave, actually voted remain and as many again who
didn't vote at all. So, those 2/3rds were all wrong to you I'm
guessing, because they didn't do what you did?
That's rich, coming from a vegan who didn't know that the EU cheap-meat
subsidy is 800 bucks per cow.

Because Tim is an utter bigot, all he sees in everybody is the
reflection of his own bigotry.

--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman