You are not allowed to report posts in this board.

[bugo]

NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us

Speak for yourself.  SPUI's offbeat humor adds color to the board.

[corco]

Yeah, I like SPUI. He's over the top sometimes but he has a bluntness I appreciate about him and he's almost always right.

[Billy F 1988]

NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us

Speak for yourself.

[sarcasm] Wow. Really? I can speak for myself? [end sarcasm]

Um...no. 😔

[Molandfreak]

NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us and judging by others' comments regarding your recent behavior, I have to ere in agreeing with them. Yea, some of my comments in our recent interactions have been somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't take that to the levels you are putting this through. We don't always agree with you. But this is too much. You have two options, bud. Get your act together or hit the road. Your choice. You decide.

To the rest of us, we can go on about this environment crap when we're not actually on the boards.

Would someone do the honors of locking this up so that it doesn't end up a potential shitstorm here, please and thanks?

Why would you specifically try to stir up trouble, then ask for a mod to lock this so that it doesn't stir up trouble? Doesn't make any sense to me.

[1995hoo]

At the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.

I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance.  The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.

Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.

Much agreed.  We don't need to resort to vulgar insults when we have much more entertaining and verbally expressive insults.

I believe the vulgar reply violates the posting guidelines as well (they prohibit "pointless cursing").

[hbelkins]

he's almost always right.

Regarding the environment, we all respect the environment. We have to. It doesn't make sense for us not to. We all have to breathe the air and drink the water. We all want to see them preserved for us and for future generations.

But some of us aren't Chicken Littles when it comes to global warming, or coal mining, or petroleum extraction, or so many other causes that have been taken up by the political left in this country.

When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.

I believe that the resources of the earth were put here for people to use. People were not put on the earth to preserve it. What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?

[Molandfreak]

When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.

http://www.teslamotors.com/ These guys are the closest you can get.

[NE2]

HB: fuck you.

[agentsteel53]

What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?

this strikes me as incredibly arrogant.  who says the Earth has a purpose?  and certainly who says that the purpose begins and ends with humans?

or, as NE2 said... well, you know what he said.

[corco]

Regarding the environment, we all respect the environment. We have to. It doesn't make sense for us not to. We all have to breathe the air and drink the water. We all want to see them preserved for us and for future generations.

But some of us aren't Chicken Littles when it comes to global warming, or coal mining, or petroleum extraction, or so many other causes that have been taken up by the political left in this country.

When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.

I believe that the resources of the earth were put here for people to use. People were not put on the earth to preserve it. What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?

And while I disagree with it, that's a respectable way to express your opinion. There's a big difference between saying what you just said and saying "environmentalists are selfish." What you just did was express your views on why environmentalism is an incorrect idea- you didn't question the motives of people who subscribe to environmentalism.

Expressing your opinion = fine. Disagreeing with others = fine. Assuming that people who disagree with you are selfish/evil/bad people = not fine. Very few of us on any side of any spectrum want to see the world turn into chaos- nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place. Questioning that isn't productive and just further divides us.

[NE2]

nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place.

Some people just have broken definitions of 'the world' (meaning their little privileged bubble) or 'better'.

[Grzrd]

Expressing your opinion = fine. Disagreeing with others = fine. Assuming that people who disagree with you are selfish/evil/bad people = not fine. Very few of us on any side of any spectrum want to see the world turn into chaos- nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place. Questioning that isn't productive and just further divides us.

Agreed. A legal aphorism roughly goes as follows: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Resorting to a gratuitous insult suggests a meaningless and unproductive "pounding of the table" that, if anything, accomplishes nothing but diminishing the poster's credibility.

Regarding NE2, in regard to road-related topics, he does an unparallelled job of "pounding the facts" through his links, and as corco observes, he is usually right because he does a magnificent job of backing it up.

I believe the vulgar reply violates the posting guidelines as well (they prohibit "pointless cursing").

Agreed. Pointless cursing is tantamount to "pounding the table" and is a waste of space.

Some people just have broken definitions of 'the world' (meaning their little privileged bubble) or 'better'.

HB could either point out that you are just "pounding the table" or, in the alternative, just as easily hurl that accusation at you ............. which would accomplish absolutely nothing.

[hbelkins]

What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?

this strikes me as incredibly arrogant.  who says the Earth has a purpose?  and certainly who says that the purpose begins and ends with humans?

That's a pretty standard belief if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it. I don't believe that all life is equal. Man = dog = fish = snail = tree = algae=paramecium. What a load of crap. I fully expect some "save the vegetables" equivalent of PETA to come out one of these days and protest the eating of plants as being cruel to them. If we can't eat meat and we can't eat fruits or vegetables, I guess we'll just starve.

[NE2]

PETA is just another bullshit religious group. God never existed and animals in general have no more rights than fetuses. We're all going to die and go nowhere mentally. Conservatives are literally dying off.

[Grzrd]

if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.

The Biblical view? Doesn't responsible stewardship come along with the gift of dominion?

[hbelkins]

if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.

The Biblical view? Doesn't responsible stewardship come along with the gift of dominion?

No one is saying that it doesn't.

[J N Winkler]

Grzrd does raise a good point about the duty of responsible stewardship, but it is also true that environmental protection serves our rational self-interest.  The alternative is not even being able to breathe the air, as is now the case in Beijing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/sunday-review/life-in-a-toxic-country.html?_r=0

[Grzrd]

it is also true that environmental protection serves our rational self-interest.  The alternative is not even being able to breathe the air, as is now the case in Beijing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/sunday-review/life-in-a-toxic-country.html?_r=0

Agreed. An interesting paradox to me is that David Brower, who accomplished remarkably good environmental work within the United States political system, has the following quote attributed to him:

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

It looks like the "Chinese Socialist Experiment" is not working out so well in environmental terms.  I much prefer the rough-and-tumble of American discourse which, although messy and often contentious, tends to result in a good long-term result.  Even Richard Nixon (gasp) had an essential role in the passage of the Clean Air Act.

No one is saying that it doesn't.

Thanks for the clarification.  I think we can both agree that the question now is what constitutes "responsible stewardship"?

[NE2]

China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany. (And if you think the Nazis were actual socialists, you're too dumb to OH SHIT GODWIN)

[Grzrd]

"pounding the table" ... is a waste of space.

China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany. (And if you think the Nazis were actual socialists, you're too dumb to OH SHIT GODWIN)

History does repeat itself and you predictably play to form.  Nikita Khruschchev would be proud of you.

I would welcome a rational discussion.  To begin, give me your precise definition of the current Chinese political system.

Next, although the table-pounding is distracting, I discern that you agree with Brower re "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."  In other words, is your murky point (if any) that the Chinese are not socialist enough?



Also, it appears you are indirectly invoking Godwin's law.  Really?  4 u.

[agentsteel53]

hat's a pretty standard belief if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.

boy would I love to see the primary source on that one.

[NE2]

I would welcome a rational discussion.

I wouldn't. I'm content with calling you a Nazi.

[Grzrd]

^ Thanks!!!!  I just won 50 bucks 

Udasurebet!

[NE2]

Dirty capitalist pig. (How much do you win for me saying that?)

[Grzrd]

Dirty capitalist pig. (How much do you win for me saying that?)

Nothing. The bet was whether or not you would post another gratuitous insult. Easy money.

China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany.

If you want to quibble about countries, this 1996 article from the Florida State University website addresses the environmental record of the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe:

Eleven European nations are paying a terrible price for their long years under the communist yoke. Leading a world effort to help undo the damage is Florida State University ....
As the world now knows, Poland is hardly alone in its environmental misery. Since the collapse of communism and Soviet dominance of the region in 1989, conditions in Poland's sister states-principally Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria-still shock reporters and scientists who visit the region for the first time. From the Rhine Basin flanking East Germany to the northern shores of the Black Sea, scientists have now documented a swath of environmental carnage that holds 100 million central and eastern Europeans in its depressing grip.
"What we're up against here are problems of, in some cases, unprecedented scale," says Dr. Roy Herndon, whose Florida State institute Kuperberg works for. "Considerable progress is being made to address these problems, but frankly, some of these won't be solved in our lifetimes, if ever."