Because it snowed last night
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: TOG on 20 Apr 2010 09:31 On 20 Apr, 13:47, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: <snip> > I am well aware of the improvements in the Thames and I applaud the > efforts of those responsible. > > Having an appreciation of your attitude to rivers and pollution I am > confident you had little to do with it. > > We choose not to let our rivers degrade to the point extraordinary > measures are required to rehabilitate them to what they once were. We > recognize what we have and we appreciate the value of it. So do we. What you seem to overlook (or, given that this is your field, deliberately ignore) is that the Thames was being used for drinking, navigation, commerce and as a sewer in Roman times. Please don't pretend *anyone* had any real environmental awareness then, nor in roughly the 1400 years that followed, until the first steps were taken to clean the river up in the 19th century. Just about everyone raped and pillaged the land how they pleased until very, very recently, and I refuse to believe that Canada was any different. The Thames ran through the heart of what was an industrial centre and the biggest city in the world until about the mid-20th century. Sneering because it got rather mucky as a result is a bit pointless, because *everyone* did the same, including Canada, the US, western Europe, you name it. The only difference was that the population of London for most of the time was roughly the same as the population of all Canada. Scale is all. Oddly, and digressing, Britain (I think) pioneered a lot of environmental legislation. The Clean Air Act was one such (passed, I note, a decade and a half before its Canadian equivalent, which I didn';t know until just now).
From: Road Glidin' Don on 20 Apr 2010 10:42 On Apr 19, 11:39 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), "Road Glidin' Don" > > <d.lan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Don't bother trying to impress anyone with the I.Q. score. It only > > Funny thing about 'IQ scores' - they don't mean doodly-squat. > It's what you do with what you got that matters. I won't mention > mine, but let's just say that most people probably don't know what the > 'Triple-9' society is. They think Mensa is 'the cream of the crop'. > Bzzzt. Not. > > I guarantee there are a BUNCH of multi-millionaires in this > world that don't 'measure up' on IQ tests. Some of them barely even > read or write. But they've built business empires, invented things, > etc, and done extraordinarily well. > > >Actually, after having seen more of Sarah Palin, I'm not impressed > > Nor am I. I can see her as a beauty pagent type ( which she > was ), but not as a political leader. Some people consider her > 'personable', but that's not enough. Hell, just look at the > 'personable' leader we have now :-( Yeah, once you see her engaged in discussion about political subjects, it becomes apparent quite quickly there isn't a whole lot going on, 'up there' - she thinks in pretty simple terms. Which sort of relates to what was just said about the need for parading I.Q. scores around - you don't need to know her score in order to see something like that. Which is fair enough to weigh when considering her as vice-president. That's relevent, but there's no need to tear the person down in terms of their personal life (unless you're driven by extreme hate and bigotry). There are so many politicians with problems with their children, no one would ever run for office if that were a measure. She did present an interesting comparison to Obama though. On paper, it was her that had the more impressive record of achievements and experience. But, no matter. People are perceptive. They could see, despite the experience factor (which he had very little of), that he was better equipped intellectually to run a country and think his way through complex issues than she was, based on watching him debate and respond to questions. Obama's no dummy. Gotta say I agree with him on several things; including getting that health care reform passed. <donning asbestos suit>
From: TOG on 20 Apr 2010 11:01 On 20 Apr, 15:42, "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 11:39 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT), "Road Glidin' Don" > > >Actually, after having seen more of Sarah Palin, I'm not impressed > > > Nor am I. I can see her as a beauty pagent type ( which she > > was ), but not as a political leader. Some people consider her > > 'personable', but that's not enough. Hell, just look at the > > 'personable' leader we have now :-( > > Yeah, once you see her engaged in discussion about political subjects, > it becomes apparent quite quickly there isn't a whole lot going on, > 'up there' - she thinks in pretty simple terms. No kidding :-) Solid bone from ear to ear, is the impression I get. > Which sort of relates > to what was just said about the need for parading I.Q. scores around - Have I told you mine? ;-)
From: Vito on 19 Apr 2010 11:25 TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 19 Apr, 14:04, Bob Mann <bobm...(a)mts.net> wrote: >> On Apr 19, 6:49 am, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> don (Calgary) wrote: >>>>> I would say my four wheel vehicle carbon footprint is considerable >>>>> less than average. It would even meet the Kyoto guideline of 8% >>>>> below my 1990 level. >> >>> Ah ha! So you contributed to this cold winter?? Canada stands to >>> benefit from global warming. You should be helping it .... :) >> >> Cold? >> This has been one of the warmest winters on record. >> We've been snow free for a month when we would normally just be >> getting out of it now. >> > > Whereas northern Europe has had the coldest winter for a generation > (not, I acknowledge, that our winters are as impressive as yours...) > > Go figure. Florida's space coast too - coldest on record. Most yard plants died from frost. Good to hear somebody was warmer.
From: Robert Bolton on 19 Apr 2010 12:04
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:36:45 -0400, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >don (Calgary) wrote: >>> Robert Bolton <robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Once again it is a big leap from enforcing laws to telling you what >>>>> kind of car you should drive or how much a local merchant who has >>>>> invested the risk capital into a business, what he or she can >>>>> charge for their product or service. >>>> >>>> Balance is in the eye of the beholder. Taxing a vehicle because of >>>> the damage it does to the environment might not seem like a bad idea >>>> to some people. You can damage as much of the environment as you >>>> choose, so long as you pay for the damage. >>> >>> Apples and oranges Robert. Even if the two scenarios were the same >>> your example is a poor one. I have two four wheeled vehicles. Neither >>> of them get better the 20 mpg on a good day, with a tail wind, but I >>> use far less gasoline than most people do. It's not the vehicle that >>> damages the environment, it is the consumption of fossil fuels. The >>> two are not necessarily related. Further punishing the user with >>> punitive taxes does nothing to save the environment, it only serves >>> to provide more funds for our already out of control governments. > >Moreover, why pick on cars, et cetera? We (USA) have been doing that since >the 1960s. Meanwhile, population growth has nullified each and every >improvement. The time has come to punish (tax) excess procreation. > A program on Public Radio last week said immigration was needed to provide a tax base that would support baby boomers' Social Security and Medicare needs. That was based upon the idea that most immigrants were working age. Perhaps greater incentives for American women to become pregnant. Sometimes it seems life is one big pyramid game. Robert |