| Ahem II 14:49 - Jul 26 with 9347 views | PhilTWTD |
Can we have slightly less squabbling for the rest of the afternoon? Got stuff to do. Will just ban people who continue to waste our time. |  | | |  |
| Ahem II on 11:54 - Jul 27 with 1770 views | StokieBlue |
| Ahem II on 11:33 - Jul 27 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Gospel sources.....why do you persist in putting words/intent in peoples mouths that they have not used? |
That is literally what she had done. It's not my fault if you can't see it.
She's said this source is right, prove it wrong even though the source itself has a self-proclaimed agenda.
You need to take a step back and reassess that thread.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Ahem II on 11:59 - Jul 27 with 1750 views | kinnockers |
| Ahem II on 11:40 - Jul 27 by DanTheMan |
Reminds of this
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. |
Couldn't agree more.
Nationalised industries simply wouldn't be able to compete with the effective market in producing such quality, low-cost goods for the likes of you, me and Glenys, pal.
Guess we'll have to continue to be victims of our own poverty, eh? |  |
| Former leader of the Labour Party / Newsround Editor |
| |
| Ahem II on 12:00 - Jul 27 with 1741 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Ahem II on 11:51 - Jul 27 by Ryorry |
**Ipswich play in blue*!!
^sits back in anticipation^ ...
I seem to be the go-to cat to kick in vt's life, which I can only assume is somewhat unhappy. Has been said to me by another poster that he seems to only log in to downvote me.
Seablu has long followed me around downvoting me, I've no idea why, but I know other posters have similar problems with a few others. As I've said several times before, this just seems to completely invalidate the cumulative voting system, which I think should be abolished. |
Couldn’t resist
On a serious note - I’ve no idea why your initial post was downvoted and could well be for the reasons suggested, but equally it could also just reflect their views on the posters you listed. One in particular has often posted some stuff which implied some fairly questionable views |  |
| |
| Ahem II on 12:01 - Jul 27 with 1737 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Ahem II on 11:54 - Jul 27 by StokieBlue |
That is literally what she had done. It's not my fault if you can't see it.
She's said this source is right, prove it wrong even though the source itself has a self-proclaimed agenda.
You need to take a step back and reassess that thread.
SB |
Do you need a cuddle? | |
| |
| Ahem II on 12:40 - Jul 27 with 1691 views | Darth_Koont |
| Ahem II on 11:40 - Jul 27 by DanTheMan |
Reminds of this
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. |
Very good. I hadn't heard that one before.
Reminds me also of people who come from a privileged background who then get more and different opportunities to make and save money. I remember thinking that when Viscount Linley decided to become a furniture designer/maker with his own company, pretty much because he could and he wouldn't even need to make money on it. Couple that with his name and network and it's a career opportunity and business model that just wouldn't exist for almost anyone else.
It's not just about aristocracy either. My brother-in-law comes from a very comfortable upper middle class background but he was given a 4-bed terraced house in South West London by an aunt when he'd just left university. So mid-twenties, no rent or mortgage to pay and in fact he made money from his housemates even if they got a very good deal. All giving him an asset that was going to soar in value but enormous flexibility in his career and when he eventually launched his own business. Doesn't matter that he's also very good at what he does but he's the first to admit that the starting point was a huge advantage for him and meant he could do things very differently and even take risks to aim higher.
That's just life, I know. But there's an assumption that opportunities are available for everyone when in actual fact they're massively skewed towards those who don't have to gamble anything to take them. So an unnecessarily large proportion of these bigger and better opportunities and career paths tend to be hoovered up as a result.
This seems to be backed up by reports that social mobility is now almost stagnant in the UK. Despite opportunities themselves seeming to be on the rise. [Post edited 27 Jul 2019 12:46]
|  |
| |
| Ahem II on 12:43 - Jul 27 with 1683 views | DanTheMan |
| Ahem II on 12:40 - Jul 27 by Darth_Koont |
Very good. I hadn't heard that one before.
Reminds me also of people who come from a privileged background who then get more and different opportunities to make and save money. I remember thinking that when Viscount Linley decided to become a furniture designer/maker with his own company, pretty much because he could and he wouldn't even need to make money on it. Couple that with his name and network and it's a career opportunity and business model that just wouldn't exist for almost anyone else.
It's not just about aristocracy either. My brother-in-law comes from a very comfortable upper middle class background but he was given a 4-bed terraced house in South West London by an aunt when he'd just left university. So mid-twenties, no rent or mortgage to pay and in fact he made money from his housemates even if they got a very good deal. All giving him an asset that was going to soar in value but enormous flexibility in his career and when he eventually launched his own business. Doesn't matter that he's also very good at what he does but he's the first to admit that the starting point was a huge advantage for him and meant he could do things very differently and even take risks to aim higher.
That's just life, I know. But there's an assumption that opportunities are available for everyone when in actual fact they're massively skewed towards those who don't have to gamble anything to take them. So an unnecessarily large proportion of these bigger and better opportunities and career paths tend to be hoovered up as a result.
This seems to be backed up by reports that social mobility is now almost stagnant in the UK. Despite opportunities themselves seeming to be on the rise. [Post edited 27 Jul 2019 12:46]
|
It's from Men at Arms, a Discworld novel. |  |
| |
| Ahem II on 12:54 - Jul 27 with 1647 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ahem II on 11:54 - Jul 27 by StokieBlue |
That is literally what she had done. It's not my fault if you can't see it.
She's said this source is right, prove it wrong even though the source itself has a self-proclaimed agenda.
You need to take a step back and reassess that thread.
SB |
"Also, have a look at this. It's non-dramatic research produced by Scandinavian scientists looking at actual data rather than climate projection models. The debate certainly isn't over:Â
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/04/StateofClimate2018.pdf?utm_sourc "
Where does she say anything about the content being gospel? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ahem II on 13:00 - Jul 27 with 1622 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ahem II on 11:40 - Jul 27 by DanTheMan |
Reminds of this
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. |
I am on my second pair of £100 (reduced from £200) 100% waterproof boots from mountain warehouse. Both have been 100% waterproof until it rains....would have been better off with plastic bags....tell Vimes to stick that in his pipe and smoke it!😊
Edit....luckily they take them back. [Post edited 27 Jul 2019 13:08]
| |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:07 - Jul 27 with 1610 views | Darth_Koont |
The public debate is over. Or would be if it wasn't for people trying to restart the debate.
On an academic level, we know there is a small percentage of scientists who disagree or who at least want to qualify the consensus to some degree. But even at a conservative 93% consensus, the threshold has long been passed to put ongoing academic discussions to the side and prioritize climate change solutions.
We can't stall (or be stalled), waiting for 100% consensus as that will never occur ... unless the worst happens and we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe. | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:07 - Jul 27 with 1609 views | eireblue |
It isn’t a piece of research.
“The focus in this report is on observations, and not outputs from numerical models. All ref- erences and data sources are listed at the end of the report.”
I think it is a valid question to ask, why would some present something as research, that isn’t actually research, in order to make a point.
It could be because of purposeful misrepresentation or misunderstanding. In either of those two cases, anything suggested by someone misrepresenting or misunderstanding that paper is irrelevant. |  | | |
| Ahem II on 13:14 - Jul 27 with 1589 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Ahem II on 11:33 - Jul 27 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Gospel sources.....why do you persist in putting words/intent in peoples mouths that they have not used? |
He uses word like "gospel" because he's a high priest of science. Dogma is his approach to science. |  |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:17 - Jul 27 with 1582 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Ahem II on 11:54 - Jul 27 by StokieBlue |
That is literally what she had done. It's not my fault if you can't see it.
She's said this source is right, prove it wrong even though the source itself has a self-proclaimed agenda.
You need to take a step back and reassess that thread.
SB |
I didn't say that either.
I asked what it was in the report didn't you agree with.
Jeepers! You're taking quite an evangelical approach to climate science in these two threads. | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:21 - Jul 27 with 1573 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Ahem II on 13:07 - Jul 27 by Darth_Koont |
The public debate is over. Or would be if it wasn't for people trying to restart the debate.
On an academic level, we know there is a small percentage of scientists who disagree or who at least want to qualify the consensus to some degree. But even at a conservative 93% consensus, the threshold has long been passed to put ongoing academic discussions to the side and prioritize climate change solutions.
We can't stall (or be stalled), waiting for 100% consensus as that will never occur ... unless the worst happens and we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe. |
"we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe."
Really?
I mean really?
Hundreds of lying unconscious in the streets with climatitis.
If that were true, we'd all* get the climatitis vaccine.
*Apart from me of course, obviously. | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:22 - Jul 27 with 1572 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ahem II on 13:14 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
He uses word like "gospel" because he's a high priest of science. Dogma is his approach to science. |
Sorry Phil....
 | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:25 - Jul 27 with 1565 views | BackToRussia |
| Ahem II on 13:21 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
"we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe."
Really?
I mean really?
Hundreds of lying unconscious in the streets with climatitis.
If that were true, we'd all* get the climatitis vaccine.
*Apart from me of course, obviously. |
Yes really.
And you're making a mockery of those lives who are already mortally affected by it. |  |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:29 - Jul 27 with 1554 views | footers |
| Ahem II on 13:21 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
"we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe."
Really?
I mean really?
Hundreds of lying unconscious in the streets with climatitis.
If that were true, we'd all* get the climatitis vaccine.
*Apart from me of course, obviously. |
Sorry, this is just bizarre. And pretty troubling tbh. |  |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:30 - Jul 27 with 1554 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Ahem II on 13:25 - Jul 27 by BackToRussia |
Yes really.
And you're making a mockery of those lives who are already mortally affected by it. |
Who are these people exactly?
It's a serious question because I think you'll have difficulty demonstrating that it's solely post industrial revolution climate change that is the cause of their plight.
But go on, I don't mind being wrong. | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:35 - Jul 27 with 1538 views | eireblue |
| Ahem II on 13:17 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
I didn't say that either.
I asked what it was in the report didn't you agree with.
Jeepers! You're taking quite an evangelical approach to climate science in these two threads. |
You are simply playing a silly game.
The report is simply a collection of observations.
You have made it out to be something it isn’t.
It is a bit like me asking you to agree that 2+2=4, when I am proposing a proof of the Riemann hypothesis. | | | |
| Ahem II on 13:53 - Jul 27 with 1498 views | Darth_Koont |
| Ahem II on 13:21 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
"we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe."
Really?
I mean really?
Hundreds of lying unconscious in the streets with climatitis.
If that were true, we'd all* get the climatitis vaccine.
*Apart from me of course, obviously. |
As eire says, you're just playing a silly game.
You win. I'm out. | |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:57 - Jul 27 with 1489 views | StokieBlue |
| Ahem II on 13:17 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
I didn't say that either.
I asked what it was in the report didn't you agree with.
Jeepers! You're taking quite an evangelical approach to climate science in these two threads. |
More disingenuous stuff from you. You've not answered so many points more I've lost track, including why you want people on a football message board to debunk a pretty rubbish study (see eireblues posts) from a group who admits they have an agenda (which is oddly one which you'd normal be against but seem to turn a blind eye to this time).
No point continuing since you won't address anything that counters your view of the world. Quite amusing given you spend all day telling others to have an open mind.
Looks like you've got a large number of people taking issue with your nonsense now so I'll leave it there so you can deal with them. I'm sure they are much more polite than me ;).
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:58 - Jul 27 with 1483 views | StokieBlue |
| Ahem II on 13:21 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
"we're undeniably in the middle of a global catastrophe."
Really?
I mean really?
Hundreds of lying unconscious in the streets with climatitis.
If that were true, we'd all* get the climatitis vaccine.
*Apart from me of course, obviously. |
This is really quite weird and worrying.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Ahem II on 13:59 - Jul 27 with 1477 views | wkj |
This thread is going well, isn't it? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
