Aussie environment destruction

[George.com]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
> > choose
> > to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a
chapter
> > on
> > Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
> > says
> > essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but
also
> > soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
>
> It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in
> "natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western
> countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a
> very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips.

indeed true, however I never realised the extent of the fragility of Aussie
forests. I find it odd that the forests are still felled given that the
resulting land is not much productive for anything else. Even worse,
exporting wood chip to Japan to be made into paper. Were the export of woods
sustainable I could at least understand. As it seems the export is not
sustainable it is surprising. We learnt a few years back to stop felling
native forests, including chipping our native beech trees for export to
Japan. Moreover, our native forests have a much better ability to regenerate
than Aus forests it seems given better soil we have.

> > The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
> > exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
> > presumed
> > that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is
not
> > the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
> > Once
> > a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is
quite
> > difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
> > soil.
> > Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.

> > He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
> > trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
> > nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
> > and
> > recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and
decay.
> > Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
> > curvive
> > and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
> > recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
> > forestry
> > there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
> > fascinating
> > example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity
can
> > destroy it.
>
> The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which
> it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are
not
> grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your
own
> land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else.
> We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who
> can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their
> wastes to their own land.
>
> If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one
> stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as
unproductive
> land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive
but
> it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is
> perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon
the
> soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be
very
> much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off
> the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas.
>
> > He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
> > about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came
to
> > exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
> > salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
> > year
> > allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the
surface.
> > The soluable salts then infest waterways.
>
> If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on
> about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing
> causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely
been
> caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then
> settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but
I've
> certainly read of that being an explanation for WA.

I summarised in (very) brief. The explaination is much moe detailed. The
explaination seemed plausible enough in the book.

rob

[George.com]

Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies choose
to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter on
Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and says
essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.

The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I presumed
that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ. Once
a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the soil.
Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.

He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients and
recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could curvive
and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by forestry
there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really fascinating
example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
destroy it.

He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year
allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
The soluable salts then infest waterways.

This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat
degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many ways.
I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from your
droughts).

Comments welcome.
rob

[FarmI]

"George.com" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
> choose
> to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter
> on
> Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
> says
> essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
> soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.

It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in
"natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western
countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a
very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips.

> The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
> exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
> presumed
> that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
> the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
> Once
> a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
> difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
> soil.
> Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.

Without reading the book, it is impossible to know what he's writing about
or which areas of Oz he is writing about. I presume he may be writing about
old growth forests. What is happening in the destruction of old growth
forests in several of our States is simply criminal IMHO. As is the spread
of Pinus radiata into our much of our fertile farming lands.

> He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
> trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
> nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
> and
> recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
> Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
> curvive
> and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
> recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
> forestry
> there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
> fascinating
> example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
> destroy it.

The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which
it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not
grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own
land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else.
We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who
can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their
wastes to their own land.

If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one
stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive
land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but
it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is
perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the
soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very
much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off
the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas.

> He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
> about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
> exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
> salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
> year
> allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
> The soluable salts then infest waterways.

If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on
about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing
causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been
caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then
settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've
certainly read of that being an explanation for WA.

But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of this
country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till recent
decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being
combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for
decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land.

[Jonno[_9_]]

The problem is understood to be
1) Inability to do everything at once by independent farmers. Due to
COST and ignorance in the past.
2) Corporations who are only mining for money, who stuff the country
they re mining in. (They have no heart soul or care, as someone else will
pick up the tab) They wont pay.
3) The general public too busy to do anything about this, and sticking
their heads into the sand, hoping it will go away.
4) Governments, who are backed by big business (Read : Overseas
CORPORATIONS with local names eg Gunns timber in Tasmania) who toe the
corporation lines.
5) The need for greed to survive by others.
6) Local properties which have been sold of to foreign nationals .
7) The supposed inability for Australia to develop and invest in its
own country.

Read this >>>
We have a right to a fair trial.
Can we say the same of machines or corporations?
"'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and
existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,
it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers
upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These
are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which
it was created.'..."
The legal attitude in America must be considered in Australia
Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money.
As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants,
"Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are
socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..."
Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no
pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or
healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in
prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change
their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create
entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in
that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans,
performing their assigned tasks forever.
Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing
business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or
agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property,
free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any
political party, organization, committee or individual for any political
purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any
kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for
nomination, appointment or election to any political office." The
penalty for any corporate official violating that law and getting cozy
with politicians on behalf of a corporation was five years in prison and
a substantial fine.

Before I am accused of being a pinko commie, this is everyones
nightmare. This explains the reasons why things are as they are and why
some countries have a legitimate beef with others...



FarmI wrote:
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
>>choose
>>to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter
>>on
>>Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
>>says
>>essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
>>soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
>
>
> It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in
> "natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western
> countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a
> very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips.
>
>
>>The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
>>exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
>>presumed
>>that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
>>the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
>>Once
>>a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
>>difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
>>soil.
>>Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.
>
>
> Without reading the book, it is impossible to know what he's writing about
> or which areas of Oz he is writing about. I presume he may be writing about
> old growth forests. What is happening in the destruction of old growth
> forests in several of our States is simply criminal IMHO. As is the spread
> of Pinus radiata into our much of our fertile farming lands.
>
>
>>He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
>>trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
>>nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
>>and
>>recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
>>Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
>>curvive
>>and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
>>recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
>>forestry
>>there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
>>fascinating
>>example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
>>destroy it.
>
>
> The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which
> it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not
> grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own
> land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else.
> We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who
> can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their
> wastes to their own land.
>
> If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one
> stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive
> land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but
> it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is
> perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the
> soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very
> much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off
> the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas.
>
>
>>He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
>>about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
>>exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
>>salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
>>year
>>allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
>>The soluable salts then infest waterways.
>
>
> If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on
> about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing
> causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been
> caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then
> settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've
> certainly read of that being an explanation for WA.
>
> But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of this
> country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till recent
> decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being
> combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for
> decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land.
>
>
>

[0tterbot]

"George.com" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
> choose
> to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter
> on
> Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
> says
> essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
> soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
>
> The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
> exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
> presumed
> that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
> the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
> Once
> a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
> difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
> soil.
> Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.
>
> He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
> trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
> nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
> and
> recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
> Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
> curvive
> and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
> recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
> forestry
> there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
> fascinating
> example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
> destroy it.
>
> He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
> about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
> exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
> salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
> year
> allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
> The soluable salts then infest waterways.
>
> This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat
> degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many
> ways.
> I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from
> your
> droughts).
>
> Comments welcome.
> rob

my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)

on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical mass,
but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but mainly
our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already waste
water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes i
do!)
kylie

[0tterbot]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...

> The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which
> it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are
> not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from
> your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to
> someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't
> know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or
> return all their wastes to their own land.
>
> If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one
> stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as
> unproductive > land. She was (generally) right because any land can be
> made productive but > it at the cost or mining somewhere else for
> nutrients.

that's right, but can i point out: i use inputs that other people don't
WANT! (and are free as well :-)

so what you say is 100% right, & i'm getting off the track a bit, but i'm
profiting from other peoples' waste & more peeps would be better off to do
that (imho). it's amazing. frankly i think that as well as creating less
"waste" in future, we will all be learning about how other peoples' "waste"
is a goldmine.

Tree cropping is
> perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon
> the soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be
> very much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area
> off the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing
> areas.
>
>> He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
>> about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
>> exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
>> salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
>> year
>> allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
>> The soluable salts then infest waterways.
>
> If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on
> about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing
> causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely
> been caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has
> then settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud,
> but I've certainly read of that being an explanation for WA.
>
> But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of
> this country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till
> recent decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being
> combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for
> decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land.

do do do read "back from the brink" by peter andrews. not least because he
explains this. it's a top read, i'm telling you :-)
kylie

[Jonno[_9_]]

0tterbot wrote:
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
>>choose
>>to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter
>>on
>>Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
>>says
>>essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
>>soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
>>
>>The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
>>exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
>>presumed
>>that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
>>the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
>>Once
>>a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
>>difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
>>soil.
>>Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.
>>
>>He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
>>trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
>>nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
>>and
>>recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
>>Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
>>curvive
>>and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
>>recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
>>forestry
>>there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
>>fascinating
>>example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
>>destroy it.
>>
>>He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
>>about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to
>>exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
>>salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
>>year
>>allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface.
>>The soluable salts then infest waterways.
>>
>>This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat
>>degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many
>>ways.
>>I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from
>>your
>>droughts).
>>
>>Comments welcome.
>>rob
>
>
> my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)
>
> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical mass,
> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but mainly
> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already waste
> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes i
> do!)
> kylie
>
>
>
Aboslutely < That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips?
Better than womens underwear I suppose.
I hope I made sense on that last post.

[0tterbot]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
...
>> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
>> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
>> mass, but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
>> mainly our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who
>> have now decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who
>> already waste water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in
>> fact, sometimes i do!)
>> kylie
>>
>>
>>
> Aboslutely < That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips?

maybe even freudian ones! (that pink looks noice on you).

> Better than womens underwear I suppose.

take that back!! _i_ wear women's underwear & there's nothing wrong with me,
by jingo!!!!!!111

> I hope I made sense on that last post.

to me, many of your posts don't always make sense <g> but it was orright, i
got it.

and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
extraordinarily broad.
kylie

[Jonno[_9_]]

0tterbot wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
>>>here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
>>>mass, but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
>>>mainly our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who
>>>have now decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who
>>>already waste water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in
>>>fact, sometimes i do!)
>>>kylie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Aboslutely < That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips?
>
>
> maybe even freudian ones! (that pink looks noice on you).
>
>
>>Better than womens underwear I suppose.
>
>
> take that back!! _i_ wear women's underwear & there's nothing wrong with me,
> by jingo!!!!!!111
>
>
>>I hope I made sense on that last post.
>
>
> to me, many of your posts don't always make sense <g> but it was orright, i
> got it.
>
> and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
> pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
> extraordinarily broad.
> kylie
>
>
Errr I know what I mean to write, but dont always write it rite.
Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
That the trouble with email. You can make mistakes rooly fast.

Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes
out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology,
but for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have
ships to load and times to catch. When people started seeing holes left
and habitats destroyed, we got a little better care locally, but look
what theyre doing in less civilised countries like Papua and Indonesian
Papua. Mud volcanoes and poisoned rivers etc.
They use Australian mining names overseas. But theyre really mainly
owned by American Corporations with us copping the brunt of bad
publicity, which doesnt do our political image any good in Indonesia.

An example was, we had this 60 ton truck which did a seal in the
hydraulics and was loosing some $1000 dollars (44 gallons) worth of
fluid a day, so we ordered 10 ($10,000) drums of the stuff so we could
keep pumping explosive so the mine could operate. At $20,000 a shot
twice a day we lost no time or income apart for the fuid and called in
repairs, which fixed the problem in a week and we sprayed this fluid all
over the place.
The dams where the tailings were stored was near to overflowing.
This was 30 or so years ago. Its still much the same and probably worse
in the west coast of Tasmania. We werent the only ones having these
sorts of problems I bet.

[George.com]

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies
> > choose
> > to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a
chapter
> > on
> > Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and
> > says
> > essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but
also
> > soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
> >
> > The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
> > exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I
> > presumed
> > that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is
not
> > the case. The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ.
> > Once
> > a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is
quite
> > difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the
> > soil.
> > Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.
> >
> > He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
> > trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
> > nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients
> > and
> > recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and
decay.
> > Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could
> > curvive
> > and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
> > recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by
> > forestry
> > there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really
> > fascinating
> > example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity
can
> > destroy it.
> >
> > He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew
> > about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came
to
> > exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland
> > salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the
> > year
> > allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the
surface.
> > The soluable salts then infest waterways.
> >
> > This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat
> > degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many
> > ways.
> > I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from
> > your
> > droughts).
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> > rob
>
> my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)
>
> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
mass,
> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but mainly
> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already waste
> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes i
> do!)
> kylie

sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue a
little. The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race (as
we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed. What makes me think that? Arguably
the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy'
are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.

This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss of
natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water degredation);
finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and the
strains placed on the earths resources.

Even if we can argue that the current style of life amongst the developed
world is sustainable, and debatable point, the strain will only increase. In
the last 15-20 years several nations have reached first
world/developed/western living standards - Malaysia/Taiwan/South Korea/Hong
Kong/Singapore & (apparently) Mauritius. These countries have added around
125 million people to 'our' production/consumption habits. Several nations
in Eastern Europe are starting to accelerate toward first world income
levels, China is rapidly adding people to that class and India slightly less
so. Then we have the likes of Brazil and Russia, even Thailand, who have
aimed that way. If China alone realises its goals of first world living
standards the impact on the world of production & consumption patterns will
double what it is now. IE any problems now left unsolved will double with
China alone reaching our living standards. Never mind the other large
populace countries.

Likely the problems of development (along first world production/consumption
patterns) will grow rapidly for China (if not addressed swiftly and
successfully). The problems won't just be Chinas alone. If problems grow
rapidly, even exponentially, public opinion and preparedness to find
solutions/change the way we live will need to adjust just as rapidly. Am I
confident that will occur? Not at present, not at the moment. I look around
and despair at some of the everyday ways people live, I am included in that
of course.

If we are currently rooting the earth beyond its ability to cope long term,
and I tend in the favour of we are, then any further increase in people
living like we do will further root the earth. Things are happening so
rapidly in the likes of China and India, the consequential enviro impacts
growing so rapidly, that some solutions to enviromental problems will need
to be as equally rapid and the populations acceptance of this will also need
to be as rapid. I see the genesis of awareness and movement but no major
'enlightenment'. The dickheads (or choose stronger terms as necessary) who
simply say the 'freemarket' or 'technology' will take care of things,
allowing them to merrily go on as usual, are to my mind f wits.

A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle habits.
War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a result
of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it comes
time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at present
to do so.

If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.

rob

[FarmI]

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
> "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
>> The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on
>> which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables
>> that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not
>> produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility
>> belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time
>> immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of
>> their own land or return all their wastes to their own land.
>>
>> If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at
>> one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as
>> unproductive > land. She was (generally) right because any land can be
>> made productive but > it at the cost or mining somewhere else for
>> nutrients.
>
> that's right, but can i point out: i use inputs that other people don't
> WANT! (and are free as well :-)

It wasn't a criticism of what you are doing (we all do it - I mine my
neighbour's place for horse poos, she mines from commercial sources by
buying in horse feed - I take her unwanted stuff she buys - same, same in
effect). It was on observation on your previous observation.

> so what you say is 100% right, & i'm getting off the track a bit, but i'm
> profiting from other peoples' waste & more peeps would be better off to do
> that (imho). it's amazing. frankly i think that as well as creating less
> "waste" in future, we will all be learning about how other peoples'
> "waste" is a goldmine.

And that also applies to tip 'rubbish'. Our local tip used to be a goldmine
for the local residents. In fact there is one wonderful true story about
one of our rather large Ocker blokes (who I first met when he was dressed up
as a fairy complete with wand and pink wings - but that's another story).
He wanted to build a garage and had submitted plans to Council which were
promptly rejected because he hadn't specified what the garage would be built
from. He was outraged; "How the hell do I know what it'll be built from"
he ranted, "I haven't even been to the tip yet!".

But back to the tip, if you had something that still worked, you'd leave a
sign on it and it woud disappear quick smart, now our stupid sodding local
Council, in it's 'wisdom', has put up signs saying that no 'rubbish' can be
removed. Now we just put in orders with the tip attendant who 'saves' to
fill the orders. So, for example, it took my husband 2 weeks to have his
order of a bike pump filled.

> do do do read "back from the brink" by peter andrews. not least because he
> explains this. it's a top read, i'm telling you :-)

I will get to it, but at the moment we are deep into other things - sigh.

[FarmI]

"0tterbot" > wrote in message news:w2HXh.23847

> and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
> pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
> extraordinarily broad.

I also didn't think he came across as a commie pinko just someone who
thought about the issues, but if he'd been posting in an American dominated
group he probably would have.

I post regularly in misc.rural which IS dominated very much by Americans (I
often wonder why so many of them don't seem to be able to think beyond their
own borders - dumb questions or comments keep apearring there that show how
limited many Yanks world view is - they seem to think that they are the only
ones who have access to this world wide online community - but I digress).

I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times than
I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either here or in
any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment about my
political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to be a raging
leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle of the road
(which my voting history of everything from Country Party to Labor [and not
in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion] would indicate to
anyone with half a brain).

I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message

> Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.

You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka "big
girls bloomers".

> Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes
> out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology, but
> for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have ships to
> load and times to catch.

It's all about giving a return to the shareholders and stuff their
responsibility to their fellow world inhabitants.

[Jonno[_9_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "0tterbot" > wrote in message news:w2HXh.23847
>
>
>>and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
>>pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
>>extraordinarily broad.
>
>
> I also didn't think he came across as a commie pinko just someone who
> thought about the issues, but if he'd been posting in an American dominated
> group he probably would have.
>
> I post regularly in misc.rural which IS dominated very much by Americans (I
> often wonder why so many of them don't seem to be able to think beyond their
> own borders - dumb questions or comments keep apearring there that show how
> limited many Yanks world view is - they seem to think that they are the only
> ones who have access to this world wide online community - but I digress).
>
> I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times than
> I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either here or in
> any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment about my
> political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to be a raging
> leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle of the road
> (which my voting history of everything from Country Party to Labor [and not
> in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion] would indicate to
> anyone with half a brain).
>
> I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.
>
>

Youre my kind of thinking.
I cant stand anyone voting blindly for one party. You have to change the
bed linen too as its gets soiled. Same with the political parties.
I vote on issues if theyre are real issues.
Bugger the parties involved.
But only if they have a credible attitude.
I cant vote for the transparent policy of bracks for instance.
He's anything but that.
Howards is semitransparent and we have yet to see if Rudd can make the
transparent grade.
In the end it is all whatever deals they can strike with big business to
support them.
It should be otherwise though.
No big business no Corporations but the people who are the issue.

[Jonno[_9_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
>
>
> You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka "big
> girls bloomers".
Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
if you dare!!!!!

>
>
>>Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes
>>out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology, but
>>for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have ships to
>>load and times to catch.
>
>
> It's all about giving a return to the shareholders and stuff their
> responsibility to their fellow world inhabitants.
>
>

[Jonno[_7_]]

0tterbot wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
>>> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
>>> mass, but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
>>> mainly our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who
>>> have now decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who
>>> already waste water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in
>>> fact, sometimes i do!)
>>> kylie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Aboslutely < That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips?
>
> maybe even freudian ones! (that pink looks noice on you).
>
>> Better than womens underwear I suppose.
>
> take that back!! _i_ wear women's underwear & there's nothing wrong with me,
> by jingo!!!!!!111
>
>> I hope I made sense on that last post.
>
> to me, many of your posts don't always make sense <g> but it was orright, i
> got it.
>
> and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
> pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
> extraordinarily broad.
> kylie
>
>
Have a look at what future contentions are with ROBOTS though.
> http://openfordesign.msn.com/default.aspx?id=6tech1_iagnemma&GT1=9268
As if we need this sort of stuff.

[FarmI]

"George.com" > wrote in message
> "0tterbot" > wrote in message

>> my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)
>>
>> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
>> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
> mass,
>> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
>> mainly
>> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
>> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already
>> waste
>> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes
>> i
>> do!)
>> kylie
>
> sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue a
> little. The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race
> (as
> we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed.

Yep. Only a matter of time.........

What makes me think that? Arguably
> the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy'
> are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.

Yep. Only a matter of time before we collapse under the ecological threats
that surround us.
>
> This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss of
> natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
> bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
> sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water degredation);
> finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
> species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
> growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
> the
> strains placed on the earths resources.
>
> Even if we can argue that the current style of life amongst the developed
> world is sustainable, and debatable point, the strain will only increase.
> In
> the last 15-20 years several nations have reached first
> world/developed/western living standards - Malaysia/Taiwan/South
> Korea/Hong
> Kong/Singapore & (apparently) Mauritius. These countries have added around
> 125 million people to 'our' production/consumption habits. Several nations
> in Eastern Europe are starting to accelerate toward first world income
> levels, China is rapidly adding people to that class and India slightly
> less
> so. Then we have the likes of Brazil and Russia, even Thailand, who have
> aimed that way. If China alone realises its goals of first world living
> standards the impact on the world of production & consumption patterns
> will
> double what it is now. IE any problems now left unsolved will double with
> China alone reaching our living standards. Never mind the other large
> populace countries.
>
> Likely the problems of development (along first world
> production/consumption
> patterns) will grow rapidly for China (if not addressed swiftly and
> successfully). The problems won't just be Chinas alone. If problems grow
> rapidly, even exponentially, public opinion and preparedness to find
> solutions/change the way we live will need to adjust just as rapidly. Am I
> confident that will occur? Not at present, not at the moment. I look
> around
> and despair at some of the everyday ways people live, I am included in
> that
> of course.
>
> If we are currently rooting the earth beyond its ability to cope long
> term,
> and I tend in the favour of we are, then any further increase in people
> living like we do will further root the earth. Things are happening so
> rapidly in the likes of China and India, the consequential enviro impacts
> growing so rapidly, that some solutions to enviromental problems will need
> to be as equally rapid and the populations acceptance of this will also
> need
> to be as rapid. I see the genesis of awareness and movement but no major
> 'enlightenment'. The dickheads (or choose stronger terms as necessary) who
> simply say the 'freemarket' or 'technology' will take care of things,
> allowing them to merrily go on as usual, are to my mind f wits.
>
> A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
> world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle habits.
> War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
> result
> of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
> comes
> time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
> present
> to do so.
>
> If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
> economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.

Can't argue with any of that, but what has happened in Cuba? I thought that
they had gone backwards economically and socially since the 50s?

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:

>> I also didn't think he came across as a commie pinko just someone who
>> thought about the issues, but if he'd been posting in an American
>> dominated group he probably would have.
>>
>> I post regularly in misc.rural which IS dominated very much by Americans
>> (I often wonder why so many of them don't seem to be able to think beyond
>> their own borders - dumb questions or comments keep apearring there that
>> show how limited many Yanks world view is - they seem to think that they
>> are the only ones who have access to this world wide online community -
>> but I digress).
>>
>> I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times
>> than I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either
>> here or in any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment
>> about my political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to
>> be a raging leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle
>> of the road (which my voting history of everything from Country Party to
>> Labor [and not in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion]
>> would indicate to anyone with half a brain).
>>
>> I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.

> Youre my kind of thinking.
> I cant stand anyone voting blindly for one party. You have to change the
> bed linen too as its gets soiled. Same with the political parties.

Yup. I also think that they start to stink after a couple of terms.
Regardless of which party is in power, they start to get arrogant in the
extreme.

> I vote on issues if theyre are real issues.
> Bugger the parties involved.
> But only if they have a credible attitude.
> I cant vote for the transparent policy of bracks for instance.

I don't know enough about him to comment. I would comment if you were
writing about Iemma. If the Libs hadn't self destructed in NSW, there is no
way that Laborr should have got back in NSW based on their performance in
the last 5+ years.

> He's anything but that.
> Howards is semitransparent

Ummmmmm. No he isn't. And I say that in very big capital letters. He IS a
brilliant politician but that is not a compliment. He is able to fool more
people for more of the time than any other politician has managed to do
since Federation. He has also managed to very effectivley and very
deliberately, through political appointments managed to emasculate the
Public Service. The role of the PS has always, till Howard, been to give
advice to government "without fear of favour". That means that the Public
Service used to give Government bad news and try to look after the interest
of all Australians not just the few interests of the govt supporters. I
know that you probably won't believe this if you've never been in the Public
Service. People like to joke about it but having spent nearly 30 years
there, I know how it used to be and how it is now. Now, it's stuffed.

and we have yet to see if Rudd can make the
> transparent grade.

Doubtful. Labor has watched and learned from the Libs and this is a truly
scumbag govt that knows and used more dirty tricks than any other govt ever
has before.

> In the end it is all whatever deals they can strike with big business to
> support them.
> It should be otherwise though.
> No big business no Corporations but the people who are the issue.

Yep. We the people are now and have been since Hawke, screwed over.

[FarmI]

"Jonno" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
>>
>>
>> You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
>> "big girls bloomers".
> Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
> if you dare!!!!!

:-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off a
contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna take me
on?

[George.com]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> > "0tterbot" > wrote in message
>
> >> my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)
> >>
> >> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do
things
> >> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
> > mass,
> >> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
> >> mainly
> >> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have
now
> >> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already
> >> waste
> >> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact,
sometimes
> >> i
> >> do!)
> >> kylie
> >
> > sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue
a
> > little. The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race
> > (as
> > we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed.
>
> Yep. Only a matter of time.........
>
> What makes me think that? Arguably
> > the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we
'enjoy'
> > are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.
>
> Yep. Only a matter of time before we collapse under the ecological
threats
> that surround us.
> >
> > This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss
of
> > natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
> > bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
> > sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water
degredation);
> > finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
> > species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
> > growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
> > the
> > strains placed on the earths resources.
> >
> > Even if we can argue that the current style of life amongst the
developed
> > world is sustainable, and debatable point, the strain will only
increase.
> > In
> > the last 15-20 years several nations have reached first
> > world/developed/western living standards - Malaysia/Taiwan/South
> > Korea/Hong
> > Kong/Singapore & (apparently) Mauritius. These countries have added
around
> > 125 million people to 'our' production/consumption habits. Several
nations
> > in Eastern Europe are starting to accelerate toward first world income
> > levels, China is rapidly adding people to that class and India slightly
> > less
> > so. Then we have the likes of Brazil and Russia, even Thailand, who have
> > aimed that way. If China alone realises its goals of first world living
> > standards the impact on the world of production & consumption patterns
> > will
> > double what it is now. IE any problems now left unsolved will double
with
> > China alone reaching our living standards. Never mind the other large
> > populace countries.
> >
> > Likely the problems of development (along first world
> > production/consumption
> > patterns) will grow rapidly for China (if not addressed swiftly and
> > successfully). The problems won't just be Chinas alone. If problems grow
> > rapidly, even exponentially, public opinion and preparedness to find
> > solutions/change the way we live will need to adjust just as rapidly. Am
I
> > confident that will occur? Not at present, not at the moment. I look
> > around
> > and despair at some of the everyday ways people live, I am included in
> > that
> > of course.
> >
> > If we are currently rooting the earth beyond its ability to cope long
> > term,
> > and I tend in the favour of we are, then any further increase in people
> > living like we do will further root the earth. Things are happening so
> > rapidly in the likes of China and India, the consequential enviro
impacts
> > growing so rapidly, that some solutions to enviromental problems will
need
> > to be as equally rapid and the populations acceptance of this will also
> > need
> > to be as rapid. I see the genesis of awareness and movement but no major
> > 'enlightenment'. The dickheads (or choose stronger terms as necessary)
who
> > simply say the 'freemarket' or 'technology' will take care of things,
> > allowing them to merrily go on as usual, are to my mind f wits.
> >
> > A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
> > world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle
habits.
> > War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
> > result
> > of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
> > comes
> > time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
> > present
> > to do so.
> >
> > If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
> > economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.
>
> Can't argue with any of that, but what has happened in Cuba? I thought
that
> they had gone backwards economically and socially since the 50s?

roftl, no, not really. Maybe in some respects they have not advanced a whole
lot since the 1950s however it is a different kettle of fish. I was there
recently for 3 weeks (a fascinating place, a real 'experience', not really a
'holiday'. Worth a visit, just be aware of what you are going to). The 1980s
was, according to some Cubans, a 'golden age' of abundance and prosperity
with large subsidies from the Soviet Union and favourable terms of trade.
They exported sugar, tobacco, coffee etc at inflated prices and bought
things like Bulgarian sauerkraut. That all came to an end when the USSR fell
apart. The Cuban 'good times' were premised, imho, on a false economy of
living beyond what the Soviets could sustainably provide. Arguably a little
like we have now.

With the soviet demise Cubas economy, living standards, imports/exports etc
all took a big tumble. So did availability of things like food, machinery,
oil, agricultural equipment etc etc. The country went through the "Special
Period", ostensibly massive rationing, austerity programmes and national
reorganisation of agriculture, transport and such like. Peoples calorie
intake decline by 1/3, from around 3000 (I think) calories a day to 2000
calories. Due to various measures people did not starve, neither did they
get rich and fat however. The country made do and got by. 3 national phrases
are conseguir (to get, manage), resolver (work out, resolve) and "it is
difficult". The country made it through a potential disaster period through
various collective actions, fairly massive change forced on them by the
state and innovation.

Even 10 years later the results of the "Special Period" are there to see.
Don't drink the local water, cope with the sewer smells, try and find a
bright new sparkling building, watch peopel queue for rations etc etc. A
degree of that is to do with the communist system Cuba operates under, some
is to do with the (lack of) relations with the US and trade embargos, some
of it is to do with Cuba being a poor country.

Put that aside and it serves as a little microcosm of what severe
environmental degredation, or large scale economic collapse, or the 2
combined may do to western economies. The Cuban situation was a little
artifical (though reality for the Cuban people) in as much as the western
world enjoyed relative prosperity (except for those the freemarket reforms
left behind) whilst Cuba suffered the collapse of its international support
network. That said, it provided an example of what our future could be
(though the future is open to human agency) and how one country coped. For
that reason alone Cuba is worth a visit, though you will burn some fossil
fuel getting there.

rob

[0tterbot]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...

>> that's right, but can i point out: i use inputs that other people don't
>> WANT! (and are free as well :-)
>
> It wasn't a criticism of what you are doing

sorry, i know it wasn't a criticism.

(we all do it - I mine my
> neighbour's place for horse poos, she mines from commercial sources by
> buying in horse feed - I take her unwanted stuff she buys - same, same in
> effect). It was on observation on your previous observation.

it's just that i can't believe that i can get this stuff nearby, and free,
and that nobody else wants it, i guess! i can be a bit forward at times i
suppose, but i feel it's really lucky for me.

> And that also applies to tip 'rubbish'. Our local tip used to be a
> goldmine for the local residents.

ah, the tip. gleaner's heaven :-)

In fact there is one wonderful true story about
> one of our rather large Ocker blokes (who I first met when he was dressed
> up as a fairy complete with wand and pink wings - but that's another
> story). He wanted to build a garage and had submitted plans to Council
> which were promptly rejected because he hadn't specified what the garage
> would be built from. He was outraged; "How the hell do I know what it'll
> be built from" he ranted, "I haven't even been to the tip yet!".

lmao. (sounds like my house ;-) - only without going through the motions of
submitting plans or any of that malarkey <g>

> But back to the tip, if you had something that still worked, you'd leave a
> sign on it and it woud disappear quick smart, now our stupid sodding local
> Council, in it's 'wisdom', has put up signs saying that no 'rubbish' can
> be removed. Now we just put in orders with the tip attendant who 'saves'
> to fill the orders. So, for example, it took my husband 2 weeks to have
> his order of a bike pump filled.

our tip has a big "no scavenging" sign. then, come to find out, someone told
me that's just a "legal obligation", you can scrounge away to your heart's
content & they don't mind at all. tee hee.
kylie

[0tterbot]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
>>> "big girls bloomers".
>> Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
>> if you dare!!!!!
>
> :-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off
> a contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna
> take me on?

not to interrupt, but nobody could beat the size of my nan's knickers. if
you looked at her clothesline from an angle, you'd have thought it was the
sydney to hobart yacht race.

as you were!
kylie

[0tterbot]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...

> I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.

you're hardly alone, poppet.
kylie

[0tterbot]

"Jonno" .> wrote in message
u...

>> and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
>> pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
>> extraordinarily broad.
>> kylie
> Have a look at what future contentions are with ROBOTS though.
>> http://openfordesign.msn.com/default.aspx?id=6tech1_iagnemma&GT1=9268

nooooooooo! i refuse!!!!

> As if we need this sort of stuff.

well, exactly. there are actually serious things to be done.
klyie

[0tterbot]

"George.com" > wrote in message
...

> sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue a
> little.

no. bad man. shoo!

The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race (as
> we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed. What makes me think that?
> Arguably
> the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy'
> are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.

why do you think that wouldn't change, though? (admittedly, never as fast as
one would like.)

> This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss of
> natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
> bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
> sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water degredation);
> finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
> species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
> growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
> the
> strains placed on the earths resources.
(snippage
> A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
> world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle habits.

a far simpler (and, obviously, fairer, and obviously, smarter) way would be
for the first world to downgrade, and for landholders of all kinds
(including those with only a balcony) to work together on just doing the
right thing. i mean, that sounds simplistic, but it's about that easy :-)

as the greens commonly say, we know we (the first world) are going to _have_
to change, so why not do it in a timely manner, and it won't be at all
painful. :-)

i feel that being a first-world person certainly does NOT have to mean
consuming (anything) beyond one's allocation. it just doesn't. i know that
we (my family) have a pretty modest lifestyle compared to some people, but
modest doesn't mean miserable, sparse, joyless or desperate. it's merely the
tiniest of mental adjustments & doing things a little differently.

keep in mind now that many people are now thinking about these things &
trying to sort through conflicting information, govt propaganda, their own
inertia & needfulness, and other matters just to get to the crux of what to
do. BUT, it's become a completely mainstream thing now, and therein lies the
answer. (i truly think nothing much gets achieved until a mode of thought
goes mainstream). in the meantime (sorry, i can't help it) we have a prime
minister who's still living in 1956 who thinks showering with a bucket is, i
quote, "extreme". it boggles the MIND. not only is that not extreme, but
there's a whole load of people who go further than that & _that's_ not
extreme, either!

> War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
> result
> of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
> comes
> time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
> present
> to do so.

not much preparedness, or not enough, but i don't know. have you not noticed
how after al gore's movie, this issue has just _exploded_? which isn't to
say everyone's on board or anything like that, but it's a continual loud
dialogue now where for many years it was just a few people on the edges
being ignored.

we in the first world can (and do) supply good technology to the second(?)
and third worlds and i think it's our moral duty to, basically, make sure
they don't have to make hundreds of years' worth of first-world mistakes
from scratch. it's not fair (or wise) for us to say "you can't have what we
have". we can't do that. what we can do is revise our own selves down so
each person makes one little footprint each. and i know it's not hard. we'll
get there :-)
kylie

> If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
> economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.
>
> rob
>
>

[Jonno[_7_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
>>>
>>> You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
>>> "big girls bloomers".
>> Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
>> if you dare!!!!!
>
> :-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off a
> contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna take me
> on?
>
>
Nuthing a 4 b 2 wouldnt fix.
But maybe the metric equiv.
Wed use the balls for cricket afterwards....

[George.com]

"0tterbot" > wrote in message
...
> "George.com" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue
a
> > little.
>
> no. bad man. shoo!
>
> The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race (as
> > we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed. What makes me think that?
> > Arguably
> > the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we
'enjoy'
> > are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.
>
> why do you think that wouldn't change, though? (admittedly, never as fast
as
> one would like.)

because, as you say, change may never be as fast as one would like, or more
so IS NECESSARY. I am cynical about peoples preparedness to change anything
markedly until the shtf. By then it may be a little late.

> > This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss
of
> > natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
> > bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
> > sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water
degredation);
> > finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
> > species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
> > growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
> > the
> > strains placed on the earths resources.
> (snippage
> > A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
> > world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle
habits.
>
> a far simpler (and, obviously, fairer, and obviously, smarter) way would
be
> for the first world to downgrade, and for landholders of all kinds
> (including those with only a balcony) to work together on just doing the
> right thing. i mean, that sounds simplistic, but it's about that easy :-)
>
> as the greens commonly say, we know we (the first world) are going to
_have_
> to change, so why not do it in a timely manner, and it won't be at all
> painful. :-)

ahuh, see my comment above.

> i feel that being a first-world person certainly does NOT have to mean
> consuming (anything) beyond one's allocation. it just doesn't. i know that
> we (my family) have a pretty modest lifestyle compared to some people, but
> modest doesn't mean miserable, sparse, joyless or desperate. it's merely
the
> tiniest of mental adjustments & doing things a little differently.

I agree, something I am starting to practise in degrees. Just worries me a
little sometimes that maybe time will catch me out, there won't be enough
time left for me or mine to adapt sufficiently.

> > If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
> > economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.

Cuba didn't see the special period coming, though they had started to adapt
to some change. The guts ripped from their economy/society with the soviet
demise was a huge shock, something they responded to within a matter of
years but a massive shock to the system nevertheless.

rob

[Chookie]

In article >,
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:

> I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times than
> I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either here or in
> any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment about my
> political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to be a raging
> leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle of the road
> (which my voting history of everything from Country Party to Labor [and not
> in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion] would indicate to
> anyone with half a brain).
>
> I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.

LOL, you too? I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. Talk about
black-and-white mindsets -- suggesting that you should prevent nutcases and
boofheads from getting weapons makes me a pinko who wants to strip away their
Right To Bear Arms. Which of itself tends to make me think that the pro-gun
types in the US ARE all nuts in the first place. Worse, they are *terrified*
of each other. The only thing worse than a yank gun-nut is a frightened yank
gun-nut.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Chookie]

In article >, "George.com" >
wrote:

> Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies choose
> to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter on
> Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and says
> essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
> soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.
>
> The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
> exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I presumed
> that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
> the case.

No. There is surprisingly little sustainably managed timber around. In
Australia, it's plantation radiata and huon pine, according to the Forest
Stewardship Council. These are people who certify sustainable timbers.

> The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ. Once
> a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
> difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the soil.
> Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.

Thanks -- don't.

The trendy timber here atm is "merbau". Changed its name from Pacific Maple,
not that most people know what that is. It's a group of rainforest timbers
from bastions of environmental responsibility like Malaysia and Indonesia!

> He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
> trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
> nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients and
> recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
> Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could curvive
> and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
> recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by forestry
> there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really fascinating
> example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
> destroy it.

Yep, tell us about it. We know it's happening; we just don't know how to stop
them. Apart from by voting green, investing ethically and buying carefully --
but lots of people don't do that.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Chookie]

In article >,
"0tterbot" > wrote:

> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical mass,
> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but mainly
> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already waste
> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes i
> do!)

Oh good. I'm not the only one who thinks that killing off inland fish and
bird stocks for the sake of crack-brained irrigation schemes is ridiculous.

When I heard Honest John saying that we'd have a crisis on the Murray-Darling
if there wasn't rain in the next 6 weeks, I wanted to throw up. I suppose the
public servants Didn't Tell Him About It (TM).

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[FarmI]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
> "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
>
>> I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times
>> than
>> I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either here or
>> in
>> any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment about my
>> political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to be a
>> raging
>> leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle of the road
>> (which my voting history of everything from Country Party to Labor [and
>> not
>> in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion] would indicate to
>> anyone with half a brain).
>>
>> I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.
>
> LOL, you too?

:-)) Prolly something all of us have in common when we come in contact with
them on usenet :-)))))

> I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt :-)) I've had the "you Ossies are
sheeple letting your govt take your guns off yoo" a lot. They don't (or
won't) try to understand that the gun buy back was popularly supported, that
guns aren't part of our culture like they are in the US, that most
Australians don't fear for their lives etc, etc and nor will they understand
that I actually increased my gun ownership after the buyback went into
operation. They know better about our gun laws that I do as a) a resident
of this country, b) a licenced gun owner and c) a gun buyer after the buy
back went into operation. No wonder so many of them give me the poops.

Talk about
> black-and-white mindsets -- suggesting that you should prevent nutcases
> and
> boofheads from getting weapons makes me a pinko who wants to strip away
> their
> Right To Bear Arms.

Yep (in their weird wee minds).

Which of itself tends to make me think that the pro-gun
> types in the US ARE all nuts in the first place. Worse, they are
> *terrified*
> of each other. The only thing worse than a yank gun-nut is a frightened
> yank
> gun-nut.

Indeed. Thier fear of each other is palpable. I would hate to live in the
US given the attitudes they express but they can't see it.

Give 'em heaps!

[FarmI]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
> In article >,
> "0tterbot" > wrote:
>
>> on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
>> here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
>> mass,
>> but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
>> mainly
>> our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
>> decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already
>> waste
>> water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes
>> i
>> do!)
>
> Oh good. I'm not the only one who thinks that killing off inland fish and
> bird stocks for the sake of crack-brained irrigation schemes is
> ridiculous.
>
> When I heard Honest John saying that we'd have a crisis on the
> Murray-Darling
> if there wasn't rain in the next 6 weeks, I wanted to throw up. I suppose
> the
> public servants Didn't Tell Him About It (TM).

:-)))) No, his very highly paid Advisers (who are neither elected or Public
Servants so cannot be made in any way accountable) would have seen the
advice and made sure that Howard knew about it but didn't actually see a
piece of paper. When and if Howard is questioned he can very truthfully say
that no such advice ever reached his desk.

Howard is probably the most hardworking, diligent and vigilent politician
this country has ever had but he is also one of the cleverest. He is the
master of the very careful wording and because Australians don't bother
listening or analysing what he says he keeps getting away with it and our
stupid press don't call him on it because they don't analyse what he says
and how he says it. All positively puke making.

[FarmI]

"Chookie" > wrote in message

> I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm.

I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there!

Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit?????
Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate.

[0tterbot]

"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote in message
...
He is the
> master of the very careful wording and because Australians don't bother
> listening or analysing what he says he keeps getting away with it and our
> stupid press don't call him on it

would you say he's still getting away with it? i mean, admittedly he's not
in jail where he belongs for Crimes Against Democracy. ;-) but the opinion
polls and my Very Mild Superpowers * tell me my woes will all be gone by
christmas.
kylie

* with thanks to david o'doherty

[0tterbot]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
Worse, they are *terrified*
> of each other. The only thing worse than a yank gun-nut is a frightened
> yank
> gun-nut.

they are a fearful breed. and scared people are more dangerous than anyone.

but the ones going "if all the other students could have handguns secreted
all about their persons for a typical day at uni (as you do), it never would
have happened!!" do my head in entirely. gah!!!!!!!

it makes me gibber incoherently.
kylie

[Jonno[_9_]]

Coward I was funnier than you!!
Jonno wrote:
> FarmI wrote:
>
>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>
>>> FarmI wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jonno" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails -
>>>> aka "big girls bloomers".
>>>
>>> Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter
>>> shed if you dare!!!!!
>>
>>
>> :-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw
>> off a contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still
>> wanna take me on?
>>
>>
> Nuthing a 4 b 2 wouldnt fix.
> But maybe the metric equiv.
> Wed use the balls for cricket afterwards....

[Chookie]

In article >,
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:

> "Chookie" > wrote in message
>
> > I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm.
>
> I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there!
>
> Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit?????
> Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate.

Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd
graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average. OTOH
on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[FarmI]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
> "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
>> "Chookie" > wrote in message
>>
>> > I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm.
>>
>> I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there!
>>
>> Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit?????
>> Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate.
>
> Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd
> graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average.
> OTOH
> on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog...

:-))) I would have thought that it becomes obvious very quickly if one is a
dog.

I've had another look earlier tonight and nimue has made even more
outrageously ignoramus statements today. And someone else has chimed in
claiming that Oz has banned guns (wonder why I didn't hear about that???)
and our homicide figures are worse than ever! One year in the past 10 they
are higher and all the rest show a lower rate than before the buy back. It
could still be lower per 100K of population because of increase in
population but that fact has obviously escaped her. It's impossible to get
sensible thoughts from dopes like those 2.

[Jonno[_9_]]

FarmI wrote:
> "Chookie" > wrote in message
>
>>"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chookie" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm.
>>>
>>>I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there!
>>>
>>>Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit?????
>>>Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate.
>>
>>Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd
>>graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average.
>>OTOH
>>on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog...
>
>
> :-))) I would have thought that it becomes obvious very quickly if one is a
> dog.
>
> I've had another look earlier tonight and nimue has made even more
> outrageously ignoramus statements today. And someone else has chimed in
> claiming that Oz has banned guns (wonder why I didn't hear about that???)
> and our homicide figures are worse than ever! One year in the past 10 they
> are higher and all the rest show a lower rate than before the buy back. It
> could still be lower per 100K of population because of increase in
> population but that fact has obviously escaped her. It's impossible to get
> sensible thoughts from dopes like those 2.
>
>
Regarding guns, it would seem that other methods are now being used to
kill like machettes, swords knives and the most dangerous, jealous
girlfriends (only if youve got a few bob.) I reckon they should all be
banned. As well as this, misleading statistics are kiling more people
every day. They should all be banned, and anyone using them (see coming
elactions) should be made to listen to John Howards speeches for the
next 5 years or so.