On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody what
a great job I'd done. They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply, because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought. And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

I just /know/ you can't be serious (C) John McEnroe.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:34:55 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!


We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply, because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

Message for La Puce : don't read this, it's political :-)

In addition to what Uncle Marvo (me) wrote in ,
I, Marvo, add :

I was joking.

A terrorist has an aim. The aim is to get someone to listen to him, and he
usually terrorises because someone won't listen to him, and he is hopelessly
outnumbered, and quite possibly frightened. And he thinks he's right,
obviously. He probably isn't, but it makes no odds.

The terrorist in question (for the purposes of this 'ere discussion) was one
Osama Binliner, a product of a very rich family, who sadly thinks that his
Islam way (for he is a Muslim) is the only way. Mr Pres Bush is a proponent
of a system of capitalism, to such an extent that he makes things illegal
which are contrary to his view, partly (mainly?) owing to the fact that he
becomes Very Rich if the planet can consume just that little bit more oil,
and money is his raison d'etre. Our chap Blair is not like that, he is only
interested in Power and has gone quite mad, in a Maggie-stylee.

Given that the terrorist has an aim, it would be foolhardy of him not to let
on who he is (even if he is in hiding), because that would defeat his
object. Therefore my plan would be to talk to said terrorist, if necessary
in a neutral place, and if necessary giving him an amnesty for the duration
of the talks. I would listen to what he had to say, and then respond to it
accordingly. If the talks could not possibly reach any conclusion at least
partly acceptable to both parties, then I suppose I'd have to resort to
giving him a good slap, but normally something would be possible even if it
meant that I (as President) would have to give some ground, and live in
peace with Mr Terrorist and his mates. The mess can be sorted out later.

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to
do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody
what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

I don't understand this comment ...

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!

I have 166 at the last count, but I am much cleverer than that because I
didn't join Mensa! Bush's IQ is reported at less than 100, which makes him
less intelligent than the average for his population and most farm animals.
It is also known that he is illiterate and quite bonkers.


We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply,
because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

I can't honestly believe that any right-thinking individual believes this -
I want to be put back in the Matrix.

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Er, are you a troll? If so, you are sussed and you must stop.




Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

I already do what I can. I am not in a position to do any more because
computer programmers are not eligible for government :-) You have to have
been a lawyer, telephone sanitiser, or similar.

I fear I am too little, too late, however. But I'm not a troll.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:59:48 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

Message for La Puce : don't read this, it's political :-)

In addition to what Uncle Marvo (me) wrote in ,
I, Marvo, add :

I was joking.

A terrorist has an aim. The aim is to get someone to listen to him, and he
usually terrorises because someone won't listen to him, and he is hopelessly
outnumbered, and quite possibly frightened. And he thinks he's right,
obviously. He probably isn't, but it makes no odds.

The terrorist in question (for the purposes of this 'ere discussion) was one
Osama Binliner, a product of a very rich family, who sadly thinks that his
Islam way (for he is a Muslim) is the only way. Mr Pres Bush is a proponent
of a system of capitalism, to such an extent that he makes things illegal
which are contrary to his view, partly (mainly?) owing to the fact that he
becomes Very Rich if the planet can consume just that little bit more oil,
and money is his raison d'etre. Our chap Blair is not like that, he is only
interested in Power and has gone quite mad, in a Maggie-stylee.

Given that the terrorist has an aim, it would be foolhardy of him not to let
on who he is (even if he is in hiding), because that would defeat his
object. Therefore my plan would be to talk to said terrorist, if necessary
in a neutral place, and if necessary giving him an amnesty for the duration
of the talks. I would listen to what he had to say, and then respond to it
accordingly. If the talks could not possibly reach any conclusion at least
partly acceptable to both parties, then I suppose I'd have to resort to
giving him a good slap, but normally something would be possible even if it
meant that I (as President) would have to give some ground, and live in
peace with Mr Terrorist and his mates. The mess can be sorted out later.

They did in Afghanistan, and look what happened. If you think you can
talk to these, you're in a worse state then they are!

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to
do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody
what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

I don't understand this comment ...

Then read your statement above again!

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!

I have 166 at the last count, but I am much cleverer than that because I
didn't join Mensa! Bush's IQ is reported at less than 100, which makes him
less intelligent than the average for his population and most farm animals.
It is also known that he is illiterate and quite bonkers.

Yet he still stands for freedom. Great guy. What do you do for global
freedom, bright eyes?

We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply,
because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

I can't honestly believe that any right-thinking individual believes this -
I want to be put back in the Matrix.

From that we can presume you do nothing to help society?

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Er, are you a troll? If so, you are sussed and you must stop.

What do you do to help society?




Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

I already do what I can.

Like what? you seem somewhat cagey.

I am not in a position to do any more because
computer programmers are not eligible for government :-) You have to have
been a lawyer, telephone sanitiser, or similar.

I fear I am too little, too late, however. But I'm not a troll.

And you wonder why someone else needs to think for you!

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

snip

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit radical
like
that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?



When he sets them on fire, you mean?

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45:21 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.



So, from that, can we presume you're just a selfish pig, who actually
does nothing for himself, and even less for society?

And you wonder why you need to be told!

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change (e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it
might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a
problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species
mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species
warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change
(e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the
mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards
the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin


There are only two sides in species warfare. The human species on one
side against which nothing can prevail, and everything else on the other.

Titanic, deckchairs, etc. etc.


michael adams

....

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:43:01 +0100, "Des Higgins"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change (e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin

I agree. Just take a look at mankind, and what happened.

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want to.

In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want
to.

You're a polite troll though.

I hope he's that Peter Brooks who does the cartoons in The Thunderer, I like
them very much.

What is a troll, exactly? And how do you know all these things?

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want
to.

You're a polite troll though.

I hope he's that Peter Brooks who does the cartoons in The Thunderer, I like
them very much.

I fear our Pete does not have much time for anything else other than
trolling.

What is a troll, exactly? And how do you know all these things?

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

But I thought that if you suss a troll he has to stop. Isn't it the rules?