ScottSA

And women's skirts. And uncovered legs, ankles and feet. Women look like harlots. Why, the vote is really something best left to men anyway. Let's bag them and make them chattel while we're at it. All joking aside, the neo-feminist covens seem to be heading in that direction all by themselves. Of course then it won't be fair, so liberal feminists can come out swinging against men for allowing the other feminists to segregate themselves...

No no Francis, you have it wrong...<sigh>....again. Being without armour is slagging the gays every chance you can, using terms like "fag" every chance you you can , slagging the Hindu religion by using the term "target" to refer to a Bindi , insinuating that homosexuality is pedophilia and are involved in child abuse, and worse telling that to someone on this board who has deep seated emotions pertaining to that . Oh yes, I fling mud......right. I use 'fag' intentionally, to convey a disgust not adequately conveyed by the term 'homosexual', and not even hinted at by the ridiculous term 'gay'. As I told someone else, I don't hide behind euphemisms, and while I may not be quite so up-and-at-em in person, I would certainly not shrink from letting people know how I feel about things. As for the bindi, I refered to it as "painting a bullethole on one's forehead", not as a "target", so get your insults straight. I'm sure it shocked you to the core, given your cursophobia, but I suspect most people saw it for the humor that was intended, and if they didn't, they would do well to de-stick their nether regions and lighten up.

You should probably read the article.

On the ozone layer (from wikipedia) The ozone layer depletion slowing is an example of science and environmentalism working. No, it shows a phenomenon which may or may not have anything at all to do with CFCs going away, and "scientists" (whoever they may be) claiming a hypothetical resolution of a fabricated crisis by an appeal to a hypothetical causation. As usual.

This is the mentality that retards any real progress. It's absolutely correct. The same phenomenon happens everysingle time, with y2k, the new ice age, AIDS, feminism, "gay-bashing"...every single faddish issue. A cadre of leftists whip up a crisis that doesn't really exist, and the squishy brigade jumps on board the bandwagon and starts burning hemp in aid of it. Every time. The vast majority of the alleged 'greens' out there don't have the slightest idea what is going on...witness the hundreds of signatures on a pettition to ban Dihydrogen Oxide...water. What happened to all the AIDS fundraisers? Well, that was yesterday's cause celebre...nobody gives a shit anymore, because the alleged "crisis"...well...just isn't 'in' anymore.

How much time did he spend studying climatology? None? You mean I'm as qualified as him to speak about it, even though I don't have any honorary doctorates? (Incidentally, honorary doctorates are empty titles). Well, whodathunkit?

What's the alternative? Allow an ideas free-for-all without any limit? I imagine if NASA were interviewing for a research director position they would turn down any candidate who claimed the big bang didn't happen, and that would be totally justified. Paradigm shifts are difficult to achieve in science, but in time if such a shift is justified it will happen regardless. Galileo is a prime example of this. This is a bit weird. On one hand you argue that there ought to be limits to ideation, enforced by job loss and presumably other forms of coercion, and on the other that somehow science will just "happen" if it's justified. How is it supposed to happen if it's not allowed? Sure, Galileo eventually won out, 150 years after he made his discovery, but why in God's name would we want to shove truth back in the closet for 150 years just because it will "happen" eventually? Arguing that Global Warming is not manmade is hardly out in left field. Arguing that there is nothing to panic about is not beyond the pale. Even if it were, under your conception, Einstein would have been out of a job. So would half of the physicists out there.

I would have printed the whole thing, but I understand it's against the rules. I think you can get a free membership to the western standard though.

Rich, very rich, and pointless to boot. Hope it doesnt scare you You, no doubt finding suddenly finding yourself without armour, have decided to drop out of this debate and fling mud instead. So be it, but I'm sure it's as transparent to others as it is to me.

This is a point often missed amidst the cacophany of platitudinous immigration-worship: http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/inde...article_id=2412

Right. Please explain what you mean by this: "Yes at this time the directive is to downplay the deterrent effect to just to pull it through." It makes no sense whatsoever.

You are missing the point. Pedophiles are overwhelmingly straight when it comes to adult sexual relationships..... even if their prepuscent victims are the same sex. So going after gays is a little pointless...it isn't the out gay men who are stalking the boys, but married scoutmasters, model enthusiast etc. Well, some of them may have heterosexual relationships, but why is this considered "in the closet" when it refers to fags with wives, but an entirely different category of sexuality when it comes to pedophile fags with wives? Why is that not also considered simply as "in the closet"? These are all double standards being foisted on us in an attempt to excuse the fact that a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual in their targeting.

Excellent post. Don't mind sweal...he has to line item everything unto death.

Morris, this is pure apologia. A false distinction is drawn between "pedophiles" who molest boys and homosexuals, and such a distinction is essentially meaningless. It's like saying that a heterosexual man is normal if he sleeps with an 18 year old woman, but a headcase if he sleeps with a 17 year old woman. It's arbitrary. If a man like males, he's a homosexual. These are not scientific studies...pointing out that pedophiles remain fixated on boys is like pointing out that herosexuals remain fixated on the opposite sex, or the sky is blue when it's not cloudy.

If there is a fact, can you point it out to me please? Comic book mockery indeed. I find it odd that 1% scares you so much. But then again, you are scared quite easily,Islam scares you, gays scare you, immigrants scare you , the left scares you , for goodness sake, put on a nightlight will you! What is not remarkable is your attempt to suggest that 33% is even close to valid. But it does fit in quite nicely with your homphobic stance. Small town, small town. Please grow up.

What asinine logic. In effect you're saying that all scientists should agree to the same thing regardless of scientific enquiry. Your analogy is even sillier, since it posits the growing number of sceptics as fools, when in fact they are doing their job.

Stepping outside the comicbook mockery for a moment, don't you find it odd that homosexuals make up 1-5% of the general population but 33% of the pedophile population? Don't you find this at all remarkable? What theses, if any, would you draw from this fact?

I don't believe you know what you're talking about. You are even misusing language and using concepts which mean the opposite of what you intended.

Some Scotsman you are.

Whatever happened to the magic ray gun that the truthies were talking about? Is that old boring hat by now?

You really need it laid out plain and simple, Scott. Huge nuke arsenal combined with perception of invincibility (whether real or imaginary) could create a very strong temptation to use that power for the best of humanity. To liberate us from all that stands between this miserable state and eternal bliss. By dropping a few nukes here and there. To me it looks like too much temptation. Definitely the recent actions of US administration have shown that they aren't up to the challenge. I.e couldn't and shouldn't be entrusted with such power. The US is very aware of the limitations of a missile shield, even if you aren't. It might be too much temptation for you to have one, but I highly doubt the US is going to sprinkle thermonukes hither and yon in some comicbook scenario involving Dr. No and his dwarfish henchmen. What a missile shield DOES present is a good deterent effect, because while it can never be 100% foolproof, it minimizes the potential gain of someone taking a potshot at the US, while maintaining the same risk.

Once US has developed a reliable interception technology, one'd have to be naive as Cinderella crossed with Winny the Pooh to believe that they won't use it against anybody they consider even remote threat. Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive capabilities? How exactly would one "use" a defence shield "against" someone? If by "use", you mean "stop missiles from hitting", is this something you have a problem with?

Just as a postscript, Mann's "hockey stick" graph has since been discredited, and is one of the biggest embarrassments of the Church of GW. Even the IPCC dropped it in the last report.

Before we have someone trot in and announce that all these respected scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry, watch the GGWS and you'll see them on record denying it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle