| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:07:21 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 15:44:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early >twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a >globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (= conservatives) say is wrong.
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They dislike rapid and
unnecessary change, and if things do need to be changed they prefer to
make changes slowly, gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to make rapid
and far-reaching changes. They despise conservatives -- Hitler was
happy to work with conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to
power, but ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing Bolsheviks,
who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable people. It
follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e] is a Red, and anyone to
the right is a Fascist.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
Sadly, far more people think like Jo[e] than is good for society as a
whole.
All three like tasty little sheep.
On 29/09/2025 23:17, Rich Ulrich wrote:
The intelligent assumption is that there is no 'positive feedback' andIt seems to me that you have some badly mistaken impression
that something else is going on.
of the meaning of 'positive feedback.'
Since studying it in depth was a part of my engineering qualifications, perhaps it is you that lacks the understanding?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[Fto: alt.usage.english]
On 29/09/2025 23:17, Rich Ulrich wrote:
The intelligent assumption is that there is no 'positive feedback' and >>>> that something else is going on.It seems to me that you have some badly mistaken impression
of the meaning of 'positive feedback.'
Since studying it in depth was a part of my engineering qualifications,
perhaps it is you that lacks the understanding?
That explains a lot.
A typical problem with engineers is that they know everything better
than everybody else, and are unshakable in that conviction,
Jan
On 30/09/25 18:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural
Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (=
conservatives) say is wrong.
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They
dislike rapid and unnecessary change, and if things do
need to be changed they prefer to make changes slowly,
gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to
make rapid and far-reaching changes. They despise
conservatives -- Hitler was happy to work with
conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to power, but
ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing
Bolsheviks, who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable
people. It follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e]
is a Red, and anyone to the right is a Fascist.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
Sadly, far more people think like Jo[e] than is good for
society as a whole.
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://
www.politicalcompass.org/) for a clear assessment of who is
left and who is right. Because it has used consistent
assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably to
track movement over time of political parties to the right or
the left.
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)
for a clear assessment of who is left and who is right. Because it has
used consistent assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably to track movement over time of political parties to the right or the left.
Le 30/09/2025 |a 12:09, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)
for a clear assessment of who is left and who is right. Because it has
used consistent assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably to >> track movement over time of political parties to the right or the left.
Well, well. It says I'm more libertarian than authoritarian, and more
left than right. I think I'm a bit surprised.
On 2025-09-30 13:59:53 +0000, Hibou said:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 12:09, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) >> for a clear assessment of who is left and who is right. Because it has
used consistent assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably >> to track movement over time of political parties to the right or the
left.
Well, well. It says I'm more libertarian than authoritarian, and more left than right. I think I'm a bit surprised.
That's more or less what it says about me, but I'm not surprised.
A weakness with this sort of survey is that how people act and how people vote
does not always reflect how they answer the questions posed. So changes are helpful for showing the direction of change over time but probably not for direct insight into individual votersrCO decisions.
On 2025-09-30 13:59:53 +0000, Hibou said:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 12:09, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) >>> for a clear assessment of who is left and who is right. Because it has
used consistent assessments over the years, it can even be used
reliably to
track movement over time of political parties to the right or the left.
Well, well. It says I'm more libertarian than authoritarian, and more
left than right. I think I'm a bit surprised.
That's more or less what it says about me, but I'm not surprised.
On 30/09/2025 00:14, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2025-09-29, Rich Ulrich wrote:What has CO2 got to do with 'pollution'
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:59:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher[...]
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
- today's climate is 'bad' and getting 'worse'
Pragmatically, Humans continue to add CO2. The easy consequence
(warming) was predicted in the late 1800s. So, yes, while levels of
CO2 continue to go up, we get "climate change" which is disruptive,
plus the long range outcome (200 years) of flooding the cities where
most humans live.
Most discussions ignore the oceans: The surfaces are warming and
becoming more acidic. Reefs are dying. I read a book about the
Sixth Extinction that talkied about oceans.
-2The ocean's dying. Plankton's dying. It's people. Soylent Green is made
out of people. They're making our food out of people.-+
Ending the INCREASE in CO2 is the first step toward REDUCING the
fossil fuel contributions toward zero. Or otherwise removing CO2?
Also, overall improvements to reduce pollution tend to improve quality
of life.
Ar an triochad|| l|i de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-09-30 13:59:53 +0000, Hibou said:
Le 30/09/2025 |a 12:09, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
I've relied on The Political Compass
(https://www.politicalcompass.org/) for a clear assessment of
who is left and who is right. Because it has used consistent
assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably to
track movement over time of political parties to the right or
the left.
Well, well. It says I'm more libertarian than authoritarian, and
more left than right. I think I'm a bit surprised.
That's more or less what it says about me, but I'm not surprised.
It says IrCOm right in the middle, which surprises me.
A weakness with this sort of survey is that how people act and how
people vote does not always reflect how they answer the questions
posed. So changes are helpful for showing the direction of change
over time but probably not for direct insight into individual
votersrCO decisions.
But if you want to know where CO2 deserves condemnation for
"tainting" and kill life directly, rather than its indirect effects
after melting Greenland and Antarctica, read about CO2 turning the
surface waters acidic. That is already measurable and is already
having effects on the life in the oceans (the tiniest flora and
fauna are direly effected, IIRC). The longer-term thread from that
pollution is thus the collapse of ocean food chains. The oceans do
provide quite a bit of food for quite a few people.
On 01/10/25 09:50, Rich Ulrich wrote:
But if you want to know where CO2 deserves condemnation for
"tainting" and kill life directly, rather than its indirect effects
after melting Greenland and Antarctica, read about CO2 turning the
surface waters acidic. That is already measurable and is already
having effects on the life in the oceans (the tiniest flora and
fauna are direly effected, IIRC). The longer-term thread from that
pollution is thus the collapse of ocean food chains. The oceans do
provide quite a bit of food for quite a few people.
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to >solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including >large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea >temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in >other oceans, has a huge momentum.
Even if we stopped all burning of
fossil fuels today (which is politically difficult), ocean temperatures >wouldn't go back to normal for about another century.
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (= conservatives) say is wrong.
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They dislike rapid and
unnecessary change, and if things do need to be changed they prefer to
make changes slowly, gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to make rapid
and far-reaching changes. They despise conservatives -- Hitler was
happy to work with conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to
power, but ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing Bolsheviks,
who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable people.
It follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e] is a Red, and
anyone to the right is a Fascist.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
On 30/09/25 18:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (= conservatives) say is wrong. >>>I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They dislike rapid and
unnecessary change, and if things do need to be changed they prefer to
make changes slowly, gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to make rapid
and far-reaching changes. They despise conservatives -- Hitler was
happy to work with conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to
power, but ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing Bolsheviks,
who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable people. It
follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e] is a Red, and anyone to
the right is a Fascist.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
Sadly, far more people think like Jo[e] than is good for society as a
whole.
I've relied on The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/)
for a clear assessment of who is left and who is right. Because it has
used consistent assessments over the years, it can even be used reliably to >track movement over time of political parties to the right or the left.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:25:55 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (= conservatives) say is wrong. >>>I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They dislike rapid and
unnecessary change, and if things do need to be changed they prefer to
make changes slowly, gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to make rapid
and far-reaching changes. They despise conservatives -- Hitler was
happy to work with conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to
power, but ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing Bolsheviks,
who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable people.
It follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e] is a Red, and
anyone to the right is a Fascist.
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
On 30/09/2025 07:46, Peter Moylan wrote:
But Australia also has a close association with many Pacific Islands,
and for them there is just one important quality-of-life issue, and
that's sea level rise.
The problem is, there is no sea level rise to speak of.
Other that going on for the last 5000 years.
You are just regurgitating the green myths propagated by the people with
the money who want us all to die of cold after we have handed all our >savings to them for pre processed soya and unreliable renewable energy
----
rCLPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them. >Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, onerCOs >agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of >onerCOs suitability to be taken seriously.rCY
Paul Krugman
On 30/09/25 12:42, rbowman wrote:
All three like tasty little sheep.
No, no. The words are "All we like sheep".
All of us. Although not necessarily for eating.
I read that "Also ... reduce pollution" comment as going beyond
the CO2 issue, addressing the general problem of achieving
beneficial ends. "Quality of Life" is worth improving - Isn't it?
From your appended note,
" ... onerCOs agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost
a litmus test of onerCOs suitability to be taken seriously.rCY
Paul Krugman
True words. Regardless of how much cynicism to want to apply
to "conventional".
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to
solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including
large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in
other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
[...] So yeah, a lot of the time we have no real choice but to go along
with the accepted view of experts. But it's still worth pointing out that
this is only a secondary source of truth. The primary one is observation
and making sense of the data with expertise and discussing that
interpretation without social biasses or groupthink.
People are not always able to vote for a candidate who adequately
reflects their political compass because, in order to stand a fighting chance of getting in, a candidate must align himself with a major party, which means voters get a choice of two or (maybe) three or four
composite views. If one of those views corresponds to yours, great! But
it's never happened yet, not to me anyway.
Holyrood is filled with no-hopers who wouldn't cut it at
Westminster.
On 01/10/2025 06:37, Hibou wrote:
Holyrood is filled with no-hopers who wouldn't cut it at Westminster.
So is Westminster.
What I think I recall is more pessimistic than that -- ocean
temperatures would continue to CLIMB for years. It might be
a century before the air's CO2 drops enough that the waters
BEGIN to go back to normal.
On 01/10/25 12:32, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to
solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including >>> large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in >>> other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
Perhaps "thermal inertia" would have been a better term. The main
relevant factor is that the oceans contain a truly huge amount of water.
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative' with conservatism.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 01/10/25 09:50, Rich Ulrich wrote:
But if you want to know where CO2 deserves condemnation for
"tainting" and kill life directly, rather than its indirect effects
after melting Greenland and Antarctica, read about CO2 turning the
surface waters acidic. That is already measurable and is already
having effects on the life in the oceans (the tiniest flora and
fauna are direly effected, IIRC). The longer-term thread from that
pollution is thus the collapse of ocean food chains. The oceans do
provide quite a bit of food for quite a few people.
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to
solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including
large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in
other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
I've been mulling the Warming for 35 years and there are more
moving pieces to this problem than to most problems.
The present level of atmospheric CO2 is ~428 ppm, more than
50% above the human-history average. If magic stopped all the
"excess" (human-caused) release of CO2, the CO2 level would
drop SLOWLY. Temperatures are not at equilibrium with the solar
input that is captured; oceans will continue to heat up if CO2 stops increasing; oceans will continue to heat up if CO2 starts slowly
dropping.
Even if we stopped all burning of
fossil fuels today (which is politically difficult), ocean temperatures
wouldn't go back to normal for about another century.
What I think I recall is more pessimistic than that -- ocean
temperatures would continue to CLIMB for years. It might be
a century before the air's CO2 drops enough that the waters
BEGIN to go back to normal.
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:25:55 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 30/09/2025 06:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:38:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Not everything the so called 'far right' (= conservatives) say is
wrong.
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo. They dislike rapid and
unnecessary change, and if things do need to be changed they prefer to >>>> make changes slowly, gradually and carefully.
The Far Right are radical, not conservative. They want to make rapid
and far-reaching changes. They despise conservatives -- Hitler was
happy to work with conservatives like Hindenberg in his climb to
power, but ditched them as soon as he got there. His motto was first
gain power, *then* the revolution (unlike the left-wing Bolsheviks,
who wanted to come to power by a revolution).
The scale is something like
Revolutionary -- Radical -- Conservative -- Reactionary
For a great many people, it's a lot simpler than that.
Jo[e] Soap is obviously a moderate, like most reasonable people.
It follows, then, that anyone to the left of Jo[e] is a Red, and
anyone to the right is a Fascist.
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative'
with conservatism.
On 01/10/25 12:32, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to
solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including >>> large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in >>> other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
Perhaps "thermal inertia" would have been a better term. The main
relevant factor is that the oceans contain a truly huge amount of water.
On 9/30/25 19:32, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 01/10/25 09:50, Rich Ulrich wrote:
But if you want to know where CO2 deserves condemnation for
"tainting" and kill life directly, rather than its indirect effects
after melting Greenland and Antarctica, read about CO2 turning the
surface waters acidic. That is already measurable and is already
having effects on the life in the oceans (the tiniest flora and
fauna are direly effected, IIRC). The longer-term thread from that
pollution is thus the collapse of ocean food chains. The oceans do
provide quite a bit of food for quite a few people.
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to
solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including >> large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in >> other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
We have a lot of higher than good for many species temperatures in Ocean waters and it keeps mixing with the remaining cold water raising those temperatures as well.
Greenland's ice is melting faster and faster which messes up the circulation called the Gulf Stream and if it stops we will be very
unhappy.>
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative'
with conservatism.
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative' with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if
you're trolling.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 15:01:11 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 01/10/25 12:32, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 11:36:09 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
South Australia currently has a big problem that it doesn't know how to >>>> solve. An algal bloom along the coastline is killing sea life, including >>>> large fish species, and beaches are being covered with dead fish. The
fishing industry is under threat. The problem is caused by rising sea
temperatures. That phenomenon, which has also become very noticeeable in >>>> other oceans, has a huge momentum.
I'm trying to open my mind to the metaphor of "momentum"
applying to the rise of temperature of sea water.
Perhaps "thermal inertia" would have been a better term. The main
relevant factor is that the oceans contain a truly huge amount of water.
There's an enormous amount of water, but most of it is DEEP.
AI Overview
How does the temperature of ocean water vary? - NOAA Ocean ...
Ocean water is generally cold below the sunlit surface layers,
with a rapid temperature drop occurring around a few hundred
meters (less than a thousand meters) within the thermocline, and
remaining cold (around 4-#C or 39-#F) at depths below 1,000 meters.
This deep cold water originates from dense, salty water formed by
freezing in polar regions that sinks and spreads across the ocean
floor.
I expect that the layer that is getting more acidic is thinner than
the layer that is warmer, but I don't know of data about that.
One implication is that "ocean warming" does not affect the great
depths and enormous volume, so it is *relatively* rapid.
What makes me feel that scientists should talk about the future
with a little bit of humility is that the study of underwater currents
is just decades old and does not pretend to be authoritative.
There must be at least a tiny chance that the COLD water of
the deeps might start playing a bigger role, say, after the Gulf
Stream is diverted by the cold fresh waters pouring from Greenland.
What the scientist warn is mostly valid as warnings, but the
science of warming and climate change is not nailed down.
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative'
with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >trolling.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 03:56:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word >>'Conservative' with conservatism.
The idea that "Liberal" is the opposite of "Conservative" is a
hangover from the 1900s or perhaps the 1910s, when the main UK parties
were the "Liberals" (pink) and the "Conservatives" (blue).
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative, while
the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be the
nearest approach to liberal.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative,
while the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be
the nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label
for each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little
agreement about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal"
stands for.
On 02/10/25 14:41, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative,
while the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be
the nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label
for each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little
agreement about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal"
stands for.
The last Australian federal election was a rout. The Liberal Party experienced the worst defeat in its history. When Trump heard this, he
was delighted. I guess nobody dared to tell him that the Liberal Party
was not the sort of party that he thought it was.
There were multiple reasons why the Liberals did so badly, but they
mostly boiled down to the Liberals repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. One of the factors, though, was that a couple of leading Liberals expressed admiration for Trump's policies. That went down really badly
with the electorate.
What the scientist warn is mostly valid as warnings,
but the science of warming and climate change is not nailed down.
No but there is heat exhange between the surface and the depths and
not all the deep water is that cold. Think about the volcanic vents
at depth providing enough chemical energy to sustain life. Look up
Haline circulation and realize the the ecology of the Southern waters
around Anartica is being disrupted. The sea ice that ringed that
continent over the sea waters is or has already melted. The negative
effects on the krill have already been noted in scientific
oceangraphic publications.
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 03:56:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word >>>'Conservative' with conservatism.
The idea that "Liberal" is the opposite of "Conservative" is a
hangover from the 1900s or perhaps the 1910s, when the main UK parties
were the "Liberals" (pink) and the "Conservatives" (blue).
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative, while
the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be the
nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label for
each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little agreement
about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal" stands for.
The root cause is that ever since the French revolution
there have been two kinds of 'liberals'.
Those who emphasize the economic aspects
(freedom to screw everybody else without government interference)
and those who emphasize the intellectual freedoms.
(freedom of expression, equality before the law, etc.)
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 08:24:27 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
If that is so, please enlighten us.
Steve Hayes hat am 03.10.2025 um 04:24 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 08:24:27 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >>>>> automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >>>>> trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
If that is so, please enlighten us.
Linguistic dimension, which was my point: it is impossible to deny a linguistic association between the word "Conservative" and conservatism,
if you want to be taken seriously.
Political dimension, which is your point, I think: it can happen that
the policies of a party do not correlate anymore with the name of that
party. They should seriously consider a name change. Tory Party would be fine. The same applies to the Republican Party if they keep acting
towards the coronation of King Donald I.
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
On 2025-10-02 00:24, Silvano wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative'
with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't
automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're
trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
Are you awake? The entire discussion has been about that.
Steve Hayes hat am 03.10.2025 um 04:24 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 08:24:27 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >>>>> automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >>>>> trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
If that is so, please enlighten us.
Linguistic dimension, which was my point: it is impossible to deny a >linguistic association between the word "Conservative" and conservatism,
if you want to be taken seriously.
Political dimension, which is your point, I think: it can happen that
the policies of a party do not correlate anymore with the name of that
party. They should seriously consider a name change. Tory Party would be >fine. The same applies to the Republican Party if they keep acting
towards the coronation of King Donald I.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:45:24 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 03.10.2025 um 04:24 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 08:24:27 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being >>>>>>>> from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative' >>>>>>>> with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >>>>>> automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism? >>>>>>
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >>>>>> trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative" >>>>> whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
If that is so, please enlighten us.
Linguistic dimension, which was my point: it is impossible to deny a >>linguistic association between the word "Conservative" and conservatism,
if you want to be taken seriously.
Political dimension, which is your point, I think: it can happen that
the policies of a party do not correlate anymore with the name of that >>party. They should seriously consider a name change. Tory Party would be >>fine. The same applies to the Republican Party if they keep acting
towards the coronation of King Donald I.
My point is both.
In the US, where none of the major political parties has the word >"conservative" in its name, it makes no sense at all to call the
Republican Party "conservative" because, since coming to power last
January, it has made more radical changes in governance more quickly
than have been made by any party since the Second World War, and
perhaps since the US Civil War. That kind of behaviour is the opposite
of conservatism.
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
On 03/10/2025 22:41, lar3ryca wrote:
On 2025-10-02 00:24, Silvano wrote:In English, comments quite often require the listener to do some of the
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. >>>>>>> Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative'
with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >>>>> automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism?
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >>>>> trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the
bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative"
whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
Are you awake? The entire discussion has been about that.
work - we don't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s.
Maybe it isn't quite the same in some other languages?
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement. Was it the policy statement of the
whole party, or just the Trump faction? I didn't find out. A lot of
the chapter authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so
that billionaires can have more tax cuts.
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced-a bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole
policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement.-a Was it the policy statement of the
whole party, or just the Trump faction?-a I didn't find out.-a A lot of
the chapter authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so
that billionaires can have more tax cuts.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 05:21:08 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:45:24 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 03.10.2025 um 04:24 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 08:24:27 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
Steve Hayes hat am 02.10.2025 um 05:07 geschrieben:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 00:04:44 +0200, Silvano
<Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully. Being
from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word 'Conservative'
with conservatism.
WTF??? Would you be so kind and explain to a foreigner why you don't >>>>>>> automatically associate the word 'Conservative' with conservatism? >>>>>>>
The association is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder if you're >>>>>>> trolling.
For the same reason that Australians might not always associate the >>>>>> bword "Liberal" with "liberalism" -- they have a political party
called "Liberal", but whose policies are often illiberal.
Similarly in the UK there is a political party called "Conservative" >>>>>> whose policies are not always conservative.
You, Peter and probably some or many more people do not see the
difference between the political and the linguistic dimension.
If that is so, please enlighten us.
Linguistic dimension, which was my point: it is impossible to deny a >>>linguistic association between the word "Conservative" and conservatism, >>>if you want to be taken seriously.
Political dimension, which is your point, I think: it can happen that
the policies of a party do not correlate anymore with the name of that >>>party. They should seriously consider a name change. Tory Party would be >>>fine. The same applies to the Republican Party if they keep acting >>>towards the coronation of King Donald I.
My point is both.
In the US, where none of the major political parties has the word >>"conservative" in its name, it makes no sense at all to call the
Republican Party "conservative" because, since coming to power last >>January, it has made more radical changes in governance more quickly
than have been made by any party since the Second World War, and
perhaps since the US Civil War. That kind of behaviour is the opposite
of conservatism.
Steve...you are proposing that it is illogical to refer to the
Republican Party as "conservatives" because the Republican
administration has been acting anything but conservatively.
Since when is logic involved in how we label political matters?
In the US, the general public considers the Republicans to be the >"Conservatives". The conservative view is that things should not
change. The modern Republicans amend that to "things should not
change from when it was the way we wanted it it be".
For example, the Republicans want it to be like 1942 when the
government could send people - Japanese - to internment camps. Now,
though, it's undocumented immigrants that are sent to Alligator
Alcatraz and other camps.
On 04/10/2025 05:41, Snidely wrote:
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced-a bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole >>> policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement.-a Was it the policy statement of the
whole party, or just the Trump faction?-a I didn't find out.-a A lot of
the chapter authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so
that billionaires can have more tax cuts.
But but!
Whilst campaigning, Trump made a point of saying he didn't even really
know what Plan 2025 was - but what little he did know about it included >things he didn't agree with.
You don't think...
You are just regurgitating the green myths propagated by the people with
the money who want us all to die of cold after we have handed all our savings to them for pre processed soya and unreliable renewable energy
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole
policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement. Was it the policy statement of the whole party, or just the Trump faction? I didn't find out. A lot of the chapter authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so that billionaires can have more tax cuts.
On Thu, 02 Oct 2025 00:41:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 03:56:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
The idea that "Liberal" is the opposite of "Conservative" is a
hangover from the 1900s or perhaps the 1910s, when the main UK parties >>>were the "Liberals" (pink) and the "Conservatives" (blue).
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative, while
the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be the
nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label for
each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little agreement
about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal" stands for.
Yes, that is indeed the problem.
And when parties change from what they are considered to be, then you
either have to change the meaning of words like "liberal" and
"conservative", or else use other words to describe them.
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but under
Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
In article <10bg79b$3ielt$4
@dont-email.me>,
tnp@invalid.invalid says...
You are just regurgitating the green myths propagated by the people with
the money who want us all to die of cold after we have handed all our
savings to them for pre processed soya and unreliable renewable energy
I'm pretty sure they don't
want us to die. Who would
serve them? Rulers need
someone to rule.
Melissa
Snidely scribbled something on Friday the 10/3/2025:
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole >>> policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement. Was it the policy statement of the whole >> party, or just the Trump faction? I didn't find out. A lot of the chapter >> authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so that >> billionaires can have more tax cuts.
Trump's plan is the same, but with the added pleasure of taking revenge
on everyone.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 15:10:04 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:
Snidely scribbled something on Friday the 10/3/2025:
Peter Moylan blurted out:
On 03/10/25 12:18, Steve Hayes wrote:
The Republican Party may have been conservative in the past, but
under Trump it has embraced bull-in-a-china-shop radicalism.
Does it currently have any policies? I have the impression that its sole >>>> policy is "give in to whatever Trump demands".
Plan 2025 was a policy statement. Was it the policy statement of the whole
party, or just the Trump faction? I didn't find out. A lot of the chapter
authors got called into the Trump administration.
Basically the overall policy is to gut everything of value or use so that >>> billionaires can have more tax cuts.
Trump's plan is the same, but with the added pleasure of taking revenge
on everyone.
It is not as bad as 'retribution' but it bothers me to see Trump
described as 'taking revenge' --
His basic pleasure, as I see it, is serving up spite to anyone
who discomfits him (within limits - kicking down, kissing up).
'revenge' implies that there was an offense.
'retribution' goes further and implies there is justice involved.
Trump's spite is just spite. Unless you want to rationalize
'narcissistic personality.'
Trump's spite needs no personal offense. Obama is a target
because of envy. His DOJ (the first time around) denied that
there was anything to charge him with.
Fauci, whose press conferences he crashed, accidentally made
Trump a boorish dummy by comparison. Trump turned his
minions against him on social media.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia got himself illegally arrested and deported
without due process. That made Trump look bad, indirectly,
so Garcia remains a target of Trump's spite.
Googling gave me this a few weeks go. A tyrant, more than
a dictator, is apt to be "cruel" and "intolerant". I can apply
those to Trump's spite by specifiying them more narrowly as
"wantonly cruel" and "ridiculously thin-skinned" to (even)
implied criticism.
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
Conservatives above all like the status quo.
In article <ckomdkt1p2dmsdrcreth2fb33u20rto0dr@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
No, that's what conservativism is.
So what do you call people who are in favour of:
* hats
* parks
* petrol
* Red Rum
* spelling
* hedgerows
* paper bags
* apostrophes
* Petula Clark
* The Good Life
* places to park
* grammar schools
* telephone kiosks
* conscientiousness
* Queen Elizabeth II
* bobbies without guns
* suspects without guns
* thank you as two words
* opening doors for ladies
* drivers with good manners
* not carrying identity cards
* pounds, shillings, and pence
* milk with tops you could open
* freedom to use normal pronouns
* waiting your turn in a bus queue
* shopkeepers who greet you by name
* Sunday cricket on the village green
* doctors making house calls to the sick
* not being scared to let the kids out to play
* cars you can fix without a degree in electronics
* towns centres that look different to other town centres
Or don't we get a voice?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
In article <10caf4b$3tnfp$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
So what do you call people who are in favour of:
"Old-fashioned"
-- Richard
* hats
* parks
* petrol
* Red Rum
* spelling
* hedgerows
* paper bags
* apostrophes
* Petula Clark
* The Good Life
* places to park
* grammar schools
* telephone kiosks
* conscientiousness
* Queen Elizabeth II
* bobbies without guns
* suspects without guns
* thank you as two words
* opening doors for ladies
* drivers with good manners
* not carrying identity cards
* pounds, shillings, and pence
* milk with tops you could open
* freedom to use normal pronouns
* waiting your turn in a bus queue
* shopkeepers who greet you by name
* Sunday cricket on the village green
* doctors making house calls to the sick
* not being scared to let the kids out to play
* cars you can fix without a degree in electronics
* towns centres that look different to other town centres
--
Or don't we get a voice?
[...] > >> * doctors making house calls to the sick
Our doctor does that.
Ar an deichi|| l|i de m|! Deireadh F||mhair, scr|!obh
Ar an deichi|| l|i de m|! Deireadh F||mhair, scr|!obh Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...] > >> * doctors making house calls to the sick
Our doctor does that.
The children and grandchildren of my local 90-something-year-olds can get very unhappy if I donrCOt refer their dying loved ones early to palliative care, even in the very many cases where there is nothing palliative care will do for them that I will not do better. I believe the underlying dynamic is that palliative care, in England, is basically the only reliable way to get regular house calls, and the fact that I am out regularly does not compute for them.
On 2025-10-10 16:01:43 +0000, Aidan Kehoe said:
Ar an deichi|| l|i de m|! Deireadh F||mhair, scr|!obh
Is scr|!obh cognate with |-crire, escribir, scrivere, etc.?
If so, I'm surprised that Irish borrowed the word, espzcially if it can come up with Deireadh F||mhair for October.
In article <10caf4b$3tnfp$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
So what do you call people who are in favour of:
"Old-fashioned"
On 10/10/2025 02:42, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <ckomdkt1p2dmsdrcreth2fb33u20rto0dr@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes-a <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
No, that's what conservativism is.
So what do you call people who are in favour of:
* spelling
On 10/10/2025 09:11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 10/10/2025 02:42, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <ckomdkt1p2dmsdrcreth2fb33u20rto0dr@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes-a <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I would say the Far-Right is anything but "conservative".
No, that's what conservativism is.
So what do you call people who are in favour of:
* spelling
As was widely reported this week, Conservatives can't even spell
"Britain" correctly.
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 03:56:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative' with conservatism.
The idea that "Liberal" is the opposite of "Conservative" is a
hangover from the 1900s or perhaps the 1910s, when the main UK parties
were the "Liberals" (pink) and the "Conservatives" (blue).
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative, while
the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be the
nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label for
each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little agreement
about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal" stands for.
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of "freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
JNugent hat am 12.10.2025 um 18:25 geschrieben:
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of
"freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
I agree. My question is: which kind of freedom?
Economic freedom against State controls, in practical terms favouring
big business? That's the present Liberal Party in Germany and it was the former Liberal Party in Italy - definitely centre-right, but still far
from the present right parties craving for their own dictatorship. If I understand Peter Moylan correctly, this also applies to the Liberal
Party of Australia.
Personal freedom against State controls, usually against big business?
Those who live in the UK or Canada can tell the rest of us if and how
much this applies to the Lib Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Other kinds of freedom? Please define.
On 02/10/2025 05:41 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:40:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 03:56:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2025 03:39, Steve Hayes wrote:
Except that in the US it's the other way round. The Reds are the
"Right" and the Blues are the "Left".
True; they drive on the wrong side as well.
Evil Jackboots Commie <---Jo[e]---> Evil Jackboots Nazi
That's on the authoritarian scale, not the rate of change scale
Anarchist - Libertarian - Liberal - Authoritarian - Totalitarian
You must forgive me for not reading your article more carefully.
Being from the UK, I did not automatically associate the word
'Conservative' with conservatism.
The idea that "Liberal" is the opposite of "Conservative" is a
hangover from the 1900s or perhaps the 1910s, when the main UK parties
were the "Liberals" (pink) and the "Conservatives" (blue).
In the US at the moment the Democratic Party is conservative, while
the Republican Party is radical. The Green Party seems to be the
nearest approach to liberal.
That is not the way we look at it here in the US. The Democratic
Party are considered the "liberals" and the Republican Party are
considered to be the "conservatives" if you want one general label for
each group.
The problem, though, with each term is that there is little agreement
about what a "conservative" stands for what a "liberal" stands for.
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of >"freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
Using it as a shorthand for the left is an abuse of language. The left, >almost by definition, oppose (or are very ready to sacrifice) the
liberty of the individual in order to support and bolster the power and >welfare of the collective.
The word "liberal" is therefore misused as an epithet for the left.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Of course, there are those who seek to circumvent the real meanings of
words by, for instance, arguing that the people are only free when much
of their liberty has been neutered.
For example, the US has - in the past - welcomed immigrants. The conservatives want to change that and make it more difficult for an
immigrant to assimilate or become a citizen.
On 13/10/25 07:32, Tony Cooper wrote:
For example, the US has - in the past - welcomed immigrants. The
conservatives want to change that and make it more difficult for an
immigrant to assimilate or become a citizen.
The Australian national anthem includes the lines
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share
We're now changing that to
For those who come across the seas
We have offshore detention.
Both the USA and Australia have benefited enormously from immigration.
The US major advances in science and technology in the 20th century were >driven by innovators with a European education. The Snowy Mountains
Scheme, a major Australian national initiative, was built almost
entirely by immigrants.
Attitudes to immigration seem to follow a predictable curve. When a
country is young, it sees the need for extra manpower, and values the
fact that immigrants tend to be hard-working and a positive benefit to
the community. Then, as the population grows, a reaction sets in. I have
even seen second- and third-generation immigrants campaigning for the
gates to be locked.
Fear of foreigners seems to be built in to the human psyche. Sometimes
we overcome it, at other times we reinforce it.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 09:32:30 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
Both the USA and Australia have benefited enormously from immigration.
The US major advances in science and technology in the 20th century were
driven by innovators with a European education. The Snowy Mountains
Scheme, a major Australian national initiative, was built almost
entirely by immigrants.
Attitudes to immigration seem to follow a predictable curve. When a
country is young, it sees the need for extra manpower, and values the
fact that immigrants tend to be hard-working and a positive benefit to
the community. Then, as the population grows, a reaction sets in. I have
even seen second- and third-generation immigrants campaigning for the
gates to be locked.
Fear of foreigners seems to be built in to the human psyche. Sometimes
we overcome it, at other times we reinforce it.
China seems to be the beneficiary of the administration's
anti-immigration policy. They welcome the scientists and those
studying the hard sciences that want to emigrate or study in some
other country.
JNugent hat am 12.10.2025 um 18:25 geschrieben:
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of
"freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
I agree. My question is: which kind of freedom?
Economic freedom against State controls, in practical terms favouring
big business? That's the present Liberal Party in Germany and it was the >former Liberal Party in Italy - definitely centre-right, but still far
from the present right parties craving for their own dictatorship. If I >understand Peter Moylan correctly, this also applies to the Liberal
Party of Australia.
Personal freedom against State controls, usually against big business?
Those who live in the UK or Canada can tell the rest of us if and how
much this applies to the Lib Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Other kinds of freedom? Please define.
JNugent hat am 12.10.2025 um 18:25 geschrieben:
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of
"freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
I agree. My question is: which kind of freedom?
Economic freedom against State controls, in practical terms favouring
big business? That's the present Liberal Party in Germany and it was the former Liberal Party in Italy - definitely centre-right, but still far
from the present right parties craving for their own dictatorship. If I understand Peter Moylan correctly, this also applies to the Liberal
Party of Australia.
Personal freedom against State controls, usually against big business?
Those who live in the UK or Canada can tell the rest of us if and how
much this applies to the Lib Dems in the UK and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Other kinds of freedom? Please define.
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of
"freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
I agree. My question is: which kind of freedom?
The freedom of the individual to pursue happiness in a way that does not directly impinge on the rights of another to pursue happiness.
Fear of foreigners seems to be built in to the human psyche. Sometimes
we overcome it, at other times we reinforce it.
Den 12.10.2025 kl. 22.06 skrev JNugent:
The word "liberal" very *obviously* means something along the lines of >>>> "freedom-loving" (I'm trying to avoid using the word "liberty" as a
circular defining term there).
I agree. My question is: which kind of freedom?
The freedom of the individual to pursue happiness in a way that does
not directly impinge on the rights of another to pursue happiness.
But that is just the problem. You can't exercise your freedom without limiting others in theirs.