Sunday, March 13, 2005

Enviro-Jihad

Last Week's WSU class covered Environmental Revolution. I had "faced" the "instructor" before. In a seminar on Eco-terrorism she had justified spiking trees and burning down sky lodges by claiming that 100 species a day are going extinct. I had asked her to name the last species which had become extinct. She said she didn’t know. I asked her to name any species which had gone extinct since the passenger pigeon. She could not. She said these lists were kept somewhere. Where? I asked.. She sugested the web sittes of several activist groops. My son later explained to me how environmentalists come up with the estimated "100 species a day extinct" number. They dig through the ruins of a harvested rain forest tree and see how many creatures they can discover that they don’t have a name for. They then assume these were new and unique species and that now their tree is gone they are extinct. Multiply that number of species by the number of trees cut down a day and you come up with the per-day number of species becomeing extinct. Weard isn’t it!?!

This week the professor unleashed her assault on America and modernization. An attack which probably goes over wonderfully well with the entranced "tweens" of her WSU classes. There were many flashes in the running two hour battle that the “discussion” developed into. Here I note only the climax. She handed round a “quiz”. It was a Sierra Club survey from the January/February 2003 Sierra magazine. It claimed to be able to determine how many acres of land one requires to live. No effort was expended in explaining the rational behind any of the formulas: – vegens are scored at 0.46 while those who almost always eat meat get a 1.14, a person who eats unpackaged local food is graded at 0.69 while those who eat out of package imports rate a 1.1. Then these numbers are run through a mysterious formula Q1 X Q2 X 5.5 = the number of acres required to provide your food. Other factors including shelter and mobility are cranked through equally obscure formula and in the end one’s total “foot print” on the earth is established. Though no questions could get the professor to justify the math; she boldly claimed that the average American exploits 24 acres in living while there are only 5 acres of land per person in the world. Her conclusion: the rest of the world cannot develop the standard of living that Americans enjoy. Her implication: Americans use more than their fair share - therefore it is OK to hate them. The Sierra Club’s quiz culminates with this ominious perdiction: “Population growth will reduce resources available to each person in the future.” -- Oh yah, there was a special “TAKE ACTION note” “ . . . go to the Sierra Club’s Web site at www.sierraclub.org/footprint . . . A second section invites you to "become a member of the Sierra Club’s activist network. It’s one good way for busy people to work for changes that will reduce everyone’s footprint. – K. T.” The Professor went on to list a host of ecological disasters: deforestation, shortage of fresh water, global climate change, depletion of the ocean fisheries, the continued production of DDT. She said that it was impossible for the people of the Africa to ever live at the standard of living that “we here in the US enjoy.” I asked her how her predictions of gloom and doom differed from those of Malthus from the 19th century. She replied that Malthus may well have been right – that the earth will someday reach its carrying capacity. I pointed out the technology had trumped Malthus, She said she preferred the word postponed. I asked here if she was aware of the aqua farming that was producing the endless supply of seafood Americans now consume at the Sizzler’s all you can eat buffet. She said that there are reports that indicate there are higher levels of Mercury in Farm Razed fish. I replied if such was the case – surely that could be fixed. She said she didn’t want to live in a world were there were no wild salmon. I said if it came down to African people having a decent standard of living or maintaining populations of wild salmon; I was for the Africans. She said it didn’t have to come to that. I said, that I knew that and that people say these things just for political purposes. Realizing that the discussion had led her in the opposite direction from where she had intended the class to go, she ended her lecture. As you consider my “arrogant” rant against my professor please also consider these two articles available last week.


The Readers Digest (Not the most prestigious scientific journal but considered quite reliable) carried an article by Gregg Easterbrook (A visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of The Progress Paradox) He begins, “So here’s the good news: our air is cleaner, our lakes are purer, our forests are healthier, endangered species are recovering, toxic emissions are down, and acid rain has diminished dramatically.” (pg81) Easterbrook goes on to support these claims specifically. Among the arguments for good news no the environment is some pretty convincing impractical evidence. “Improved Air Quality – Los Angeles went from 150 days per year in violation of smog standards in 1990 to just 27 in 2004” (pg82); “Better Water Quality – just a generation ago, factories and municipal plants actually discharged untreated wastewater directly into rivers; today . . . almost all wastewater in the United States is treated before discharge.. . The Chicago River went from smelly and dirty to sparkling , and is now the setting for dinner cruises.” (pg 85); “Animals are Back – Only one animal species is know to have gone extinct in the United States in the last 15 years, the dusky seaside sparrow. During the same period, numerous other species once described as certain to become extinct – including the Arctic peregrine falcon, the brown pelican, the gray whale, and the bald eagle. . . have recovered sufficiently enough that they are no longer classified as imperiled.” (pg 85) “Forests Are Growing - . . . early in the 19th century, the state of Connecticut was 25 percent forest; today, Connecticut is fully 59 percent forested, though its population has increased twelve fold, from 275,000 to 3.46 million” (pgs 85 – 86). Least anyone claim that these gains are not to be credited to Reagan and the Bush as well as Carter and Clinton; “ Steady environmental improvements have taken place across th4e board, regardless of which party is in the White house or controlling Congress. During the last four years air pollution has continued to decline improvements in technology have reduced emissions, the amount of protected lands is on the uptick . . .”(pg 86) Easterbrook goes on to paint a most hopeful and positive picture of the environment under the “1st world” control of the United States. It seems clear that giving Africans the same standard of living as we enjoy here in the US would probably greatly improve the world’s environment.
The Readers Digest is not alone in recognizing the success of technology and nature. Surprisingly, Nicholas D. Kristof, took a partial break from Bush Bashing in the New York Times to dedicate his March 12th column to debunking the “natural disaster on its way myth”. The following quotes are from “I Have a Nightmare”
1. Kristof begins by quoting Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus:’s web article “The Death of Environmentalism”. “. . . modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, out dated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new can live.”
2. “The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmist. They have an awful track record, so they’ve lost credibility with the public.”
3. “In the 1970’s, the environmental movement was convinced that the Alaska oil pipeline would devastate the Central Arctic caribou heard. Since then, it has quintupled.
4. “When I first began to worry about climate change, global cooling and nuclear winter seemed the main risks. As Newsweek said in 1975: “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend . . . but they are all most unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
5. “Environmentalists were right about DDT’s threat to bald eagles, for example, but blocking all spraying in the third world has led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths.”
Unfortunately Kristof’s break from bashing the President couldn’t be sustained for a single page editorial. He claims in paragraph three of his piece that “Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may be approved soon, [It is now in the budget] and there’s been no progress whatsoever in the U.S. on what may be the single most important issue to Earth in the long run: climate change.” He then ends his editorial with this self-contradictory claim. “ . . . irreversible changes are precisely what are at stake with the Bush administration’s plans to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, to allow roads in virgin wilderness, and to do essentially nothing on global warming. “

Kristof can’t see that his fears about ANWR and global warming are just as “alarmist” and incredible as the promised devastation that was to have followed the Alaska pipeline or the Ice Age that was bearing down on us in the 70”s. Even as Kristof attempts to present objective truth his hate for Bush pulls him back into Lahlah land to make the same silly claims with which enviro-fanatics are embarrassed themselves out of existence. Kristof probably doesn’t expect his readers to finish his article or to see it in context of “The Death of Environmentalism”.

Oil exploration on ANWR will do almost no environmental damage. If the precedent of Connecticut and the Alaska Pipeline are accepted, it will no doubt improve the Alaskan environment. The resulting fuel supply might well power the wealth necessary to bring a higher and safer standard of living to millions in the US and around the world. But environmentalism has been co-opted by anti-American politics. The purpose of its propaganda is to fuel the hatred of America. By justifying the anger of the people of other nations against America, environmental alarmists join many others in their drive to destroy America and the freedom America seeks to spread throughout the world. Wheather these people are motivated by money, like the Sierra Club, or politics, like the New York Times; rather than channeling the world energy resources into solving the challenges of living on earth and improving the lives of all peoples, such fanatics stir up fear and hate that topples reason.

27 comments:

Dan Simpson said...

The one on your list that enrages me the most is the discussion of DDT.

Because of what has now been shown to be flawed science, and a well coordinated scare campaign, many have died.

Frankly, I think that hundreds of thousands is a gross underestimation. Just look at the numbers of Malaria deaths in the world over the last twenty years. I think it is more likely that the U.S. stance on DDT is responsible for millions of deaths.

Rachel Carson, the author of "Silent Spring" was full of crap. She based here DDT "evidence" on a flawed scientific study that has since been brought into serious question.

There was an effect on eggshell strength, but it had no showable effect on population. And there was no shown effect on humans.

I pray that the U.S. changes there stance on DDT, not for our own population, as malaria is not a real threat in this country, but to try to stem the rampant death toll across the world caused by malaria that could in large be stopped.

Aeneas said...

American economic prosperity will promote economic prosperity around the world. Economic prosperity around the world will improve the worldwide environment just as it has done in this country.

Lysis argues that political propoganda is the motivation behind environmental extremism but never identified what politics they are espousing. I don't think "enviro-jihad" means religious extremism as the word jihad would imply. My personal guess is that it is communism which is the political motivation/agenda which extreme environmental groups are pushing.

Lysis said...

Alright Aeneas, lets think about “religion” and politics:

1. If you don’t think radical environmentalism is a religion, you need to read some of the “save the earth” propaganda out from ELF and other organizations. They even have secret cells that plot secret acts of terror against loggers, oil and mineral interests, and industries that don’t meet their standards. They call for anarchy. Next time there is a Global Economic Conference, check out the protesters. Read some of the web thread comments that Kristof's Op-Ed is bringing in.

2. The “lie” that America uses up more than its share of world resources is an inspiration to hate everywhere. The 9/11 killers chose the World Trade Center for a reason.

3. If modernization and prosperity have the effect you predict, and I think they well, there are plenty of fanatics in power now who will lose everything as their people escape the ignorance that poverty perpetuates.

4. Let’s consider the Kyoto treaty. America is universally vilified, many of the European nations which the US saved from Fascism and Communism are convinced that we are evil for not signing this phony document. Bush is made a villain in America and throughout the world for not signing this treaty – which in actuality was universally rejected by the Senate’-Democrats and Republicans. Russia recently became a “world hero” by signing this document, although its third world economy exempts Russia for fifty years from the restrictions which would emasculate the US economy.

5. You might remember Aeneas, that in his “week before the election pro Kerry speech”; Bin Laden actually invoked the Kyoto Accord as a justification for war with America.

Celine said...

The DISCOVERIES Of the MAN And the WOMAN

The Man discovered the COLORS and invented the PAINTING,
The Woman discovered the PAINTING and invented the MAQUIAGEM.

The Man discovered the WORD and invented the COLLOQUY,
The Woman discovered the COLLOQUY and invented the FOFOCA.

The Man discovered the GAME and invented the LETTERS,
The Woman discovered the LETTERS and invented the TAROT.

The Man discovered AGRICULTURE and invented the FOOD,
The Woman discovered the FOOD and invented the DIET.

The Man discovered the FEELINGS and invented the LOVE,
The Woman discovered the LOVE and invented the MARRIAGE.

The Man discovered the WOMAN and invented the SEX,
The Woman discovered the SEX and invented the MIGRAINE.

The Man discovered the COMMERCE and invented the MONEY,
The Woman discovered the MONEY and there everything fudeu...

Celine said...

The DISCOVERIES Of the MAN And the WOMAN

The Man discovered the COLORS and invented the PAINTING,
The Woman discovered the PAINTING and invented the MAQUIAGEM.

The Man discovered the WORD and invented the COLLOQUY,
The Woman discovered the COLLOQUY and invented the FOFOCA.

The Man discovered the GAME and invented the LETTERS,
The Woman discovered the LETTERS and invented the TAROT.

The Man discovered AGRICULTURE and invented the FOOD,
The Woman discovered the FOOD and invented the DIET.

The Man discovered the FEELINGS and invented the LOVE,
The Woman discovered the LOVE and invented the MARRIAGE.

The Man discovered the WOMAN and invented the SEX,
The Woman discovered the SEX and invented the MIGRAINE.

The Man discovered the COMMERCE and invented the MONEY,
The Woman discovered the MONEY and there everything fudeu...

Celine said...

The DISCOVERIES Of the MAN And the WOMAN

The Man discovered the COLORS and invented the PAINTING,
The Woman discovered the PAINTING and invented the MAQUIAGEM.

The Man discovered the WORD and invented the COLLOQUY,
The Woman discovered the COLLOQUY and invented the FOFOCA.

The Man discovered the GAME and invented the LETTERS,
The Woman discovered the LETTERS and invented the TAROT.

The Man discovered AGRICULTURE and invented the FOOD,
The Woman discovered the FOOD and invented the DIET.

The Man discovered the FEELINGS and invented the LOVE,
The Woman discovered the LOVE and invented the MARRIAGE.

The Man discovered the WOMAN and invented the SEX,
The Woman discovered the SEX and invented the MIGRAINE.

The Man discovered the COMMERCE and invented the MONEY,
The Woman discovered the MONEY and there everything fudeu...

Celine said...

The DISCOVERIES Of the MAN And the WOMAN

The Man discovered the COLORS and invented the PAINTING,
The Woman discovered the PAINTING and invented the MAQUIAGEM.

The Man discovered the WORD and invented the COLLOQUY,
The Woman discovered the COLLOQUY and invented the FOFOCA.

The Man discovered the GAME and invented the LETTERS,
The Woman discovered the LETTERS and invented the TAROT.

The Man discovered AGRICULTURE and invented the FOOD,
The Woman discovered the FOOD and invented the DIET.

The Man discovered the FEELINGS and invented the LOVE,
The Woman discovered the LOVE and invented the MARRIAGE.

The Man discovered the WOMAN and invented the SEX,
The Woman discovered the SEX and invented the MIGRAINE.

The Man discovered the COMMERCE and invented the MONEY,
The Woman discovered the MONEY and there everything fudeu...

Beef Jerky said...

Um, ok Celine, I think we've got your point. Thanks.

Silver Lining said...

Depending on how you choose to define the word religion, Lysis, politics is a religion for some. Communism, as I am sure you know, surely fits in this category (again for some not all). Semantics.

Your additional points are interesting to be sure but I wonder to what post they are directed as there was no argument to the contrary.

As for Kyoto. It is fair to say that those who use Kyoto to villify the U.S.A. do so either because they believe in it, or because it conveniently provides ammunition for an already existing anti-American political philosophy that has existed in some of the those European countries you allude to (one in particular) both before as well as after WWII. I think that the congressional vote tells us a lot about Kyoto. Otherwise, we should look into it and discover it for ourselves. Use of Kyoto as a political tool is just another in a long line of examples of such behavior.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

To Beef Jerky and other "we, us, our", "groupies":

"OUR friend blowhard here . . ."

Oh, another "collectivist" person who likes to write using plural personal pronouns with the other Agora Bloger "homies". What's next, "chant" blogging to exorcise evil spirits? -

When everyone thinks so much alike, no one can be doing much thinking. . .

Sometimes at the Agora here, it is so "anonymous and communal" I think it's anti-American! or at least indecent!

Lysis:
If "environmentalism" (an undefined word in your post) can be a religion, then can "anti-environmentalism be a religion too?

If everything can be/is a "religion" then truly nothing can be/is.

Better first go to Lysis and get a list of all the things that CAN'T be a religion and then "WE" can be sure about what "OUR" religion isn't.

Ares said...

Blowhard,
Now, I'm pretty sure that all this has been covered before, but as it seems that you haven't learned yet, I shall try it again.
Ad hominem attacks, however fun they may be to write, have no standing in argumentation or debate or truth-searching, or whatever it is we do here. They do not help your argument and it shows that you really have no argument in the first place.
As to the pronouns that you so obviously abhor, I suppose that you will have to live with that. This all started when Apollo and I wrote a comment together, so we used the word "us." We did not imply, nor do I think that anyone here has, that we speak for everyone here. Why you have your knickers in a twist over all that is beyond me. If you would like to present an argument, please do so, it helps us all and cannot hurt the Truth. Remember that.
_Ares

Lysis said...

Actually I agree with both Silver Lining and Blowhard. There are many “strong beliefs” which qualify as religions. I did not try to qualify some things as religions and some as not; that was your leap of faith. My point is simply that there is a link in style and goal between the “toy Muslims” and the “toy Environmentalists” You might recall from earlier posts that “toy” is used here to indicate fraudulent misuse of a title. Muslim Jihadests who “struggle” against freedom are easily linked to Environmental Jihadasts who hide behind false claims about the present condition and future fate of the earth to “struggle”for their own power, wealth, or political agenda.

Blowhard: We are world – quit worrying about pronouns and let’s talk like friends.

Anonymous said...

Blowhard here . . .

Ares:
You precede your "lecture" about avoiding Ad Hominem attacks with the observation that ". . . it seems as you haven't learned yet." How clever, to make Ad Hominem attacks and disavow them in the next sentence --

Yes,there are many things to learn -- how Civics and Civility are two words that come from the same root. (which would you classify the "knickers in a twist" comment as?} Or is it just more columny?

No, You are not the one to lecture me about Ad Hominem attacks . . .

"I can tell a hawk from a handsaw by moonlight"

Lysis:
Civics and Civility--

What would Lysis do with someone like Lysis in HIS classroom?
Now I would pay great sums to see that.

Beef Jerky said...

Ok I'm sorry Celine I guess Blowhard DIDN'T get your point. Could you post your Man/Woman comment a few more times on Blowhard's behalf? Thank you.

Apollo said...

If there was someone like Lysis in Lysis' classroom he would be a happy man (happier still if the Lysis2 was a Democrat). Anyway, Ares- it is a bit commical to me to see you, young as you are, trying to beat wiser men at an argument in which you know very little. I am young too and so I will not try to sound wise by being foolish. I logged on because I haven't been able to for some time with a little song I stumbled upon looking up the Jihad. The words go like this:

In the aftermath of the Jihad
We were looking for low-life scum
There were bombs and guns and caves and things, but Osama must have sprouted some wings.
The next thing we saw was a video tape
and the proof, it left no doubt
The heat was hot, nut the trail's beem cold
and Osama has not been found

He could be riding through the desert on a horse with Hussane
It felt good to get out of the caves
In the desert, you can make up a fake name
and there aint no bambs there to give you no pain

Ala blah blah blah blah blah...


And so it good goes on. It is sung to the tune of Riding through the Desert on a horse with no name.

Just a little humor in this umm "serious" conversation. Oh, and thank you Blowhard for setting Ares in his place. Sometimes he deserves it.

Apollo

Ares said...

Blowhard,
I fail to see where I have used an Ad hominem attack here. I merely commented that you had been told this same thing before and it apparently had not sunk in and so i was going to try again. Perhaps I have been a tad uncivil towards you and I do apologize for any infraction I may have commited.

Apollo,
now, what exactly is it that you meant by my trying to be wise by being foolish? That statement makes no sense whatsoever, unless I am totally ignorant, which if I am, then I would like someone to explain it to me. It seems to me that you are the foolish youth here. Oh, but perhaps I have used an Ad hominem attack, perhaps "we" should ask our friend Blowhard.

-Ares
ps. I know where you got that song, and it was not in resaerch for the jihad, I know that, Apollo.

A_Shadow said...

Well I suppose if we were to assume that we are all brainwashed here like Blowhard suggests, then I was a Lysis2 and not but a year ago. I had many a great battle in Lysis's class, watched him twist the class into foolishness and found friends to tackle him too.

All you can say, Blowhard, is that you disagree and that we are foolish or brainwashed for listening to Lysis and posting our agreance. You are saying in your comment that no free thinking and rational human being will ever agree. I have disagreed with Lysis on many things, but I disagree with you far more. The lesser of two evils, he is. It would be much easier to change the path of some of his arguments a few inches, than change yours the few regions that yours tromp through. In fact, it's usually not even worth it. He's not running off of a cliff, so I don't feel myself inclined to change his path any. I do try and step in to save the blowhards and the ignorant, but they're howling so much that they can hardly hear... Anyways...

Basically I've found it entirely too common for you to pounce on something that we've said as though we said it was the absolute truth. Lysis making a comment hardly makes it truth, the same as you, or I or the Supreme Court. Truth is dictated by one individual and I doubt he's posting here on the Agora. As for us, we figure that we won't get so hooked up on our use of our pronouns. We figure that lifes to short to fall into frivilous arguments that we can avoid, though they are entertaining to us once and a while.

But we leave you with this one last question: Have you realised that you is a plural as well as a singular comment? You haven't, have you? We have. You use them as much as we do, and now we are inclined to laugh our laugh at YOU all the more.

Apollo said...

Well now Shadow, I must say you must have had quite a fun time in Lysis' class. I daresay that young Ares is one of the closest things to a Lysis2 that you can get. I don't have the privelage of being in that class with them but I would imagine it to be quite a treat. I try to be oppisite of Lysis in the debates but he represents what I've been taught to believe so well although he differs in opinion in a few areas. Evolution for example. Lysis strongly believes in it while I say it didn't happen as he thinks it did. If he would like to discuss the matter I'll let him start it. I do not like to take away from the main subject too much.

As for the grammer, that's more Ares area of expertice. I guess you (singular) should take it how you (singular) want to take it. Personally I think the English language is broken. I think we need to fix it.

Ares said...

Well, I must say that I am inclined to thank Apollo for his kind words and respond to a few of them.
I somehow doubt that I would be a Lysis2, likewise, I would never compare myself to one as learned as he. I more often times find myself agreeing with Lysis than opposing him. In fact, Lysis has told me that if anything, I am more conservative than him and it seems that those points are the few that I have taken umbridge with him on. But once again, I would never compare myself to him and I would most likely perscribe myself to Socrates' theory that "I only know that I know nothing."
But once again, thank you for the kind words and thank you Shadow for puting into words the argument on pronouns better than I ever could.

-Ares

A_Shadow said...

'Tis a good thing I can't be flattered... Or is it?

I thouroughly enjoyed Lysis' class, indeed. I wish I had the opportunity to take more, but I did find something interesting while there. People can be entirely too agreeable. I have seen Lysis turn the class into believing complete rubish and foolishness before. It's a great treat to see that some times. So in that regard I would have been found making similar comments to Blowhard, but I disagree with him in this case. Lysis has the character, charisma, talent and know-how to make you pretty much believe anything if you aren't careful. But you're right, in instances he is liberal and you end up looking like the conservative. But it just takes me back to my belief that any rational and free thinking human being wouldn't restrict himself in those ways. He would take arguments in a case-by-case basis and wouldn't just take the same approach because someone else did.

I think that's something that Blowhard isn't getting, that a lot of our fellow countrymen don't get today. I voted Republican in my first election, does that make me one? Hardly. I support the life and equality of others. Sue me. If you'd like to take that away, then I suppose we will meet on some battlefield or another. Figuritive or litteral.

Regardless your cause, I would find you hard pressed to find a good excuse for killing or maiming another. Hence these Enviro Nazis and Jihadists. They have taken to their cause with a likeness of fanatical furver found in the cults of all days. If you can't see the resemblence, that's not our problem that you lack vision. If you wish to save mother earth, because she obviously can't handle herself. You won't find any support for me by trying to annhialate mankind.

Some of you might find it interesting to read S.M. Sterlings Terminator 2 series. Yeah, it's science fiction, but the main bad guy wasn't really just Skynet, it spoke a lot of a enviro-nazi group and how they played to help end mankinds existence. It's a very good read whether you like science fiction, or not. I thouroughly enjoyed the trillogy.

Apollo said...

You know what? This discussion has gone off a little bit onto a flattery of Lysis. Sure he's great and we all like him but he has his faults. That's all I will say on the subject since I do not want to appear jealous or anything.

Blowhard and Shadow-
It makes me so happy to see you two argue so well. I wonder what would happen if you two actually met. I imagine a cement blockade would have wo be placed between the two of you. Though I think you two would act like gentlemen and be civil towards each other.

gethky said...

Hope you don't mind that I copied part of your post in my "Sampler" blog.

Ares said...

Apollo,
Although you are correct in your analysis that we have gotten off onto a tangent, as Galileo states, when you get off on a tangent, if truth comes from it, what is that harm? (although that is not a direct quote, that is the gist of it). Besides, if Blowhard doesn't comment, what are we supposed to argue about? Oh, and Shadow, one of the points I disagree with Lysis on is capital punishment and I have studied that issue out and I have come to my own opinion, not having been influenced by anyone before I did. If that's what you were alluding to, if not, ignore that whole line.

-Ares

A_Shadow said...

I guess I never came out and said it, did I?

I witnessed him follow a line of questioning and mental thrusts that made most of my class agree that they would murder someone for their religion. At least primarily before anyone realised what he was doing. That was a great thing in my mind. So much to learn they had... Hope they learned it I do.

I doubt that we'd need something that substantially to keep a billow of hot air sepparated from a shadow. I hardly would get physical over a pile of meaningless words, anyways. It would be funny though because the tone would change. I doubt we'd have as much squirming and blowhardiness with quaint poems in person... But that's my bias and I'd love to be proven wrong.

Lysis said...

To gethky – thank you for posting the Agora anywhere. We love to share ideas with anyone. Please come again!

florida roofer contractor said...

Raining its Pouring... Find me a florida roofer contractor Today.. If you are having problems with your roof. Look no more.. Visit us at http://roofer4u.com and get the information aboutflorida roofer contractor.. If you cant find what you need go to http;/contractorr.com ..

About Medicine Blog said...

And there was no shown effect on humans.