Just some understanding 'twinxt the two of us.
Posted by bobbapink on Jan 08, 2002 at 09:34
nen169-102.nosc.mil (198.253.169.102)Re: Reply, part two (bio_ladi)
Just so we don’t misunderstand one another…
At least I got a chuckle from your Monsanto comment.
I’m glad you liked my Monsanto comment.
Funny didn't know I needed to cite references, as it seems you do not feel that need either.
Actually, you DON’T need to cite references but it would be nice for you to do so when asked, as will I, when asked.
Was pretty funny to be graded, happen to be one of my instructors?
Certainly not in any official capacity. I’m wholly unqualified to be an ‘instructor’ in these matters in an academic sense. I’m just a novice. What I say is proof of nothing and should be checked and double-checked and questioned, and, if necessary, corrected.
Yes, I can and will cite mine. Most of them are from research and will take just a bit to find sorry you will have to wait.
Feel free to use internet resources. If you use a good search engine like Google, you can find just about anything on everything. Of course, those sources are also highly prone to bias so I recommend skeptical caution.
I find it amazing that people like yourself can exist in today's world as oblivious as you appear to be.Was that an ad hom? Tsk, tsk. You’d be surprised just how many folk such as myself exist, novice and professional alike, in all walks of life, that take a completely different view and how the environment and resources should be managed.
It is most apparent that you do not like those that you would consider ecologist, environmentalist or politicians.
That’s not necessarily so. I’ve got nothing against honest ecologists, environmentalists, or politicians. It’s the dishonest ones I’m concerned with. Whether that dishonesty is merely intellectual or blatant, it makes no never mind to me; I scorn them.
Shame, it most likely will be all those tree huggers that save this world so that your offspring just might have a better and healthier life and future.
Maybe, or maybe not. Consider this quote:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Now I’ll set the record straight. I want a clean environment. I want land and animal conservation. I want the air I breathe to be clean and the water I drink to be safe. I want everything you do, probably, but I just have a different approach as to how to bring that about. I don’t want factories dumping filth into lakes and rivers nor do I want them spewing poison into the air. I believe in a certain level of environmental regulation as it pertains to common commodities, and I admit that capitalist interests require a certain level of oversight to ensure compliance. But in believing all of this, I do not believe in the needless suffering, poverty, and death that these regulations and oversight can, and have, so easily caused for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda having little or nothing to do with the environment, or, in many cases, which are quite detrimental to the environment or people in the long term. The Kyoto accord is the perfect example of the former, the ban on DDT a perfect example of the latter.