DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate change

For chat about all other topics

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:02 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:
I agree OTC. There is a climate crisis. I also agree with the experts.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -protests/



Disputed scientific opinion.


And that's the problem OTC. Who to believe and how to proceed.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:21 pm

paulK wrote:
The Old TomCat wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:
I agree OTC. There is a climate crisis. I also agree with the experts.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -protests/



Disputed scientific opinion.


And that's the problem OTC. Who to believe and how to proceed.


Just because it is disputed doesn't mean it is wrong. Obviously it is comfortable to look at a disputing voice and say "I agree with that", when changing they way we live is so unpalatable.

There's some figure going round about the numbers of climate scientists that have a consensus on climate change, compared with the way small number that don't.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:23 pm

paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:Another article

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emissions

“The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.”


Is it really all down to governments? One leading American Scientific institution dealing with global warming issues recognizes that a large part of the problem is these corporations hoodwinking governments and the public rather than simply the governments themselves.

The article gives an example of a US President issuing warning some time ago, as Maggie did in the UK years ago. Of course, they were challenged by these corporations and in the end, of course, it will come down to one "experts" view vs another "experts" opposing view.

The amount of money these companies spend on deliberate mis-information to cover-up the real picture and obscure it from all is phenomenal and, of course they have the upper hand when nobody is challenging them.

Accordingly, I'm not sure that that it is necessarily just the political systems but the various legal systems that assist those with their own agenda blocking government legislation attempts or action. Even this article cites that this type of activity goes on.

Of course, governments, individuals and industry could be doing more but overall these corporations have a far bigger impact on climate change when you take into account the small number of businesses that are causing it.

In many ways it's a shame that the vast majority of the public seem to have only just realised the fact that corporations have been carrying on as they are but they have now and initiatives like E/R are much needed. It needs a groundswell of individuals to challenge them and expose them. It is that sort of action that convinces governments to do more.

I have to say I do find it a bit strange that you consider this a great moral failing of our political system. Looking at the list the only company that has much of a British connection is BP and I'm not sure it is really a British company any more when a substantial stake is not British owned or even British domiciled. I don't think we have any control over how companies are making profits or carrying out their operations elsewhere in the world do we?


Good that you see that ER are doing a necessary job.

Shame about your last paragraph though. A bit strange.


Why? Explain?


No need.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:32 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:Another article

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emissions

“The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.”


Is it really all down to governments? One leading American Scientific institution dealing with global warming issues recognizes that a large part of the problem is these corporations hoodwinking governments and the public rather than simply the governments themselves.

The article gives an example of a US President issuing warning some time ago, as Maggie did in the UK years ago. Of course, they were challenged by these corporations and in the end, of course, it will come down to one "experts" view vs another "experts" opposing view.

The amount of money these companies spend on deliberate mis-information to cover-up the real picture and obscure it from all is phenomenal and, of course they have the upper hand when nobody is challenging them.

Accordingly, I'm not sure that that it is necessarily just the political systems but the various legal systems that assist those with their own agenda blocking government legislation attempts or action. Even this article cites that this type of activity goes on.

Of course, governments, individuals and industry could be doing more but overall these corporations have a far bigger impact on climate change when you take into account the small number of businesses that are causing it.

In many ways it's a shame that the vast majority of the public seem to have only just realised the fact that corporations have been carrying on as they are but they have now and initiatives like E/R are much needed. It needs a groundswell of individuals to challenge them and expose them. It is that sort of action that convinces governments to do more.

I have to say I do find it a bit strange that you consider this a great moral failing of our political system. Looking at the list the only company that has much of a British connection is BP and I'm not sure it is really a British company any more when a substantial stake is not British owned or even British domiciled. I don't think we have any control over how companies are making profits or carrying out their operations elsewhere in the world do we?


Good that you see that ER are doing a necessary job.

Shame about your last paragraph though. A bit strange.


Why? Explain?


No need.


Oh, I get it. You can't :o
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby The Old TomCat » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:47 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:
Just because it is disputed doesn't mean it is wrong. Obviously it is comfortable to look at a disputing voice and say "I agree with that", when changing they way we live is so unpalatable.

There's some figure going round about the numbers of climate scientists that have a consensus on climate change, compared with the way small number that don't.

Disputed also means that the climate campaigners might be wrong.
I note that you have not yet watched the Andrew Neil show, where scientists have revealed that in last century there has been a 95% decrease in deaths attributed to climate change.

But god forbid that you are right and mankind has only a short time left before extinction, the reaction would be 'lets eat, drink and make merry' enjoy life before we meet our maker.
If the doom mongers are wrong then mankind would say 'lets eat, drink and make merry' because we've all been hoodwinked.

That is sound reason for climate activists to calm down, lower the rhetoric, stop inconveniencing innocent working people on their lawful journey's to place of employment.
They should be encouraging mankind to adopt a moderate lifestyle rather than demanding draconian measures they advocate.
User avatar
The Old TomCat
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Location: Stroud

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:11 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
Just because it is disputed doesn't mean it is wrong. Obviously it is comfortable to look at a disputing voice and say "I agree with that", when changing they way we live is so unpalatable.

There's some figure going round about the numbers of climate scientists that have a consensus on climate change, compared with the way small number that don't.

Disputed also means that the climate campaigners might be wrong. .


OK. Give us a percentage figure on how much they might be wrong.

Oh, and as for the Andrew Neil Show, the clue is in the last word of the title. It’s a show.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:23 pm

cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
I assume from your post that you know with 100% absolute certainty that you buy nothing that is made in any of those countries (enveloping Beijing, Moscow, Riyadh, Doha, Abu dhabi, Kuwait City, Bagdad ), and also haven't supported the growth of those countries in the past by buying stuff from them.

Also that you are happy having a standard of living way higher than there is in those countries, what at the same time telling them to get their act into gear and accept a lower standard of living than you have.


I've been wondering ToC. E/R advocate that any policies implemented should consider mitigation to protect the most vulnerable people from the impact of change.

It seems to me that in implementing the policy you advocate the most vulnerable would be the general citizens of the country whose economies would be affected, with a likelihood it will detrimentally affect their standard of living. As you say, buying stuff from them would only help growth and of, course, with that the ability to raise standards of living.

Given the track record of some of these countries and their governments, what mitigation would be suggested to protect these citizens from their government and/or the effects of the action you suggest?


PK, it is difficult to tell if you are spoiling for a fight, trolling, or being serious.

The short answer is that we are all citizens of the earth. Once the climate catastrophe takes hold it won't really matter where you live.


I am neither trolling or spoiling for a fight. I realise that things need to be done and support what E/R are trying to do with reservations about some of their methods and/or expectations.

However, in particular, I very much support the idea that however it is achieved we should be cognisant of the fact that it isn't going to be easy, there may be some hard decisions to make, not least because there will be resistance in some quarters and we should be wary of what is done such that the vulnerable don't suffer.

As I suggest, surely your suggestion that one should not support these countries is going to affect the vulnerable, after all, isn't the effect of affecting someone's economy supposed to punish them for not tackling climate change? (Sorry, I'm ignoring your assumed extrapolation that the poster was telling those countries to get their act together (I don't believe they did) and should have deleted it)

Your reply replies (original and subsequent) seem to indicate that if the cost to those in less fortunate countries than us is that they may have to put up with a lower standard of living then so be it.

No fight. It is just your opinion and what you see is important or not.


PK, just two pages ago you agreed that climate change deniers can save the planet by hastening human extinction. Now you are a champion for the rights of billions in the developing world. Is the inconsistency due to some kind of Damascene conversion from one view to the other, because you believe both things at once or rather because you are just trying to get a rise out of people?


From the Extinction Rebellion website explaining why they think a Citizens Assembly is necessary.

Citizens’ Assemblies are especially useful when difficult trade-offs are necessary. They would also consider how to mitigate the impacts of changes on the most vulnerable people.


ToC suggested that the person he was responding to should be ensuring he is disrupting the economy of certain nations in a way suggesting he probably wasn't and then asking him if he felt good about suggesting that action should be taken that would disrupt their economy (something that hadn't even been suggested).

The inconsistency of his answer prompted me to question his suggestion their economy be disrupted given the impact it would have on the citizens of the nations.

He seemed to reply that what the hell as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter, and suggested I was trolling and spoiling for a fight. My latter response to him as to why I was not was totally in line with E/R philosophy - one that recognises that some on the planet are in a difficult situation and we should be cognisant of the fact.

No inconsistency Cookiemonster. No Damascene conversion as you so dramatically and unnecessarily put it. I don't know why you have to be so aggressive about it and even suggest I am trying to wind him up when I have said I am not :roll:

He has his opinion, I have mine. End of.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:20 pm

paulK wrote:
ToC suggested that the person he was responding to should be ensuring he is disrupting the economy of certain nations in a way suggesting he probably wasn't and then asking him if he felt good about suggesting that action should be taken that would disrupt their economy (something that hadn't even been suggested).

The inconsistency of his answer prompted me to question his suggestion their economy be disrupted given the impact it would have on the citizens of the nations.

He seemed to reply that what the hell as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter, and suggested I was trolling and spoiling for a fight. My latter response to him as to why I was not was totally in line with E/R philosophy - one that recognises that some on the planet are in a difficult situation and we should be cognisant of the fact.

No inconsistency Cookiemonster. No Damascene conversion as you so dramatically and unnecessarily put it. I don't know why you have to be so aggressive about it and even suggest I am trying to wind him up when I have said I am not :roll:

He has his opinion, I have mine. End of.


Er, no. A poster suggested that efforts to mitigate climate change should be directed elsewhere since we, as a country, are good guys. There were places that ER should be campaigning in but they’d get short shrift there. I pointed out that things we do here have effects in those other countries. You then went off on your travels.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby The Old TomCat » Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:59 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:
The Old TomCat wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
Just because it is disputed doesn't mean it is wrong. Obviously it is comfortable to look at a disputing voice and say "I agree with that", when changing they way we live is so unpalatable.

There's some figure going round about the numbers of climate scientists that have a consensus on climate change, compared with the way small number that don't.

Disputed also means that the climate campaigners might be wrong. .


OK. Give us a percentage figure on how much they might be wrong.

Oh, and as for the Andrew Neil Show, the clue is in the last word of the title. It’s a show.

TOC, you seem to be in perpetual denial. Whether it was a show or scientific discussion does not alter fact that Mr Neil opened up debate beyond what the public have hitherto been made aware of.
It would only need one scientist to be correct and prove the other 99 scientists wrong : so percentages are meaningless.
Stop being so angry. I stated Andrew Neil questioned the Climate Activist as a 'devil's advocate' which means he did not offer any opinion on subject. I learnt far more from that one programme than from any propaganda by the climate activists.

Check show out for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRvPNSzbLBU
User avatar
The Old TomCat
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Location: Stroud

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:33 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
ToC suggested that the person he was responding to should be ensuring he is disrupting the economy of certain nations in a way suggesting he probably wasn't and then asking him if he felt good about suggesting that action should be taken that would disrupt their economy (something that hadn't even been suggested).

The inconsistency of his answer prompted me to question his suggestion their economy be disrupted given the impact it would have on the citizens of the nations.

He seemed to reply that what the hell as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter, and suggested I was trolling and spoiling for a fight. My latter response to him as to why I was not was totally in line with E/R philosophy - one that recognises that some on the planet are in a difficult situation and we should be cognisant of the fact.

No inconsistency Cookiemonster. No Damascene conversion as you so dramatically and unnecessarily put it. I don't know why you have to be so aggressive about it and even suggest I am trying to wind him up when I have said I am not :roll:

He has his opinion, I have mine. End of.


Er, no. A poster suggested that efforts to mitigate climate change should be directed elsewhere since we, as a country, are good guys. There were places that ER should be campaigning in but they’d get short shrift there. I pointed out that things we do here have effects in those other countries. You then went off on your travels.


I assume from your post that you know with 100% absolute certainty that you buy nothing that is made in any of those countries, and also haven't supported the growth of those countries in the past by buying stuff from them.


Quite frankly, I failed and still fail to see what someones buying habits have to do with where E/R are demonstrating but I can see that this is pointing out that what we do in this country affects those on others.

I'm, sorry, but this worded in such a way that infers to me that you think he should not be doing it, after all you were challenging his post.

Also that you are happy having a standard of living way higher than there is in those countries, what at the same time telling them to get their act into gear and accept a lower standard of living than you have.


You are quite right that taking action in other countries may lower their standard of living.

In my going off on my travels as you so disparagingly put it, I pointed out that stifling a countries growth in the way you suggest would affect the standard of living and should we be caring about it. Your views seemed rather inconsistent to me. The result was your accusing me of trolling and trying to wind you up.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. In a recent post I asked how you could blame our government for the actions of businesses in a load of countries all around the world. You treated my question with similar contempt.

I guess you just don't like your views challenged.

So be it.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Timb » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:41 pm

I haven't had any issues getting around central London any day this week. Big police presence on Waterloo bridge tonight at both ends.

Is it the next venue?
User avatar
Timb
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 6718
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:12 pm
Location: SW18

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Tomiswalking » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:22 pm

Well I would listen to a group of professors in the field. Who is disputing it, if it's you, what are your qualifications.
Last edited by Tomiswalking on Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tomiswalking
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:05 am

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby stewjackhannah » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:32 pm

This thread is really boring
Can we move on please?
stewjackhannah
Reserves
Reserves
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:09 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:42 pm

paulK wrote:
Eco-Exile wrote:Good views Dale. I do agree.


Out of interest E-E, Dale says he supports these protesters so, by inference and your standards, he must condone and promote lawbreaking. How do you reconcile that with his actions against BJ?


Hmm.. whilst you been posting in response to some of my other posts you seem to have missed this one. Maybe a bit difficult?

Although perhaps I shouldn't really expect a response from someone who, because I support Boris in his quest to implement the results of a democratic vote, labels me a racist and tells me that to claim “supporting someone who breaks the law is not the same as condoning law breaking” is a bit like saying you were only “following orders and didn’t condone it” when rounding up and exterminating six million during the second war.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:43 pm

stewjackhannah wrote:This thread is really boring
Can we move on please?


If it is boring you why not just ignore it? You don't have to click on the links.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:03 pm

The Old TomCat wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
The Old TomCat wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
Just because it is disputed doesn't mean it is wrong. Obviously it is comfortable to look at a disputing voice and say "I agree with that", when changing they way we live is so unpalatable.

There's some figure going round about the numbers of climate scientists that have a consensus on climate change, compared with the way small number that don't.

Disputed also means that the climate campaigners might be wrong. .


OK. Give us a percentage figure on how much they might be wrong.

Oh, and as for the Andrew Neil Show, the clue is in the last word of the title. It’s a show.

TOC, you seem to be in perpetual denial. Whether it was a show or scientific discussion does not alter fact that Mr Neil opened up debate beyond what the public have hitherto been made aware of.
It would only need one scientist to be correct and prove the other 99 scientists wrong : so percentages are meaningless.
Stop being so angry. I stated Andrew Neil questioned the Climate Activist as a 'devil's advocate' which means he did not offer any opinion on subject. I learnt far more from that one programme than from any propaganda by the climate activists.

Check show out for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRvPNSzbLBU


Do you really think that you need ALL scientists to agree before action is taken?
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:05 pm

paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
ToC suggested that the person he was responding to should be ensuring he is disrupting the economy of certain nations in a way suggesting he probably wasn't and then asking him if he felt good about suggesting that action should be taken that would disrupt their economy (something that hadn't even been suggested).

The inconsistency of his answer prompted me to question his suggestion their economy be disrupted given the impact it would have on the citizens of the nations.

He seemed to reply that what the hell as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter, and suggested I was trolling and spoiling for a fight. My latter response to him as to why I was not was totally in line with E/R philosophy - one that recognises that some on the planet are in a difficult situation and we should be cognisant of the fact.

No inconsistency Cookiemonster. No Damascene conversion as you so dramatically and unnecessarily put it. I don't know why you have to be so aggressive about it and even suggest I am trying to wind him up when I have said I am not :roll:

He has his opinion, I have mine. End of.


Er, no. A poster suggested that efforts to mitigate climate change should be directed elsewhere since we, as a country, are good guys. There were places that ER should be campaigning in but they’d get short shrift there. I pointed out that things we do here have effects in those other countries. You then went off on your travels.


I assume from your post that you know with 100% absolute certainty that you buy nothing that is made in any of those countries, and also haven't supported the growth of those countries in the past by buying stuff from them.


Quite frankly, I failed and still fail to see what someones buying habits have to do with where E/R are demonstrating but I can see that this is pointing out that what we do in this country affects those on others.

I'm, sorry, but this worded in such a way that infers to me that you think he should not be doing it, after all you were challenging his post.

Also that you are happy having a standard of living way higher than there is in those countries, what at the same time telling them to get their act into gear and accept a lower standard of living than you have.


You are quite right that taking action in other countries may lower their standard of living.

In my going off on my travels as you so disparagingly put it, I pointed out that stifling a countries growth in the way you suggest would affect the standard of living and should we be caring about it. Your views seemed rather inconsistent to me. The result was your accusing me of trolling and trying to wind you up.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. In a recent post I asked how you could blame our government for the actions of businesses in a load of countries all around the world. You treated my question with similar contempt.

I guess you just don't like your views challenged.

So be it.


Sorry, but you have, again, read things into words that aren't there.

Have fun with your fight.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:26 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
Too occasional fan wrote:
paulK wrote:
ToC suggested that the person he was responding to should be ensuring he is disrupting the economy of certain nations in a way suggesting he probably wasn't and then asking him if he felt good about suggesting that action should be taken that would disrupt their economy (something that hadn't even been suggested).

The inconsistency of his answer prompted me to question his suggestion their economy be disrupted given the impact it would have on the citizens of the nations.

He seemed to reply that what the hell as far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter, and suggested I was trolling and spoiling for a fight. My latter response to him as to why I was not was totally in line with E/R philosophy - one that recognises that some on the planet are in a difficult situation and we should be cognisant of the fact.

No inconsistency Cookiemonster. No Damascene conversion as you so dramatically and unnecessarily put it. I don't know why you have to be so aggressive about it and even suggest I am trying to wind him up when I have said I am not :roll:

He has his opinion, I have mine. End of.


Er, no. A poster suggested that efforts to mitigate climate change should be directed elsewhere since we, as a country, are good guys. There were places that ER should be campaigning in but they’d get short shrift there. I pointed out that things we do here have effects in those other countries. You then went off on your travels.


I assume from your post that you know with 100% absolute certainty that you buy nothing that is made in any of those countries, and also haven't supported the growth of those countries in the past by buying stuff from them.


Quite frankly, I failed and still fail to see what someones buying habits have to do with where E/R are demonstrating but I can see that this is pointing out that what we do in this country affects those on others.

I'm, sorry, but this worded in such a way that infers to me that you think he should not be doing it, after all you were challenging his post.

Also that you are happy having a standard of living way higher than there is in those countries, what at the same time telling them to get their act into gear and accept a lower standard of living than you have.


You are quite right that taking action in other countries may lower their standard of living.

In my going off on my travels as you so disparagingly put it, I pointed out that stifling a countries growth in the way you suggest would affect the standard of living and should we be caring about it. Your views seemed rather inconsistent to me. The result was your accusing me of trolling and trying to wind you up.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your reaction. In a recent post I asked how you could blame our government for the actions of businesses in a load of countries all around the world. You treated my question with similar contempt.

I guess you just don't like your views challenged.

So be it.


Sorry, but you have, again, read things into words that aren't there.

Have fun with your fight.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What words? The highlighted ones that I quoted from your post

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Habe fun with your fight :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You are a cad :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Last edited by paulK on Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby Too occasional fan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:31 pm

No need for all the smilies. You've embellished my words and changed the meaning. I'be highlighted the appropriate bits. You added in 'may lower'. I didn't say that.

Anyway, have fun with your fight.
The gimlet of the forum.
User avatar
Too occasional fan
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: DV claims FGR would fold if it was causing climate chang

Postby paulK » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:35 pm

Too occasional fan wrote:No need for all the smilies. You've embellished my words and changed the meaning. I'be highlighted the appropriate bits. You added in 'may lower'. I didn't say that.

Anyway, have fun with your fight.


and of course you are not mature enough to have a discussion and explain what you were really meaning, calling it a fight :roll:
Last edited by paulK on Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My mileage; yours may vary, of course.....
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

About FGR

We’re a club that looks to the future, but our identity is forged from a rich 128-year history. Founded in 1889, we’re one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

In 2017, we were promoted to the Football League for the first time in our history – which means we can spread our sustainability message to an even bigger audience. FIFA recently described us as the greenest football club in the world. That’s quite an accolade, and it shows how we’ve been able to bring together football and environmental consciousness at the highest levels of the game.