The STUPIDEST idea I have seen in a long, long time

dude, just give it up. put peel on ignore and be done with it. you can't argue with a wall, and you're becoming one yourself.

though i wonder, you with out your peel.... like hamas without israel...

*poof*

into thin air.


Not at all, he just rubs me wrong. I have plenty of opinions, and this place is mildly amusing....

Still Jim has some quality that defies me explaining, it's like he is some kind of guy I almost want to like, except that I disagree with him too much, and as you say, he is a wall! I've seen a few personalities on here that seem to be "beyond hope of redemption", in my opinion, but certainly not Jim. I won't get into who, but I have seen some pretty vile spew over politics, and in my opinion, when politics become hatred, there is pathology. Right or left the two political parties of this country do not merit such extreme sentiment. Beneath the exterior they espouse, behind closed doors, and in effect, they are like one party. It's all about price tags, and I am not even saying that that is always a bad thing, just most of the time.

For my part that last post is all I have for him personally. I honestly hope if he is too immature to respond to it, that he actually will, for a moment at least, consider it. I think he'd benefit, and as I apologized I do mean to stop addressing him personally, but if I disagree with his posts I am still going to shoot from the hip.
 
just curious, did you perhaps borrow your username from one of my posts? i could swear that i used a phrase like "any random jackass" not too long ago.
 
No, although I have been lurking maybe a month before I joined up. I just think that everyone I meet on the internet is some random jackass until we have met in real life. It's not to say anything bad, just a comment on the anonymity it affords.
 
Well by golly let's sign over deed and title of the world to this guy! Why have we not elected him God by now?!? He's obviously better than everyone else here! Shucks none of us other dumbasses have contributed anything that compares, I am sure!


Look I am not even denying that possibly you have actually helped with the things you say, even if it is only your word that there is any truth to it. Still, though to me, everyone on this board is just another random jackass. It still doesn't make you an expert in everything and I still would not take your word that this is a terrible idea, even if I grant you as everything you claim to be!

There is a truth to the idea that great innovations often come from unlearned men. There is also a lot of reason for learning and such men make their contributions as well. Sometimes the stumbling block of the very learned is that they rely too heavily on what they think they know to see things wondrous and revolutionary. Sometimes the problem with the bright but untrained and ambitious may be that they have great ideas but not the learning to keep their ideas from ending disastrously.

You obviously have no self esteem problems Jim, and kudos for that, honestly that is a great thing and I mean it when I say that. You are an arrogant prick though who ought to learn a little humility no matter what you have actually accomplished. Don't get me wrong, I own that failing to some degree too at times, but believe me you do have a serious issue with arrogance and grandiosity. Ya might wanna get it checked?

What exactly do you do for a living? Please don't pretend you didn't read my post either, as I understand the ignore feature and see you do read posts of people you have on ignore, and sometimes respond directly and indirectly to them anyway. I'm honestly not trying to be an ass here. I just think it might be a lot more worthwhile for you to post this in way that is more like; 'this seems like an incredibly stupid idea to me', rather than; 'this is stupid and wrong because I know better about this end everything else to boot'. Then we might have enlightened discussion. You honestly come off like you think you are better than everyone else here, and that we are so privileged that you put up with us!

Obviously you are intelligent and I don't doubt the possibility that what you say about yourself is true, but seriously get off your soapbox, (mountain top?) get off your cross too because we need the wood!. You ain't better than anyone here! Politics are opinion based, and I understand how passionate you, Gonz, spike, H20 boy, Cerise, me, hell all of us are about it, and I know that can be problematic, yet I respect you all for you right to be so, but honestly you take this to levels I have never seen before! A little diplomacy could go a long way.

For my part I want to apologize for having done the same, as I know I have, and I am sure will again sometimes, but I do promise to try to be better. It is my failing I admit it and I own it, but don't go thinking you don't provoke it!

I thought so Jim.....No response because you have none! I got you and you know it! This one you can't prove away with a series of links on obscure websites that agree with you, even when they are balanced with just as many that disagree! You just can't stand to concede any defeat or ever admit you are wrong can you? If you can, you ought to at least be able to prove that with links on this very board where you have admitted being wrong, but I am betting it has never happened!

You see I know it because for years I was you. I always had to be right and would rarely participate in anything where there was even the slimmest chance of defeat. Thing is it never made me happy and it also didn't allow for any growth and learning. Hell I am still this way to a much lesser degree, but I found that just being another random jackass has a lot of happiness involved. I do the best I can, but when push comes to shove and I don't know, these days I will admit it.

Again this is not an attack, this is what I honestly believe and wish to say in an honest effort to pass on something that was helpful to me, though I admit it is kind of sweet knowing I got you with this one, but it's an empty victory, because in the changes I've made in my life, it's a lot less fun to win at another's expense.

As an act of "burying the hatchet", I am changing my signature, somehow it's no fun anymore....
 
Yeah it is, but I suspect he reads it, I know if I ignored someone I'd probably be unable to resist reading all their posts, especially in threads I started. So if he doesn't want to publicly respond, it's ok with me, my ranting is done for now at least. The fact is if I got ignored in the first place it's because I provoked in some unwelcomed way, and whether we admit it or not, or like it or not, that is most often compellingly fascinating.
 
Yeah it is, but I suspect he reads it, I know if I ignored someone I'd probably be unable to resist reading all their posts, especially in threads I started. So if he doesn't want to publicly respond, it's ok with me, my ranting is done for now at least. The fact is if I got ignored in the first place it's because I provoked in some unwelcomed way, and whether we admit it or not, or like it or not, that is most often compellingly fascinating.

Obsess much?
 

First of all, the images you presented come from HERE and not the site you cited. The source has an obvious agenda.

Second, I have seen those maps before and those are old growth forest maps, not indicative of new growth. Note the word VIRGIN, please -- a word that your maps failed to include. The conservationists like to dwell on old growth forests and ignore the new growth. It makes for better maps.

Oldgrowth3.jpg


Loss of old growth forest in the United States.
1620, 1850, and 1920 maps: William B. Greeley, The Relation of Geography to Timber Supply, Economic Geography, 1925, vol. 1, p. 1-11. Source of TODAY map: compiled by George Draffan from roadless area map in The Big Outside: A Descriptive Inventory of the Big Wilderness Areas of the United States, by Dave Foreman and Howie Wolke (Harmony Books, 1992). These maps represent only virgin forest lost. Some regrowth has occurred but not to the age, size or extent of 1620 due to population increases and food cultivation. See United States entry on left


Third, I clearly stated that there is more forested land TODAY than in 1620 and you present an old growth map of 1920 again ignoring new growth and the word "today".

If I had been speaking of old growth then your maps would have been germane to the discussion. I was not, however speaking thereof.
 
I thought so Jim.....No response because you have none! I got you and you know it! This one you can't prove away with a series of links on obscure websites that agree with you, even when they are balanced with just as many that disagree! You just can't stand to concede any defeat or ever admit you are wrong can you? If you can, you ought to at least be able to prove that with links on this very board where you have admitted being wrong, but I am betting it has never happened!

Actually, there have been several ...

1. I incorrectly stated that the unemployment rate was also in double digits.

2. The word "instuituted" was confusing. I apologize.

3. I apologize. I should have said "infrastructure funds".

4. My aplogy for doing what I had scolded someone, perhaps you, for doing which is to insert a comment without identifying it as my own. I have since done so and I shall endeavor not to repeat this breach of etiquette.

Again, I apologize
.

5. No offense intended though apparently much was taken; and for that I humbly and sincerely apologize.

As an act of "burying the hatchet", I am changing my signature, somehow it's no fun anymore....

I hope you didn't lose too much on that bet.

So let's get along and do some discussion.

I have taken you off of ignore.
 
Back
Top