Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Apple doesn't need Greenpeace dictating it's environmental policy, it already has a agenda in that direction by creating computers of higher physical and software quality that reduce turnover and waste, unlike disposable PC's.
Greenpeace attacked Apple because Steve KNOWS the crazy eco-terrorist movement, he socializes with those types.
Greenpeace saw a soft spot and pushed, simple as that, they are bullies.
You mean about the general statement from you claiming that the 'posters on this board" are saying that Greenpeace are Jihadist Terrorists?
You made such a statement while replying to my post. Perhaps you should take the initiative and indicate WHO you are replying to when making such inflammatory comments, rather than just labeling everyone who posts as making such comments?
You did so well with your last comment to me:
Is is really that difficult to at least be consistent?
Dude, you FAIL English 101. May I suggest the Cambridge KET? If you won't read my lips, at least read my words. "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD" is not equal to "YOU" in any version of English I know of. I referred to YOUR claims first, and then, with the words "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD (aka SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD) to ANOTHER claim by "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD." I then specifically pointed you to MacTripper's comment.
F'n amazing how thick you continue to be. I do hope that not all Americans are as incredibly, unbelievably, slow as you. Actually, I KNOW they're not, you're just one of those embarrassing anomalies. And no, IS IS not.
Apple doesn't need Greenpeace dictating it's environmental policy, it already has a agenda in that direction by creating computers of higher physical and software quality that reduce turnover and waste, unlike disposable PC's.
Greenpeace attacked Apple because Steve KNOWS the crazy eco-terrorist movement, he socializes with those types.
Greenpeace saw a soft spot and pushed, simple as that, they are bullies.
Who the hell cares? Either way, it's a good result. Good for the environment, great for Apple. If you have problems with the Apple getting a bit greener, just boycott them or write to Steve. As for me, I think this is progress and don't really care which "eco-terrorist" group "dictates" that to Apple. I'm sure Steve is a big enough boy to not be bullied and to do what HE thinks is right for his company and our planet (or, his planet ).
Dude, you FAIL English 101. May I suggest the Cambridge KET? If you won't read my lips, at least read my words. "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD" is not equal to "YOU" in any version of English I know of. I referred to YOUR claims first, and then, with the words "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD (aka SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD) to ANOTHER claim by "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD." I then specifically pointed you to MacTripper's comment.
F'n amazing how thick you continue to be. I do hope that not all Americans are as incredibly, unbelievably, slow as you. Actually, I KNOW they're not, you're just one of those embarrassing anomalies. And no, IS IS not.
The end.
You did not 'specifically point to MacTripper's" comment. Here is your post in it's entirety. I don't see any reference to MacTripper in here. You only indicated it was MacTripper when I called you out on it on the next page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt21
Wow. I thought Apple users were supposed to be a bit more on the ball. Have Greenpeace crossed legal lines? Yes, many times and so I guess that that technically that makes them actual rather than "borderline" criminals. But so have lots of people who want to challenge laws, from Gandhi to MLK to the lone Chinese guy who stood in front of PLA tanks in Tienanman Square to the Fathers of the American Revolution. So what? And dude, seriously, grab the nearest dictionary and look up "pacifist". The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and have worked in the Arabian Gulf; these posters—no offense— don't have a clue what they're talking about. Apostasy is NOT a capital crime in Greenpeace.
You did not 'specifically point to MacTripper's" comment. Here is your post in it's entirety. I don't see any reference to MacTripper in here. You only indicated it was MacTripper when I called you out on it.
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
Oh, Jesus H. I pointed it out to you when you couldn't distinguish between "YOU" and "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD"! LOL. Ever hear the expression "flogging a dead horse."? It's dead.
Oh, Jesus H. I pointed it out to you when you couldn't distinguish between "YOU" and "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD"! LOL. Ever hear the expression "flogging a dead horse."? It's dead.
Can you not even read your own post? You didn't say "Some users on this board" either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt21
The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh.
So, if you are not in support of whaling, what are you doing about it - besides criticising those who are putting themselves between the harpoons and the whales? That is what the boat that was sunk was for specifically, with people on board.
Care to distinguish the meaning between the two? Or better yet, can you please tell us how either one refers to YOU specifically? No, you can't.
Had I responded to your post above while quoting you with a direct reply like "My god the douche bags on this board are amazing", it implies I am referring to you.
(note that unlike you, I have not resorted to calling you anything like "Thick", "Dense", "Slow", or any other personal attack, I'm simply putting this here as an example)
If I had responded to your post with "My god some of the douchebags on this board are amazing", while quoting you in my reply, it would still give the appearance that I was referring to you directly since you and I were having an argument.
Now if I had said something like "My god Grunt21, you are an amazing douchebag", then it would be very clear who I was referring to, with no ambiguity whatsoever. It would be impossible to misunderstand my intent or who it was directed to, while the first two are very easy to misunderstand.
Again these are just examples. I won't resort to name calling as you have already done.
Care to distinguish the meaning between the two? Or better yet, can you please tell us how either one refers to YOU specifically? No, you can't.
Still waiting. Now, we all make typos from time to time but your continued insistence on rewriting the basics of English grammar is a bit disturbing. If you're reaching for a good grammar book may I suggest Michael Swan's Practical English Usage. It has all kinds of cool sh*t like you, I, he/she/it and probably even something similar to Some posters. Let me know when you've rewritten the rule book and have made you (singular) into some posters (plural).
You should have just pissed on her..the human rights equivalent of blood. They could save a lot of carbon footprint just by killing themselves.
It's nice that you didn't resort to calling me names. But given the above statements, I'm not convinced that there isn't something wrong with you. And you have the gall to suggest that Greenpeace have a problem with violence? Like, .
It's nice that you didn't resort to calling me names. But given the above statements, I'm not convinced that there isn't something wrong with you. And you have the gall to suggest that Greenpeace have a problem with violence? Like, .
Notice in the above statement, this isn't a direct attack on you or anyone else in the conversation. It's my opinion about a 3rd party.
And yes, I would piss on this person had they done such a thing to me
Had I responded to your post above while quoting you with a direct reply like "My god the douche bags on this board are amazing", it implies I am referring to you.
(note that unlike you, I have not resorted to calling you anything like "Thick", "Dense", "Slow", or any other personal attack, I'm simply putting this here as an example)
If I had responded to your post with "My god some of the douchebags on this board are amazing", while quoting you in my reply, it would still give the appearance that I was referring to you directly since you and I were having an argument.
Now if I had said something like "My god Grunt21, you are an amazing douchebag", then it would be very clear who I was referring to, with no ambiguity whatsoever. It would be impossible to misunderstand my intent or who it was directed to, while the first two are very easy to misunderstand.
Again these are just examples. I won't resort to name calling as you have already done.
See ya DJRumpy. If you want to go look at those grammar books, maybe I'll check back some other time to see how you're coming along with your study.
The past decade of weather is more typical of a "nuclear winter" effect from Saddam burning all those Kuwait oil fields that took years to extinguish. Getting rather cold now isn't it?
Don't spout nonsense. Inform yourself, please, instead of providing just some Wiki links (that lack credibility on politically-charged topics such as these, since anyone can go in and say anything).
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
Just search some of these for Greenpeace as they also contain info on ELF which is not and never claimed to be pacifist, so you have to filter out the ELF info.
Don't spout nonsense. Inform yourself, please, instead of providing just some Wiki links (that lack credibility on politically-charged topics such as these, since anyone can go in and say anything).
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
This warming will make for some horrible storms over the next few years if the trend continues. The trends themselves are hard to ignore, whether they are man made or not, I'll leave to the scientists to decide, but the creep in global temperate and the pace that it's creeping up is a bit scary.
Once they realize a family dog has twice the carbon footprint of a SUV they will come stalk Rover with chocolate and poisoned hamburger.
I don't care about Greenpeace, but that statistic is a bit dishonest.
First, that was an NZ study based on a 6,250-mile year, far below average American SUV usage. Second, they use an 80 pound dog as their control, which is well above the average canine weight. Finally, the carbon footprint is based solely on the amount of meat consumed. It factors in the resources needed from slaughterhouses or factory farms. So really, any person or pet who eats meat of any kind is equally as guilty. It all depends on volume. The numbers themselves are really just napkin calculations and thus should be taken with a big grain of salt.
Anyway, I'm not sure I see your point -- even if one thing was technically worse than the other, that doesn't mean we should abandon all efforts, does it?
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
Oh I believe you and you didn't read the effects of a "nuclear winter"
Basically, so much soot gets into the atmosphere that it:
1: Keeps the Earths residue heat in, raising global temperatures, then as heat finally escapes...
2: The Sun is blocked and new heat can't get to warm the Earth, the planet begins to cool A LOT!!! And that's where we are at now, the beginning of the cooling part. Colder winters, cooler summers.
You see depending upon the direction certain parts of Earth is facing the Sun, and the distance, give us our temperatures and seasons. The Earth radiates that excess heat into space like a reflector. If a lot of particles are in the air, it blocks this normal process and causes a imbalance.
The below normal colder temperatures will continue until the soot level in the atmosphere is reduced, but people will burn more to stay warm, prolonging the problem.
So Al Gore is wrong about his point that global temperatures will continue to climb with more harmful emissions, it's more like other way around now. Heat from the Sun can't heat the Earth as well with too much soot in the atmosphere.
Perhaps the reason why those climate emails got hacked, people are getting suspicious.
My theory also explains our recent very cold temperatures when we should be having a very mild winter, right?
I knew what was going to happen all along and live where it's warm, it's been in the 50's now, it's usually in the mid 70's to 80's this time of year, but it's better than what other people are having.
Comments
Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Apple doesn't need Greenpeace dictating it's environmental policy, it already has a agenda in that direction by creating computers of higher physical and software quality that reduce turnover and waste, unlike disposable PC's.
Greenpeace attacked Apple because Steve KNOWS the crazy eco-terrorist movement, he socializes with those types.
Greenpeace saw a soft spot and pushed, simple as that, they are bullies.
You mean about the general statement from you claiming that the 'posters on this board" are saying that Greenpeace are Jihadist Terrorists?
You made such a statement while replying to my post. Perhaps you should take the initiative and indicate WHO you are replying to when making such inflammatory comments, rather than just labeling everyone who posts as making such comments?
You did so well with your last comment to me:
Is is really that difficult to at least be consistent?
Dude, you FAIL English 101. May I suggest the Cambridge KET? If you won't read my lips, at least read my words. "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD" is not equal to "YOU" in any version of English I know of. I referred to YOUR claims first, and then, with the words "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD (aka SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD) to ANOTHER claim by "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD." I then specifically pointed you to MacTripper's comment.
F'n amazing how thick you continue to be. I do hope that not all Americans are as incredibly, unbelievably, slow as you. Actually, I KNOW they're not, you're just one of those embarrassing anomalies. And no, IS IS not.
The end.
Apple doesn't need Greenpeace dictating it's environmental policy, it already has a agenda in that direction by creating computers of higher physical and software quality that reduce turnover and waste, unlike disposable PC's.
Greenpeace attacked Apple because Steve KNOWS the crazy eco-terrorist movement, he socializes with those types.
Greenpeace saw a soft spot and pushed, simple as that, they are bullies.
Who the hell cares? Either way, it's a good result. Good for the environment, great for Apple. If you have problems with the Apple getting a bit greener, just boycott them or write to Steve. As for me, I think this is progress and don't really care which "eco-terrorist"
Dude, you FAIL English 101. May I suggest the Cambridge KET? If you won't read my lips, at least read my words. "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD" is not equal to "YOU" in any version of English I know of. I referred to YOUR claims first, and then, with the words "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD (aka SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD) to ANOTHER claim by "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD." I then specifically pointed you to MacTripper's comment.
F'n amazing how thick you continue to be. I do hope that not all Americans are as incredibly, unbelievably, slow as you. Actually, I KNOW they're not, you're just one of those embarrassing anomalies. And no, IS IS not.
The end.
You did not 'specifically point to MacTripper's" comment. Here is your post in it's entirety. I don't see any reference to MacTripper in here. You only indicated it was MacTripper when I called you out on it on the next page.
Wow. I thought Apple users were supposed to be a bit more on the ball. Have Greenpeace crossed legal lines? Yes, many times and so I guess that that technically that makes them actual rather than "borderline" criminals. But so have lots of people who want to challenge laws, from Gandhi to MLK to the lone Chinese guy who stood in front of PLA tanks in Tienanman Square to the Fathers of the American Revolution. So what? And dude, seriously, grab the nearest dictionary and look up "pacifist". The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and have worked in the Arabian Gulf; these posters—no offense— don't have a clue what they're talking about. Apostasy is NOT a capital crime in Greenpeace.
You did not 'specifically point to MacTripper's" comment. Here is your post in it's entirety. I don't see any reference to MacTripper in here. You only indicated it was MacTripper when I called you out on it.
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
Oh, Jesus H. I pointed it out to you when you couldn't distinguish between "YOU" and "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD"! LOL. Ever hear the expression "flogging a dead horse."? It's dead.
Oh, Jesus H. I pointed it out to you when you couldn't distinguish between "YOU" and "SOME POSTERS ON THIS BOARD"! LOL. Ever hear the expression "flogging a dead horse."? It's dead.
Can you not even read your own post? You didn't say "Some users on this board" either.
The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh.
So, if you are not in support of whaling, what are you doing about it - besides criticising those who are putting themselves between the harpoons and the whales? That is what the boat that was sunk was for specifically, with people on board.
Exactly.
Can you not even read your own post? You didn't say "Some users on this board" either.
Care to distinguish the meaning between the two? Or better yet, can you please tell us how either one refers to YOU specifically? No, you can't.
Care to distinguish the meaning between the two? Or better yet, can you please tell us how either one refers to YOU specifically? No, you can't.
Had I responded to your post above while quoting you with a direct reply like "My god the douche bags on this board are amazing", it implies I am referring to you.
(note that unlike you, I have not resorted to calling you anything like "Thick", "Dense", "Slow", or any other personal attack, I'm simply putting this here as an example)
If I had responded to your post with "My god some of the douchebags on this board are amazing", while quoting you in my reply, it would still give the appearance that I was referring to you directly since you and I were having an argument.
Now if I had said something like "My god Grunt21, you are an amazing douchebag", then it would be very clear who I was referring to, with no ambiguity whatsoever. It would be impossible to misunderstand my intent or who it was directed to, while the first two are very easy to misunderstand.
Again these are just examples. I won't resort to name calling as you have already done.
Care to distinguish the meaning between the two? Or better yet, can you please tell us how either one refers to YOU specifically? No, you can't.
Still waiting. Now, we all make typos from time to time but your continued insistence on rewriting the basics of English grammar is a bit disturbing. If you're reaching for a good grammar book may I suggest Michael Swan's Practical English Usage. It has all kinds of cool sh*t like you, I, he/she/it and probably even something similar to Some posters. Let me know when you've rewritten the rule book and have made you (singular) into some posters (plural).
You should have just pissed on her..the human rights equivalent of blood. They could save a lot of carbon footprint just by killing themselves.
It's nice that you didn't resort to calling me names. But given the above statements, I'm not convinced that there isn't something wrong with you. And you have the gall to suggest that Greenpeace have a problem with violence? Like,
It's nice that you didn't resort to calling me names. But given the above statements, I'm not convinced that there isn't something wrong with you. And you have the gall to suggest that Greenpeace have a problem with violence? Like,
Notice in the above statement, this isn't a direct attack on you or anyone else in the conversation. It's my opinion about a 3rd party.
And yes, I would piss on this person had they done such a thing to me
Had I responded to your post above while quoting you with a direct reply like "My god the douche bags on this board are amazing", it implies I am referring to you.
(note that unlike you, I have not resorted to calling you anything like "Thick", "Dense", "Slow", or any other personal attack, I'm simply putting this here as an example)
If I had responded to your post with "My god some of the douchebags on this board are amazing", while quoting you in my reply, it would still give the appearance that I was referring to you directly since you and I were having an argument.
Now if I had said something like "My god Grunt21, you are an amazing douchebag", then it would be very clear who I was referring to, with no ambiguity whatsoever. It would be impossible to misunderstand my intent or who it was directed to, while the first two are very easy to misunderstand.
Again these are just examples. I won't resort to name calling as you have already done.
See ya DJRumpy. If you want to go look at those grammar books, maybe I'll check back some other time to see how you're coming along with your study.
Notice in the above statement, this isn't a direct attack on you or anyone else in the conversation. It's my opinion about a 3rd party.
And yes, I would piss on this person had they done such a thing to me
That's soooo comforting.
that's soooo comforting.
lol
I never claimed to be a pacifist...
The past decade of weather is more typical of a "nuclear winter" effect from Saddam burning all those Kuwait oil fields that took years to extinguish. Getting rather cold now isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Don't spout nonsense. Inform yourself, please, instead of providing just some Wiki links (that lack credibility on politically-charged topics such as these, since anyone can go in and say anything).
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
http://www.sirc.org/articles/tide_ag...reenpeace.html
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12819
http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999bm.htm
http://www.ping.be/chlorophiles/en/en_gp_cl2.html
Just search some of these for Greenpeace as they also contain info on ELF which is not and never claimed to be pacifist, so you have to filter out the ELF info.
Don't spout nonsense. Inform yourself, please, instead of providing just some Wiki links (that lack credibility on politically-charged topics such as these, since anyone can go in and say anything).
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
This warming will make for some horrible storms over the next few years if the trend continues. The trends themselves are hard to ignore, whether they are man made or not, I'll leave to the scientists to decide, but the creep in global temperate and the pace that it's creeping up is a bit scary.
Once they realize a family dog has twice the carbon footprint of a SUV they will come stalk Rover with chocolate and poisoned hamburger.
I don't care about Greenpeace, but that statistic is a bit dishonest.
First, that was an NZ study based on a 6,250-mile year, far below average American SUV usage. Second, they use an 80 pound dog as their control, which is well above the average canine weight. Finally, the carbon footprint is based solely on the amount of meat consumed. It factors in the resources needed from slaughterhouses or factory farms. So really, any person or pet who eats meat of any kind is equally as guilty. It all depends on volume. The numbers themselves are really just napkin calculations and thus should be taken with a big grain of salt.
Anyway, I'm not sure I see your point -- even if one thing was technically worse than the other, that doesn't mean we should abandon all efforts, does it?
The 10-year period 2000-2009 is the warmest -- yes, warmest -- on record. Go to the source (the World Meteorogical Organization) and read the report (the link to which can be found here): http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_869_en.html
Oh I believe you and you didn't read the effects of a "nuclear winter"
Basically, so much soot gets into the atmosphere that it:
1: Keeps the Earths residue heat in, raising global temperatures, then as heat finally escapes...
2: The Sun is blocked and new heat can't get to warm the Earth, the planet begins to cool A LOT!!! And that's where we are at now, the beginning of the cooling part. Colder winters, cooler summers.
You see depending upon the direction certain parts of Earth is facing the Sun, and the distance, give us our temperatures and seasons. The Earth radiates that excess heat into space like a reflector. If a lot of particles are in the air, it blocks this normal process and causes a imbalance.
The below normal colder temperatures will continue until the soot level in the atmosphere is reduced, but people will burn more to stay warm, prolonging the problem.
So Al Gore is wrong about his point that global temperatures will continue to climb with more harmful emissions, it's more like other way around now. Heat from the Sun can't heat the Earth as well with too much soot in the atmosphere.
Perhaps the reason why those climate emails got hacked, people are getting suspicious.
My theory also explains our recent very cold temperatures when we should be having a very mild winter, right?
I knew what was going to happen all along and live where it's warm, it's been in the 50's now, it's usually in the mid 70's to 80's this time of year, but it's better than what other people are having.