Forecast for Earth in 2050: It's not so gloomy

by **Cosmic Cowbell** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:46 pm

Not sure if this got posted elsewhere but it seems to fit here... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_1&oref=slogin">Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him</a> January 29, 2006 By AndrewC. Revken "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination." Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead. "Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan. Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore. In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide. He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry. But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide. In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet." He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents. Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied." The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions. After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews. Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews. Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media. But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result. In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute. Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority. But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so. Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta. Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?" Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred. "He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public." Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled. In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views. "He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been." The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone. Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing. One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems. In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own. "One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff," he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing." "And my eyes fill with sand, as I scan this wasted land Trying to find, trying to find where I’ve been."  ~C

by **sceneshifter** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:33 am

Dont be so pessimistic - Maybe Im not an ego - It's possible - Maybe I genuinely think that people will agree, on studying it and contemplating it, that THEY think this plan is practical and parecon is not - I grant I have only so far read a few articles at parecon - But they were supposed to be introductory, so they should have given a good general idea - My impression was that they didnt have a plan - My impression was that they were talking happily about a point that would be good to arrive at - That's what they say - My impression was that they planned to discuss everything and get agreement on things - Worker participation - but how are they going to wrest the freedom to have worker participation from the superpowerful? - The superpowerful will continue to pursue their insane destructive plans - If parecon doesnt get in their way they will leave it - If parecon gets in their way they will kill it - There will still be giants of money and power to tread on people at will, above the law, as today - My plan tells what to do, why it will work - The superpowerful are powerful, more powerful than governments, and historically the only thing more powerful is the people - So we need the people - So we need consensus - So we need to learn and teach - We all already agree this plan will work - I prove that - Everyone can be reached in months - The superpowerful would try to squash this - They cant squash it if it is word of mouth - So I have the solutions to the real problems - Parecon didnt seem to have a consciousness of the power of the superpowerful - They seemed unrealisitcally to think the superpowerful would let them do their thing - Parecon did not focus on limitation of fortunes - Limitation of fortunes is the essential point of any realistic plan - Without limitation of fortunes, fortunes and power will grow endlessly - A dictatorship will be benign if it has limitation of fortunes - A democracy will be malign if it doesnt have limitation of fortunes - More important than the type of government is the limitation of fortunes - Limitation of fortunes will determine the real nature of a government more than the form of government - A dictatorship in name with limitation of fortunes will be in reality a democracy - A democracy in name without limitation of fortunes, like america, will be in reality a dictatorship - Democracy is proportional to limitation of fortunes, not to the form of government - Nazism called itself a democracy, but that is just to fool the people - It was a program to cower the workers by killing all the people fighting for worker rights and freedom - Everyone thinks of Hitler - No one thinks badly of the industrialists who were calling the shots - The industrialists no doubt thought it would be good to take the opportunity to steal everything off the Jews - no doubt some Jews were rivals to the german industrialists - and/or, the industrialists were Jews who thought it would be good to steal off the Jews - Kings through history have always periodically stolen off the Jews - In this world under the rule grab-all-you-can, everyone is against everyone - rich against rich, rich against poor, poor against rich, poor against poor - It is: go higher or be dragged down lower - And the higher you go, the harder the fighters and the harder the fight - All the people who reach the top of the heap are fighting for top position - Hence the fights of rival gangs - The higher you are, the more you are pulled down, the lower you go, the more you are stood on - Whereas we can all stand on no one, stand on the ground - No one being squashed from above, no one being pulled down from below - A win-win potential - So I dont say: do it my way or we are all doomed - I say: test and test and test: find the best: and go on looking for something better - And go on growing all the time in maturity of judgement in what is best - That's the way to get the best possible for you - But I ask you - for your sake - to ask yourself whether discussion and worker participation is going to hit the spot if the 0.01% are still taking most of workers' earnings out of the safe - robbing the workers of money, which buys all necessities and millions of pleasure, and robbing them of power and getting power for themselves? - I think people just dont want to think about the superpowerful - But take heart in the historical truth that the socalled superpowerful have never been more powerful than the great majority - If the great majority are for something, the dictators bow to that - Eg, the people's will prevails on the matter of dictators walking around naked - The people's will is clear and strong - Too many think it is wrong - So it doesnt happen - It is a liberty dictators cannot afford - So we just have to get clear and certain that this is what we demand - Or rather, take - If we are practical and realistic and sincere about wanting to maximise happiness, we should all be looking out for a better plan - I am - If people are just looking to join something vaguely likely in order to belong or feel a bit good about themselves, then that is not realistic, practical and sincere - That is not going to get you the best - Realism is seeking always for more answers, better answers - Not just finding a nest - I guess that is a problem - We are programmed to look for a nest, a burrow, a place - And people find that in organisations - Then they defend that organisation - My country [club, group] right or wrong - No - Life is real - All happiness is nesting inside reality - There is no happiness in unreality - We have to seek the truth because happiness is confined within it - We have to not just get a bit of a safe feeling, we have to be as safe as we can be - We have to be safe - To be really safe we have to be real - It is not enough to think there is no traffic - We have to be as sure as our powers allow - 'Test everything and hold on to whatever passes the test' - And keep testing - And I dont say I could convince Gates - I might be able to - It depends on how objective he is, how attached he is to the money he has lifted - He says he is planning to give 'his' money away in his lifetime - I wrote to him but didnt get through his secretary - I know some of the 0.01% who will have money that doesnt belong to them removed from them are capable of rational thought - But even if none of the 0.01% can be convinced, the will of the 99.99% will prevail - When such a large majority are convinced, the superpowerful do not have enough military support to be superpowerful - They will have to go with the flow - And they will find that they are also 100 times happier - As I have shown - I wanted to make the point to Gates that if he gave away the 50 billion tomorrow, it will be back in the first world in 3 months - because the first world is sucking 200 billion a year NET out of the third world - Ie, the third world is subsidising the first world to the tune of 200 billion a year - The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - The propaganda is that we are helping them and they are not being very grateful [so we dont need to care about them], isnt it? - The rich also get their hireling economists to tell us that if we let the rich get richer, there will be a trickle-down effect: the poor will get richer too - [The poor do get richer maybe, but not as rich as they would be, if the rich werent stealing $60 trillion a year! The most enslaved are getting only a 1000th of what their work produces. 90% get less than a 10th of what they earn.] - The people do not know that there are wide-open holes in the economy whereby the money pours out of earners' pockets into the pockets of nonearners - The 0.01% steal 90% of world income constantly - 60 trillion a year What do you do when i make a fantastic statement like that? - Do you say to yourself: that cant be true, because Ive never heard any such thing before? - If so, that is the power of their not saying things, of their using their power to see such things do not appear in the media - Do you say to yourself: I dont know if that is true or not, I'll just put it aside and forget about it? - Because you need to KNOW whether that is true, so you can act on that information - That is a piece of information that is crucial to your worldview, that will determine whether you go with this or that plan - The people have been allowed to be literate for just 100 years - They are not yet economically literate - The fact is that we are all on a spectrum of foolishness-knowingness with money - All of us are fools soon parted from their money relative to the most money-cunning mind - Consider what the english Rothschild did at the time of the battle of Waterloo - He made sure that he was the first to know who won the battle [by pigeon] - Everyone looked to him to see whether English shares would rise with victory or fall with defeat - He started selling English shares, so everyone assumed that england had lost the battle, and they dumped their shares cheap - Rothschild secretly buying them up - Then when it came out that the English had won, Rothshild had heaps of shares, which went through the roof - There you see many or most were fools relative to Rothschild - They should have understood that information on the battle was going to be crucial, and made sure they got good information themselves - Every trader on every stockmarket is every day striving to get information no one else has, so they can do the same trick - Remember the film Trading places, with Eddie Murphy and whatsiname Dan Ackroyd - And money pours in - The point is, should we allow someone to get hold of large amounts of money earned by others, just for a trick? - No, we should not - Because their overpower makes them our tyrants and controllers and owners, and others' underpay makes them annoyed and violent and rageous - And we all get caught up in the wars - And the wars escalate and we all die - And the horrors and terrors get worse and worse - It is bad - very very bad - for everyone in the fighting heap - THEREFORE IT IS VERY VERY GOOD FOR ALL IF WE DROP THAT BEHAVIOUR The trouble is, not seeing the bigpicture as I have painted it here, people focus on the glittering prospect of being richer - The poorer they are, the more they want to be just richer - Naturally enough - But this just intensifies the fight - Think of this: Imagine how annoyed-furious you would be if your income was permanently dropped to a 100th of what you get - From, say, $30,000 to $300 a year - Multiply by 5 billion - That is how much rage and violence [war, crime, grief, waste and suffering] will disappear from the world if the people make up their minds to have fairpay, justice, an end to mega-theft.

by **BajaSur** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:29 pm

I don't know if the world will ever see a redistribution of the wealth or not, or if doing so will cause 100 fold happiness.I beleive though you make a good point about people that are preceived to have nothing (monetary wealth) are more happy than those with money. Its a intresting argument, one that i have given some thought to. I have traveled around the world pretty much my entire adult life and can say that you are on to something. If you are to compare Americans to the "third world" there is no comparrison the "third world" is happier.Much happier.Now is this becuase they have less wealth? Perhaps, but my observations add something else to the table.I see the people without monetary wealth having a common denominator,and thats a connection spiritually to the earth. Perhaps you don't get one without the other... I don't know. You could also add in the television factor or having to deal with traffic as leading cuases for unhappiness.Are Americans indoctrinated to be unhappy? I think this is so. You believe in something that you have alot of passion for. I have to commend you for that.I definitly don't want to be a negative force ( I think i spend too much time in America).

by **sceneshifter** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:55 pm

Thank you, BajaSur, for your support and comments - If we don't see a redistribution of the wealth, that is, the return of stolen earnings, we won't see anything - As long as there is mega-theft, there is violence - As long as there is violence, it is escalative - How much further can the violence escalate before the bombs we have are used, and they kill the planet dead and dark and cold, 60 times over, 10 different ways? I think you should know that a redistribution of wealth will cause 100-fold happiness - I believe I have proved it beyond doubt: By this proof: See if you can fault the reasoning of this proof: If a government rearranged personal incomes within the nation to range extremely widely, from $1 billion to $1 a fortnight, with 90% getting less than $100 a fortnight, 50% getting less than $10 a fortnight, and 16% getting less than $1 a fortnight [the fairpay being $1000 a fortnight] - [as it is in the present world] - the country would be thrown into mega-upheaval - civil war, riots, massacres, secret police, assassinations, huge increase in crime, criminal trial costs, etc etc - Everyone will agree with this - Therefore the country will be thrown OUT of mega-upheaval if the govt drops the hyper-extreme income range [which is simply theft] - Everyone will agree with that - That improvement will be very dramatic - Huge conflicts and problems generated by the mega-theft will disappear with their cause - like, 100-fold decrease of pain and suffering, 100-fold increase of happiness That, if you think it through, is a sound solid proof - Everybody already agrees that if you do X, Y will follow - If you stop X, Y will disappear - So people already know the connection between theft and violence/disturbance/chaos/danger/war/loomingextinction - Everybody - So they will be easy to convince - So we can get a near-total consensus - With a near-total consensus, we can get what we want [without conflict] - So from this you should know that WE WILL GET 100-fold happiness - Because I have proved that everyone wants it [they just need to clarify their thoughts, toss out ideas they have accepted from the culture [polluted with richman selfdeception] without examination which they dont actually believe, if they look at them] - There is nothing to stop us - It can be taught or clarified to everyone in months, easily - And the rich cannot prevent word of mouth communication - So nothing can stop us - And that is a very very very very very very very very very ...important point, since we care about happiness What you say about third world happiness is very interesting to me - And I dont have your experience of it - Please tell me more - Much more - It will be interesting to others too, I imagine - Everyone enjoys knowing that someone is happy - Everyone starts smiling at a wedding - If the third world are happy, who are 80% of people, then we are nearly there! - But I imagine, eg, the Palestinians are not happy about being thrown off their land - That they are so unhappy about it, they are willing to do the most desperate acts to try to get back some of their stolen happiness - Exactly as you would suspect, since money is all necessities and millions of pleasures and freedom from pains - 'The rich rob the poor and the poor rob each other' - and the rich rob the rich [eg, organised crime gang wars, corporate infighting, hostile takeovers, ?9/11] and the poor rob the rich [when they can, as in revolutions and kidnappings and employee theft] There is one happiness the poor [the robbed] have - Company of fiscal equals - Fiscal inequality separates people - The superrich, the superrobbers, have few fiscal equals, the robbed have many - And human company is the most fun in the world - I suspect that lack of human trustable, safe company contributes to driving superrich people mad - We have it on the authority of Spinoza and Lord Keynes that the superrich are literally insane - We are tribal, herd animals - A herd animal separated from the herd becomes more and more anxious, and, when released, plunges right into the centre of the herd - The poor can more or less trust their many fiscal equals - The superrich/superpowerful cannot even trust their few fiscal equals - The superrich are all superrobbers - The superpoor are just the superrobbed - When a robbed man steals, it is human - When a superrobber steals, it is inhuman The superrobbers are obliged to hide from their crime - So they are thrown out of themselves - They are forced into permanent selfdeception, alienation from reality - They do not even have themselves for company - Hardly a healthy basis for pursuing happiness - And I have a strange intuitive suspicion: That the robbed will not be moved to act in their own cause, but will be moved to act in the cause of saving the superrich from their pain - They will pursue the end of theft [legal and illegal], the end of overpay/underpay, to save the rich, where the poor can hardly be moved to save themselves - I dont know if it is true, it is just a suspicion I am glad you see my passion - It is a passion I share with all humans, just theirs is temporarily buried under I dont know what

by **Floyd Smoots** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:57 pm

Shifty, I have HATED it on this board when longer-time, but not necessarily Older or Wiser, members have spoken about me in the third person as if I were not there (illuminaughty), and could not read what they'd written, knowing all the while, that I COULD. Therefore, I will do you the courtesy of NOT doing that to you, and address you personally. Your "discommand of written English" strikes me, and me ONLY (are you listening, AnnaLivia?), as of Chinese origin. Let me state FOR THE RECORD, here and now, that I am NOT a racist, nor anti-Chinese. As a Bible-believing Christian, I KNOW that the Heaven upon which I wait, will be very heavily populated by Chinese believers. Your arguments, on every thread, strikes me as particularly Communist. That said, I will now weigh in on my view of Communism. It's Biggest Mistake was in claiming that there is no God. Under God, Communism not only "could" work, but I think it "WOULD" work. However, if you leave Him out of the equation, it becomes nothing more than a small pile of "dream ashes". Because I belive that a real, existing, evil entity, known to us Christians, as SATAN, is behind all of the inequities that you perceive, I don't think that there is really anything much that us "mere Humans" can do about it in the next few whiles. We can, as you have stated, go on, "loving our neighbor as ourselves", be as honest, loving, and giving as we can be; pray to our creator God for deliverance, and trust in Him, and Him only to bring real Justice & Mercy to us here on Earth. That's MY Rigorous Opinion, but I stick by it no matter what anyone else says, and no matter what the Powers That Be attempt to do to us here, in the last days of Human history, as ruled by the evil one. My Bible says that "His Story" will go on forever and forever, into Eternity, world without end. Peace & Love, Brother Floyd

by **BajaSur** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:30 am

Hello Floyd, RI is the best board(period) What makes it a good board is the lack of personal attacks, not to say that it is immune from personal attacks. I think you were unfairly attacked, and I hate to think that I somehow played a part in that. I welcome your dialogue.With that said let me single out some off your statements and cut them to shreds.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> You imply that sceneshifter is from China/or is of Chinese descent. I dont believe he/she is from China by the URL of nigel.orcon.com.nz, although Chinese descent is always a possibility. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I will now weigh in on my view of Communism. It's biggest mistake was in claiming that there is no God. Under God, Communism not only "could" work, but I think it "WOULD" work.<hr></blockquote> Why not just "Freedom to Worship"? Why does it have to be "under God"? America was founded "under God" and she Founders rudderless in a sea of deception.Put in "Freedom of Worship" and i will agree that Communism could work. Hello sceneshifter, You brought up Palestine as a place where there can't be much happiness. Afterall is there anyplace on earth that has been oppressed more? Haiti, Bolivia and several African countries possibly, but lets focus on Palestine. There is the story of the young woman that was crushed to death by a bulldozer a couple of years ago.She was living with a palestinian family and stood in front of a bulldozer that came to demolish the family's house.Very tragic story indeed.I do remember though some comments her mom and dad made about the family she was living with.When she would write home she would mention how happy the family was, even with the daily horrors that surrounded them. Now i am not saying that all of Palestine is one big Disneyland. Not at all. I am saying that there is always a underlying possibility that people can have happiness.Even in the face of great adversity(if you add little $ and a connection to the earth and of course spirituality). I like this dialogue becuase i believe one day humanity will have to make some important decisions reguarding classes and wealth.They would be wise to make happiness part of that equation. Baja

by **Floyd Smoots** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:20 pm

Well put, BajaSur. I hear you on the IP, but have no idea at all how to do it myself. My Chinese suggestion was really only based on sceneshifter's syntax, grammar, and spelling; as well as the thought processes apparently behind his writing. Sorry, sceneshifter. Meant no real insult, brother. ........Bad Floyd

by **sceneshifter** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:13 pm

no problem, floyd i am curious about what bits of my syntax etc you find odd feel like giving examples?

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:42 pm

Syntax Definition: The fine you must pay when you're caught drunk in public with your pants down peeing. That'll teach you nasty synnerz!!! But seriously, folks........ SCENESHIFTER, I don't disagree with all of your ideas or worldview, but, as for your syntax, i find often it are exampled all this board over and every in post you have our way sent to enlighten-frighten-dog biten us with here or like something that and stuffing things et cetera-aretec te But, we gotta luv ya anyhoo!! so keep on fun be having here youre as long as and things other; Gablonski???

by **sceneshifter** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:24 am

you gave me a good laugh, floyd - i had a good chuckle - i read it several times and had a chuckle each time im pleased to see that the example you gave of 'my' syntax was comprehensible

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:36 pm

....to you, sceneshifter. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who gets or appreciates my whacked-out attempts at humo(u)r. I only added the "u" because I'm well aware of many, but not all, of the spelling differences between good ol' 'Murican English, and the rest of the English-speaking world. I do understand the thrust of your major posts, but, I really don't know where we can get the power (other than prayer) to make any real changes in the way that the evil ones rule the world for their own selfish lusts and desires. I really got a laugh from you describing smacking the "Bad Boy'z" head on the pavement, and breaking many of 'is bones. I do kind of feel that we do just that with every charitable (i.e., loving) act of kindness that we show, and shower upon, our brothers and sisters on this beautiful planet upon which we ALL had the God-given fortune to be born. God Bless, Brother Floyd

Forecast for Earth in 2050: It's not so gloomy

"All I see turns to brown, as the sun burns the ground.

reply bajasur

Re: 100 fold happiness

reply bajasur

Forecast for Earth Circa 2012 Plus

Happiness

Re: Happiness

Re: Happiness

syntax

Re: syntax

A Million Thanks....

Who is online