If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
Jan Böhme wrote:
Greg "_" skrev: I wonder some scientist should correlate tanning booths to skin cancer....that would make too much sense,......has anyone ever looked at why so many young females flock to tanning salons? Oh yes - it's very simple. Back in the olden days, pale skin was the standard. That was because it signified "I don't have to be out under the sun in the fields all day" back then. Nowadays, in our urbanised age of indoor jobs, pale skin instead signifies "I can't afford having a vacation". Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful. Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
In article ,
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote: Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful. Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals. I was in a tanning salon awhile back doing a job, seated just inside the door were two perfectly tanned late middle aged women. They looked like catchers mitts. I thought that was ironic and a great advertisement to the young pretty women coming and going from the shop paying $$$. -- "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
Greg "_" wrote:
In article , "Michael Johnson, PE" wrote: Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful. Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some defects. It also doesn't hurt that to show off a tan more skin is shown which means bikinis, shorts, tube tops etc. Men (and many women too if they were to be honest ) being pre-wired sexually toward visual stimulation might have conditioned us over the years to think a tan is attractive because of the skimpier clothing worn by well tanned individuals. I was in a tanning salon awhile back doing a job, seated just inside the door were two perfectly tanned late middle aged women. They looked like catchers mitts. I thought that was ironic and a great advertisement to the young pretty women coming and going from the shop paying $$$. There comes a point when your skin "jumps the shark" and takes a turn for the worse permanently. It seems to hit women in their mid to late forties and men get little longer. I guess once the skin turns to rawhide why worry anymore. Those craters from digging out the skin cancers blend in with the liver spots anyway. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
"Mark²" wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote: edited, for brevity I have no fear of dying from climate change. Then what are you waiting for? I might have to move one day No you don't. You can die instead. There have been some rude things said in this thread, but you've reached a new low, here, Ray. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Hello, by Mark²: It's all your fault, too, for starting this lengthy, acrimonious and off-topic thread. Troublemaker! g Cordially, John Turco |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote: Greg "_" skrev: I wonder some scientist should correlate tanning booths to skin cancer....that would make too much sense,......has anyone ever looked at why so many young females flock to tanning salons? Oh yes - it's very simple. Back in the olden days, pale skin was the standard. That was because it signified "I don't have to be out under the sun in the fields all day" back then. Nowadays, in our urbanised age of indoor jobs, pale skin instead signifies "I can't afford having a vacation". Ergo tanned skin becomes beautiful. Good skin is also an attractive feature and tanning can mask some defects. edited, for brevity Hello, Michael: Tanning's main benefit is "masking" any unsightly, blue veins...which have a way of showing, through fair complexions. (Such as Jan Böhme's, I'd imagine. g) Cordially, John Turco |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: edited, for brevity I have no fear of dying from climate change. Then what are you waiting for? I might have to move one day No you don't. You can die instead. There have been some rude things said in this thread, but you've reached a new low, here, Ray. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Hello, by Mark²: It's all your fault, too, for starting this lengthy, acrimonious and off-topic thread. Troublemaker! g Oops. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: Volker Hetzer wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden controlling Mother Nature is a good thing. That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is. Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as a result, the world will go on just fine. No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you /not/ to screw up. They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up". What is your evidence of that statement? So far I have only heard you dismissing things as unknown or unknowable. The CO2 output is real. So is the SO2 output. So is the warming. So is (was?) the effect of FCKW's on the ozone layer. So is the effect of large scale wood burning in south east asia. No one really knows. Go on then, try to prove an universal negative. I do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the largest grants or source of future funding revenue. So you have never read a scientific report? Too cheap to buy articles from "science" or "nature"? They're there, you know? And the magazines, not the authors are selecting the peer reviewers. Here's a great book to get you going. Much of what that guy wrote is clearly outdated (i.e. wrong from today's point of view) but precisely because of that, you can learn a lot of how science collects evidence, draws conclusion, some correct, some incorrect, some estimated correctly (as likely or unlikely) some estimated wrongly and generally does its best to arrive at the concept of "current best knowledge". Here's the amazon URL: http://tinyurl.com/yhxcfr . Go on, buy it. It's a great read for the scientifically disappointed. Seriously. And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality, that (obviously, even if it appears to be new to you) shifting climate patterns will mean a cooling effect in some areas too, that we cause it and that the cost of dealing with it is higher than the cost of avoiding it. This is particularly true for coastal areas, for colder ones and for drought affected ones. One example: since most cities (Las Vegas ecxepted) are situated near fresh water sources and climate shift will affect water distribution you can start imagining the cost. The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts. They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global warming or global cooling? Who said "global" freezing? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...l_of_knowledge . You sound more and more like a victim of propaganda, or someone trying to convince himself and others that the whole thing will blow over like a fashion and they can go on without really bothering. The danger with people like you is that we can't just sit back and wait till you feel it on your own and then let you deal with it on your own. Even a temperature DROP is a result of global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or computer, can remotely hope to model or predict. It will change but a lot of money has been invested into the current climate (heating installations, insulations, power distribution and generation capabiltiy, even fuel composition). /Any/ redistribution will carry enormous costs. I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than what I hear from the global warming alarmists. Yes. So you agree? Which do you prefer, warming or cooling? Both will be disastrous. BTW, hasn't several of these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Which ones? Shouldn't the world be a total hell hole by now? Go to australia for sunbathing. Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception. People die. That does not mean killing is the norm. We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and volcanic eruptions. Any evidence for it? Evidence of what? Of the statement you made. See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't mean I need to repeat it. You didn't. To quote you: The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar flares and volcanoes erupt. Please provide evidence that those are responsible for the current climate change. They all have drastic effects on the global climate. Irrelevant. Notice the nice emotional but wholly useless word "drastic". Care to quantify that? Right now there is no evidence that any current solar or natural earthly activities have an effect that is comparable to the effect /we/ have. Face it, our influence on the climate is big enough to keep it in the comfort zone and what we do steers it out of it. As for: It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum, before either of these scenarios happen. It will be several decades until a smoker dies of cancer. So what? Besides, what do you suggest? Wait until it has happened and press the undo button? Halving the electricity and fuel production, tearing down most houses and throwing away most cars when finally /you/ have accepted the truth of it too? Will /you/ pay for all that? We /need/ the next fifty or hundred years to avoid "these scenarios" happening. Some countries even face them today. It's great that /you/ can sit back and let them go hang but to deny their existence is - I don't know how to write it without being seriously impolite. You know what I mean, so I'll spare myself the effort. You question whether the global climate is effected by the Earth's axis wobble, volcano eruptions and solar fluctuation's but believe the current global warming hype without question? You cleverly mix up quantitative and qualitative statements in your posts and that's good rhetorics and in an oral discussion you could probably win that kind of argument. But here everyone has enough time to think about what you're saying and therefore it doesn't work. You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue. One gets a lot more funding for showing that it's okay to burn fossil fuel. Or smoke cigarettes. What are you? Volker |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
I guess you didn't get the memo? This thread has "jumped the shark". I
would love to debate with you but we've (or I have anyway) bagged up our marbles and left. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:48:29 +0100, Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote: Volker Hetzer wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: Volker Hetzer wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden controlling Mother Nature is a good thing. That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is. Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as a result, the world will go on just fine. No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you /not/ to screw up. They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up". What is your evidence of that statement? So far I have only heard you dismissing things as unknown or unknowable. The CO2 output is real. So is the SO2 output. So is the warming. So is (was?) the effect of FCKW's on the ozone layer. So is the effect of large scale wood burning in south east asia. No one really knows. Go on then, try to prove an universal negative. I do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the largest grants or source of future funding revenue. So you have never read a scientific report? Too cheap to buy articles from "science" or "nature"? They're there, you know? And the magazines, not the authors are selecting the peer reviewers. Here's a great book to get you going. Much of what that guy wrote is clearly outdated (i.e. wrong from today's point of view) but precisely because of that, you can learn a lot of how science collects evidence, draws conclusion, some correct, some incorrect, some estimated correctly (as likely or unlikely) some estimated wrongly and generally does its best to arrive at the concept of "current best knowledge". Here's the amazon URL: http://tinyurl.com/yhxcfr . Go on, buy it. It's a great read for the scientifically disappointed. Seriously. And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality, that (obviously, even if it appears to be new to you) shifting climate patterns will mean a cooling effect in some areas too, that we cause it and that the cost of dealing with it is higher than the cost of avoiding it. This is particularly true for coastal areas, for colder ones and for drought affected ones. One example: since most cities (Las Vegas ecxepted) are situated near fresh water sources and climate shift will affect water distribution you can start imagining the cost. The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts. They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global warming or global cooling? Who said "global" freezing? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...l_of_knowledge . You sound more and more like a victim of propaganda, or someone trying to convince himself and others that the whole thing will blow over like a fashion and they can go on without really bothering. The danger with people like you is that we can't just sit back and wait till you feel it on your own and then let you deal with it on your own. Even a temperature DROP is a result of global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or computer, can remotely hope to model or predict. It will change but a lot of money has been invested into the current climate (heating installations, insulations, power distribution and generation capabiltiy, even fuel composition). /Any/ redistribution will carry enormous costs. I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than what I hear from the global warming alarmists. Yes. So you agree? Which do you prefer, warming or cooling? Both will be disastrous. BTW, hasn't several of these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Which ones? Shouldn't the world be a total hell hole by now? Go to australia for sunbathing. Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception. People die. That does not mean killing is the norm. We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and volcanic eruptions. Any evidence for it? Evidence of what? Of the statement you made. See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't mean I need to repeat it. You didn't. To quote you: The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar flares and volcanoes erupt. Please provide evidence that those are responsible for the current climate change. They all have drastic effects on the global climate. Irrelevant. Notice the nice emotional but wholly useless word "drastic". Care to quantify that? Right now there is no evidence that any current solar or natural earthly activities have an effect that is comparable to the effect /we/ have. Face it, our influence on the climate is big enough to keep it in the comfort zone and what we do steers it out of it. As for: It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum, before either of these scenarios happen. It will be several decades until a smoker dies of cancer. So what? Besides, what do you suggest? Wait until it has happened and press the undo button? Halving the electricity and fuel production, tearing down most houses and throwing away most cars when finally /you/ have accepted the truth of it too? Will /you/ pay for all that? We /need/ the next fifty or hundred years to avoid "these scenarios" happening. Some countries even face them today. It's great that /you/ can sit back and let them go hang but to deny their existence is - I don't know how to write it without being seriously impolite. You know what I mean, so I'll spare myself the effort. You question whether the global climate is effected by the Earth's axis wobble, volcano eruptions and solar fluctuation's but believe the current global warming hype without question? You cleverly mix up quantitative and qualitative statements in your posts and that's good rhetorics and in an oral discussion you could probably win that kind of argument. But here everyone has enough time to think about what you're saying and therefore it doesn't work. You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue. One gets a lot more funding for showing that it's okay to burn fossil fuel. Or smoke cigarettes. What are you? The problem with all this posturing is that it is ignoring the paleoclimatological evidnce, which suggests that _something_ is preventing a period of glaciation. If that "something" is human activity that is being interpreted as "global warming" and if that activity is suddenly stopped, the result may be far more unpleasant than you expect. Volker -- X:\Newsreaders\sig.txt |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Portrait of the average American voter...
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: " and if that activity is suddenly stopped, the result may be far more unpleasant than you expect. So is getting hit by a bus, never the less I don't worry about that to a vast degree. Short term I am more worried about all the mercury Power plants spew rather than how quickly the ice caps are melting. -- "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your average joe camera question | TSKO | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | November 11th 06 08:10 PM |
Nikon D70 average used price? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | October 4th 06 02:08 PM |
An average lens for still life photography? | Ronin | Large Format Photography Equipment | 22 | December 10th 04 12:48 PM |
Massive Voter Fraud -immoral with zero "values" | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | November 11th 04 02:26 AM |