BoatBanter.com - Overpopulation problems, need management

On 5/9/2012 6:50 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/9/12 6:50 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:22:05 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:03:17 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:15:15 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:46:01 -0400, wrote:

On 5/9/2012 12:01 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/9/12 11:54 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:53:04 -0400, wrote:

On 5/8/2012 10:15 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:26:29 -0400, wrote:

Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is
suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

=======

Why not?

It's good for the folks who like things the way they are. The
only
ones who need a steady increase in population are those who have
bought into the urban consumerist mentality. If you know how to
subsist from the land, and obviously the early settlers did,
why do
you need a growing population? The early settlers in New
England all
tended towards large families because that was the fashion of
the day
and it was good to have extra hands working the farm. By the
early
1800s however there was no longer enough land to go around and
that is
when the great westward migration began. By the mid 1800s the
industrial revolution was in full swing and it was no longer
necessary
to own land to make a living. That is when the notion of
population
growth leading to economic growth began to take hold. If you
reverse
all that and go back to an agricultural economy with a smaller
population, a state of equilibrium can be reached for those
who are
happy with that life style.

That looks like where Donny's little island is headed. Donny
might even
outlive the solvency of his pension fund. Should he obtain a
plot of
land and start a potato patch to keep himself afloat?

====

Couldn't hurt. Growing some of your own food (or catching it) has
sort of a very primal satisfaction associated with it.

You obviously are promoting the sort of snotty sarcasm you claim to
dislike.

Go suck on a turd. You don't like Wayne. You don't like me. You don't
like John. You don't like Greg. You don't like Scott. You don't like
Bert. You don't like Cannuck. You don't like Ibooger.Am I missing
anyone?
You tolerate Slammer. No one in his right mind tolerates him. You
tolerate Don because he gives you someone to play off of. You
tolerate
anyone who will tolerate you because without them you have no one to
talk WITH.

Apparently, if Harry isn't stirring up enough ****, somebody will jump
in and take his place.

Who?

Now that you have all of that off your
shoulders: could we move on to boating?

And, now that you have had your say, could we move on to boating?

John, c'mon. Unloading on a guy just pumps it up to another level. We
can stop this crap, if we just bite our lip and NOT respond.

Proof? Show me ONE response to Harry that ever did more than escalate
the "violence." Ignoring him drives him nuts. Want proof? Look at his
responses to me.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I very seldom respond to his ****.
But, you jumped (somewhat) on
Oscar for speaking his mind. In doing so, you not so subtly spoke
yours. Why anyone continuously
responds to Harry is totally beyond me. Oscar hit it on the head.

The same is true of Iboater (loogy, kevin, or whoever).

Neither you, nor Oscar, nor your latest buddy here, non-bayboater, have
any interest in boats or boating. Your boating posts are almost
non-existent, and the same can be said of your buddies.

I'm not a hypocrite on this issue...this isn't a boating newsgroup and I
see no need to pretend it is.

Yes you are.