On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:


I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.


If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.


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

On May 8, 5:26*pm, Oscar wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, *wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the *bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

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

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

On 5/8/12 3:34 PM, North Star wrote:
On May 8, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

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

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

Hmmm. You know, "arguing" with either Oscar, iLoogy, or JustSnot always
produces the same nonsensical responses from them. Perhaps they are all
one person.

On 5/8/2012 4:51 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/8/12 3:34 PM, North Star wrote:
On May 8, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people.
Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states
will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans
would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev

il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war
has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

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

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

Hmmm. You know, "arguing" with either Oscar, iLoogy, or JustSnot always
produces the same nonsensical responses from them. Perhaps they are all
one person.

Donny says the population of his Island has stagnated. Can you predict
what happens next?

Here's a definition of what has happened to you, Donny and his little
island. Fits you guys to a T.


INTRANSITIVE VERB
1.
not develop or make progress: to fail to develop, progress, or make
necessary changes
2.
stop flowing: to stop flowing or moving
3.
become foul: to become stale or impure through not flowing or moving
4.
become inactive: to become listless and inactive
[ Mid-17th century. Latin stagnat-, past participle of stagnare
stagnum "pool, swamp" ]
stag·na·tion NOUN
stag·na·to·ry ADJECTIVE
Thesaurus
VERB
Synonyms: stand still, come to a halt, grind to a halt, be idle,
languish, idle, decline
Synonyms: fester, rot, deteriorate, go off, decay, go rancid, go stale,
go bad
Synonyms: vegetate, be inactive, idle, be idle, sit around, do nothing
VERB
Antonyms: progress

On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:26:29 -0400, Oscar 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.

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?

On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:53:04 -0400, Oscar 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.

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.

In article , dump-on-
says...

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.

Why would you say that? He's right. I have a garden every year, and
while it doesn't provide me with complete sustenance, I do like to eat
the fresh veggies, make pickles etc. There is a satisfaction associated
with it, and I'm helping the environment on many levels.

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.