| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
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 |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On May 8, 9:17*am, iBoaterer 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 Flagged as spam. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
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. ' Who the **** are you to decide that? |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. :) |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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 |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 08/05/2012 2:43 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote: 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. ' Who the **** are you to decide that? That is what Greg said. He said famine and war takes care of the humans, but he insists that animals need to be hunted to so that they don't have to suffer the ravages of famine. Famine and war are the governors of human population control. -- Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing but debt and discontentment. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
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? |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/9/12 6:22 PM, 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. You're as delusional as Just?Hate. I don't give a damn whether you "respond" to me or not. But, for sure, you're no boating poster. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:22:05 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:03:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:15:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:46:01 -0400, Oscar 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). |
Overpopulation problems, need management
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/9/2012 6:40 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/9/12 6:22 PM, 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. You're as delusional as Just?Hate. I don't give a damn whether you "respond" to me or not. But, for sure, you're no boating poster. Again, pot kettle black |
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. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
In article ,
says... On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:22:05 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:03:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:15:15 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:46:01 -0400, Oscar 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). What does this have to do with boating? Oh, I forgot, YOU are allowed to post off topic bull****, but no one else is. Got it. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
In article , dump-on-
says... On 5/9/12 9:17 PM, JustWait wrote: On 5/9/2012 6:36 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 5/9/12 5:15 PM, 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. Now that you have all of that off your shoulders: could we move on to boating? Why would you want to do that? You don't post anything interesting about boating. Anyone who does is of course setting themselves up for your jealous ridicule... I am not aware of any boat owned by another poster here that I would want. Of course not. You're SO far above everyone else here.... |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/10/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... 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). What does this have to do with boating? Oh, I forgot, YOU are allowed to post off topic bull****, but no one else is. Got it. You happen to be one of the champ...een OT motorboat posters. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/10/2012 8:30 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articlevKqdncU25fsPvTbSnZ2dnUVZ_r8AAAAA@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 5/9/12 9:17 PM, JustWait wrote: On 5/9/2012 6:36 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 5/9/12 5:15 PM, 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. Now that you have all of that off your shoulders: could we move on to boating? Why would you want to do that? You don't post anything interesting about boating. Anyone who does is of course setting themselves up for your jealous ridicule... I am not aware of any boat owned by another poster here that I would want. Of course not. You're SO far above everyone else here.... Do you mean he is floating in his loafers, above the earth? |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
On May 15, 10:23*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 178d94be-5933-47e2-9e33-d8c103271f19 @r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:46*pm, Oscar 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. Sounds like someone is a bit jealous. If you could learn to act your age, maybe Harry would tolerate you! You sure do like speaking for your boyfriend, I'll give you that! My statement must have hit home for you also, eh? |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On 5/15/12 11:07 AM, North Star wrote:
On May 15, 10:23 am, wrote: In article178d94be-5933-47e2-9e33-d8c103271f19 @r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:46 pm, 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. Sounds like someone is a bit jealous. If you could learn to act your age, maybe Harry would tolerate you! You sure do like speaking for your boyfriend, I'll give you that! My statement must have hit home for you also, eh? I don't have much use for most righties, or for morons. I enjoy most of Greg's posts, even when I disagree with him. I'm unimpressed with Wayne, Oscar, Herring, Snotty, Bertbrain, Canuck, and iLoogy. I do respect Tim, even though he's one of those "righties." :) |
Overpopulation problems, need management
In article 566d91dd-342a-4bd9-a58b-
, says... On May 15, 10:23*am, iBoaterer wrote: In article 178d94be-5933-47e2-9e33-d8c103271f19 @r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:46*pm, Oscar 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. Sounds like someone is a bit jealous. If you could learn to act your age, maybe Harry would tolerate you! You sure do like speaking for your boyfriend, I'll give you that! My statement must have hit home for you also, eh? Not at all. I'm just observing how you seem to jump to your lover's defense at every available opportunity. |
Overpopulation problems, need management
On May 15, 12:46*pm, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 566d91dd-342a-4bd9-a58b- , says... On May 15, 10:23*am, iBoaterer wrote: In article 178d94be-5933-47e2-9e33-d8c103271f19 @r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:46*pm, Oscar 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. Sounds like someone is a bit jealous. If you could learn to act your age, maybe Harry would tolerate you! You sure do like speaking for your boyfriend, I'll give you that! My statement must have hit home for you also, eh? Not at all. I'm just observing how you seem to jump to your lover's defense at every available opportunity. Somewhat like what you do for your ponytailed little sweetie? |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
Overpopulation problems, need management
On May 15, 1:41*pm, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ba50636a-4159-47c3-8162-f7172b875959 @c8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com, says... On May 15, 12:46*pm, iBoaterer wrote: In article 566d91dd-342a-4bd9-a58b- , says... On May 15, 10:23*am, iBoaterer wrote: In article 178d94be-5933-47e2-9e33-d8c103271f19 @r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:46*pm, Oscar 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. Sounds like someone is a bit jealous. If you could learn to act your age, maybe Harry would tolerate you! You sure do like speaking for your boyfriend, I'll give you that! My statement must have hit home for you also, eh? Not at all. I'm just observing how you seem to jump to your lover's defense at every available opportunity. Somewhat like what you do for your ponytailed little sweetie? Care to show me an example of that? Didn't think so. Oh boy...you belong in Netherland with him! |
Overpopulation problems, need management
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com