gizmoman
-
Posts
2,136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by gizmoman
-
-
3 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
I find it hilarious listening to Tories banging on about adults making their own decisions (regardless of those decisions hurting others) and yet every single one of those Tories saying this wanted Cannabis reclassified as a Class A drug.
2 hours ago, steviewevie said:ciggie ban bill passed...bit of a tory rebellion though, liberal scum.
Got to admit I'm a bit conflicted on this , although at heart I'm a libertarian who thinks the government should keep out of my personal choices, I can see the harm tobacco does and want to protect the young. My 4 daughters all started smoking despite me and my wife being non-smokers and telling them not to smoke, the problem is, if you agree to ban smoking you have to agree to ban cannabis and other recreational drugs as they all have a negative health effect. As it happens, 3 of the 4 have now quit smoking so maybe it's not quite as bad a problem as first appears. Do you really want the government to decide what you should and shouldn't be allowed to consume? Bear in mind alcohol isn't that healthy. Really don't have a strong position on this as nicotine is so addictive and smoking so deadly. Can't see why people should be allowed to buy carcinogenic products.
-
1 hour ago, Avalon_Fields said:
Anyone seen Haircut 100? I used to think nothing of them but now reckon they could be fun?
Saw Nick solo many years ago, was very good, he is in the band, I'll be there (clashes permitting).
-
2 hours ago, Ommadawn said:
Ex Socialist Worker and Labour man isn't he?
Well that's a Guardian article, the irony is The Sun would never have published that.
-
7 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
you agree that newspapers set out to influence people though ? maybe not yourself but that is the ultimate aim , and to propagate the views and influence of the owner whoever that might be .... in terms of Murdoch I believe that is hateful and divisive and why would I choose to entertain that ? and as above it's just lies .... so I dont actually believe that in this case me reading the daily mail or the scum has any advantages whatsoever
Virtually all media has some bias, whether they are seeking to influence their readers or simply attract readers is another question, The Sun is undeniably popular so we should be able to monitor what they are saying, that is my position, If you can't bring yourself to see content on The Sun, Mail, GB News etc. then that's fair enough but others may want to see and comment.
-
38 minutes ago, clarkete said:
This is the scum's political editor
Who you have just quoted in order to make a point, I wasn't suggesting we should be reading The Sun for any insight, just that it was O.K. to quote articles for discussion and criticism, I'm certainly not a Sun reader, in fact don't actively look at any news site except BBC, and don't believe half of what they say either! Most of the news stories linked on here seem to come from the Guardian, I seem to read plenty of them without being unduly influenced, have ended up reading Pink News too via links on here, no harm in seeing other views even if they are not as objective and balanced as you would like.
-
9 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
Personally … hopefully I don’t need to use this each time the scum is a hateful rag who long since cooked its goose over the hillsborough made up bullshit and I’d not touch that rag . I’m more than happy without the need to see the bollocks they print . Distorted or not . They distort things in their own way anyway
If you don't read the articles how do you know they're bollocks? The point is The Sun is the most popular news site after the BBC so the public at large don't share your disgust, (BTW Hillsborough was 35 years ago tomorrow, many won't even have been born then so sadly it's less of an issue today.) You need to be aware of what is being reported so you know what effect this is having on the people who do read The Sun and Mail, better to read and point out the distortions etc. than to pretend no one has those opinions.
-
14 hours ago, Kurosagi said:
The rise of gender identification amongst the younger generation is notable, especially compared to older generations. In the US, LGBT(etc.) identification is around 20% of Gen Z (rising from 15% in 2020) compared to 3% of Gen X (stable and unchanged over the last 10 years).
getting downvoted for stating facts? I have upvoted your posts to balance it out.
-
1
-
-
-
49 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
this could have big implications....
might take the govt to court for this sh*tty weather ruining my spring.
Wow, that's a crazy judgement, Switzerland is a tiny country, global warming is, well, global, even if Switzerland had implemented all these measures sooner it would have made no difference to the weather in Switzerland. Totally political judgement, no logic to it.
-
1 hour ago, kerplunk said:
btw I often manage to find full versions of papers without an institution login by searching on the paper's title
That's certainly not light reading! Interesting though,
"This study underscores the need for a coordinated
stewardship of the northern land sink as part of the climate policy
agenda, with the objective to maintain land sinks through favourable
land use and enhance them whenever possible."So maybe FH is wrong, and we do need to concentrate up north, or do both. It's certainly not as clear cut as it may appear, who knew this stuff was so complicated! If climate change over the past few decades is part of the driver of the shift in the sinks how does that factor in? if the North gets warmer and the carbon sink increases maybe that will help offset the warming and we will reach an equilibrium. (here's hoping).
-
OK found the story and the comments,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68716874
FH was replying to this post,
"We go on about tree loss in the Amazon yet cut down millions of trees in the UK. Our wildlife is now down to 1 in 4 wildlife species close to extinction. Our biodiversity is one of the most under threat in the world."
His Reply,
"trees in the UK do 0 for climate change. it is the tropics that are important""I repeat, trees in Northern Europe and the Northern Hemisphere, do 0 to stop climate change. it is the tropics were they must grow."and"Use ECOSIA as your search engine. It plants tropical trees to replant the forests, as you search, and stop climate change. Use ecosia to help replant the forests and help it get to 1 billion trees asap"So it turns out I was right about his stance, he believes we should be concentrating our efforts on the tropical forests,"and stop climate change" hardly the words of a denier, disagreeing on the solution to the problem is not climate change denial.I can see how his negative reply might annoy some but he could well be right.Not heard of Ecosia before,will give it a try.BTW looked at a couple of other stories but couldn't find him. -
36 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:
Ridicule other view - when they are utter nonsense and the person making them refuses to accept anything that says they are wring, which FH and many others do in 'denial' threads and pages is about all you can really do.
When heads are so far down the rabbit hole engaging them any longer is pointless - it is like trying to tell tRump that he did not beat Tiger Woods at golf.
Anyway, here are some links and stuff just about England but papers are available for many other countries in the Northern Hemisphere.
This first one hs a quote that says:
""The planting of trees and an end to deforestation are increasingly being highlighted as low cost and environmentally sensitive mechanisms to combat climate change. These measures have been factored into the net-zero agendas of UK and other governments, with world leaders also pledging to address the issue during COP26 in Glasgow last year."https://phys.org/news/2022-01-explores-temperate-rainforests-aid-climate.html
Even out sceptical UK government has plans around putting back our temperate forests and they certainly are not well known for spending money without decent proof (or perhaps benefitting their friends and neighbours financially).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/temperate-rainforest-strategy/a-plan-to-recover-englands-temperate-rainforests
There really are so very many places where info is available and such info was offered by others on the thread with FH and their refusal to accept any of it was laughable to the point of ridiculousness.
Sadly I have had to try and talk to many like this, and lots worse, over the years - there really is no talking to them - like anti maskers and covid deniers, their mind are closed to any truth regardless of who says it and what proof you offer them.
As said, I have seen pages/groups a plenty with people saying the northern hemisphere can has all trees removed and it makes no difference and they refuse any and all proof they are wrong - if you can find a way to combat that level of lack of education then please............ get involved on social media, groups, websites and public debate cos it is soul destroying to try and deal with such people especially as they are now more emboldened thanks to tRump and Reform and similar.Neither link gives any indication as to how much benefit the reforestation will have, there will be some to be sure but whether it will be as effective as action elsewhere is unknown, so it hardly settles the argument, a bit pointless trying to have a secondhand discussion on what someone said somewhere else can you link the original BBC thread so we can see how the discussion actually went?
-
2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
I did also write "in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference"
and science based evidence is everywhere - trees take in CO2 and give off O2 regardless of where they are nor how long they are in leaf for, That is primary school level science.
He says clearly that those in the north do nothing for climate change - which is again so very wrong.
On this thread there are loads more comments from 'FH', here is another one. Do you agree with him on this?
"I did also write "in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference""
Yes you did but didn't actually link the quotes or who made them so it's hard to know exactly what the conversation was and the relevance, seems crazy on the face of it but quotes taken out of context are hard to judge.
"He says clearly that those in the north do nothing for climate change - which is again so very wrong."
He doesn't say it will do nothing, he says planting them won't "slow climate change" not the same thing, he presumably means if we keep on cutting down rainforest it won't have the effect hoped for, he may well believe we need to stop deforestation and begin replanting in the tropics, can't judge his position on a few selected quotes.
"On this thread there are loads more comments from 'FH', here is another one. Do you agree with him on this?"
A quick look at the globe would suggest the UK on it's own will have little effect due to the fact we are such a small area, so no, I don't agree it's zero but it may well be negligible in the overall picture. Again difficult to judge his position on selected quotes, you seem to have selected a few quotes to try to ridicule him, maybe he is a climate denier or maybe he is a realist who is sceptical of quick fixes that make us feel better but won't have the desired outcome, I've no idea, not seem enough of the conversation to judge.
Still not seen any science that compares the relative CO2 absorbing capabilities of tropical and temperate trees/areas either so can't really tell how valid his argument is. But this is what we need, logical scientific analysis and debate, not trying to ridicule other views.
-
11 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
This is from a forum on the BBC news site. I have seen others in other forums using the same 'facts', in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference!
These people walk among us and have the right to vote. What could possibly go wrong?
Not sure where you have a problem with this, FH seems to be saying you can't replace the rainforest trees being cut down by planting trees in the north, he gives a rational explanation why, if the "northern" trees are not as efficient at absorbing CO2 then things will continue to get worse. Do you have a science based argument why he is wrong?
-
4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
says a lot that post rate increases on this thread when there's accusations of antisemitism and people getting banned rather than anything about actual international politics.
Sadly talking about the situation in Gaza isn't going to change anything, gets a bit depressing, forum politics is a bit of light relief, but you're right I've made my point won't derail the thread further.
-
On 4/4/2024 at 3:51 PM, kaosmark2 said:
You are banned for 1 month. Racism and minimising racism is not welcome on eFestivals. Educate yourself so you can behave after this ban.
Maybe banning SalviaPlath will be counter-productive, they might never come back and be out there minimising racism elsewhere, maybe a visit to the Efestivals re-education unit would have been better.😛
-
7 minutes ago, lazyred said:
The context matters as well. I googled both. It looks like thug has racial connotations in the US though not really in the UK yet. I'm still baffled by Brave New World but it is about eugenics. I think it might be mixed up with New World Order. My search returned a story about the new Captain America film. This was originally called New World Order but was renamed after a protest. The new name is Brave New World. So they might have picked a second dodgy name but there is no protest about it.
The context was clear in this case, you mentioned AI drones and Stevie mentioned Brave New World as a sci-fi reference, that's how i read it, never occurred to me it could be anything else, people are looking for issues that aren't there. SalviaPlath seems to have been banned more for criticising a mod than for anything substantive.
-
On 4/3/2024 at 8:07 PM, steviewevie said:
Blimey..I was just thinking of the book..no idea that it was antisemitic.
On 4/3/2024 at 8:41 PM, kaosmark2 said:The book isn't antisemitic (to my knowledge), but the concepts within it have been picked up by antisemitic conspiracy theorists and used to perpetuate a lot of obnoxious bullshit.
Then it's quite a leap to say you shouldn't mention a book because others have used it to justify their beliefs, by that logic we shouldn't mention the Bible, the Koran or the Talmud as many have used those to do much more than spread conspiracy theories. Won't be long before reading Harry Potter puts you on the naughty step.
-
23 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:
You're dismissing the impact of micro-aggressions and their dehumanising elements. That is how racism perpetuates and festers.
To give a comparative possible conversation:
Someone brings up a stabbing.
Another person starts talking about gang violence and knife crime.
Someone then responds, using the word "thug".
Someone explains why "thug" is racially coded, why people should be careful about using the term, and how it ties into institutional racism, hatred, and is problematic.
There's further discussion of anti-black racism, including discussion around different micro-aggressions.
Someone then quotes that final phrase, and says "tell that to the family of this stabbed white boy".
When asked to explain how they're associating, that person then says "I was making fun of your 'please be polite about stabbings' approach".
You are banned for 1 month. Racism and minimising racism is not welcome on eFestivals. Educate yourself so you can behave after this ban.
Thought that "thug" was of Indian origin, does it now mainly refer to black people? Hope it hasn't been culturally misappropriated! * SalviaPlath obviously can't now reply but It's pretty heavy handed banning someone for a month without warning, it was hardly overt racism, maybe you are a bit over sensitive.
*that's an attempt at humour, it case you didn't spot it.
-
All done, ready for my 18th Glastonbury. Expected this thread to be busier, anyone having second thoughts?
-
3 minutes ago, stuie said:
I actually think it’s alright for a first drop too. The top line isn’t for me but I don’t expect it to be to my taste every year.
As usual, I’m more intrigued to see what’s coming than disappointed by the first poster. The first poster rarely represents my Glasto experience.
Patiently awaiting Silver Hayes, Arcadia, Block 9 and The Glade please.
I expect clashes all over the place and not enough hours in the day, just like every other year.
I think it's relatively weak (for my tastes) but that doesn't bother me, plenty still to come,
"I expect clashes all over the place and not enough hours in the day, just like every other year."
My expectation too! if for some reason I find myself at a loose end (not likely) I'll have a wander through the theatre/circus fields or take a wander up to the green fields, having missed out last year I can't wait to get back. I've no reason to think it won't be as amazing as it always is.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, incident said:
Yeah, it's going to be a pain. But for me I'm 100% blaming the council for that. The fact that the bridge has been left to decay for years to the extent that it now has severe limits on it for safety reasons is disgraceful. It's not like it's even a surprise, this is something that's been getting worse and worse over the past several years.
I'm wondering if it'll be worth driving a slightly longer route via Tamworth on the way home, and so avoiding the need to cross the river entirely. The problem is that the turning for Tamworth is pretty close to the bridge, so will still likely end up catching most of the same traffic anyway.
Hopefully Bearded can negotiate with the council to make that stretch of road one-way-only for 4 hours or so on Wednesday morning, as that'd make a huge difference.
Seems they fixed the bridge only to find it was still weak and decaying! long term plan is to build a new bridge but they have no funding. ridiculous state of affairs.
https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Highways/roadworks/lichfield/Chetwynd-bridge.aspx
Actually drove in from Tamworth last year to try avoid some of the traffic, will do the same this year I think.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:
Took me hours to get off site last year but I'm not having a sober day just to avoid that.
My plan is to have a soberish evening and leave early hours, drive a few miles, park up and sleep in the van, go home in the morning. Will have had four full days by Sunday so will probably want to take it easier anyway.
-
10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
eh? does not compute.
He's suggesting you should be able to link to contentious websites to discuss different views, (obviously not out and out nazi sites).
UK Politics
in Discussions
Posted
Yes, badly worded, what I meant was, it is hard to argue that cannabis should be legalised, as many do, if you also support this measure.