💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › messages › YABBS › enviro captured on 2022-03-01 at 15:30:09.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From htoaster@yabbs Thu Jul 21 17:06:41 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Thu Jul 21 17:06:41 1994



From htoaster@yabbs Thu Jul 21 17:10:22 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: new base
Date: Thu Jul 21 17:10:22 1994

This message base is for the dicussion of Environmental Issues.  This includes
any pro or anti environment politics, discussions of ways to improve our
environment, pretty much anything having to do with nature, interesting groups
to join/talk about, or anything else that can be considered relating to the
environment.

alex



From Zbadba@yabbs Thu Jul 21 17:33:05 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: new base
Date: Thu Jul 21 17:33:05 1994

Wow, I get to be the first poster in a new base (excepting ht, natch)...

Out of curiosity, is anyone out there a member of Greenpeace?

From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 18:58:10 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: new base
Date: Thu Jul 21 18:58:10 1994

Ok...I'm #2.  I'm no greenpeacer and I might end up being the enemy on 
this base but I do love my world and I do protect it.

-Pele-

From mrstyler@yabbs Thu Jul 21 20:23:38 1994
From: mrstyler@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: dolphins
Date: Thu Jul 21 20:23:38 1994

HI, as a lot of you know, i'm very much a dolphin lover.  
I do have a strong interest in preseving and caring for
wildlife.  My passion is centered around anti-captivity of
whales and dolphins.  This passion stems from several experiences.
after going to sea world a couple of years ago i was completely
repulsed by the condition some of the dolphins were kept in.
im refering especially to the tank where people could feed the 
dolphins.  the tank was only around 6ft deep and there were about 
7 dolphins in it, the tank was about the size of a small swimming
pool.  after such an experience, i got to see dolphins in the wild
and this experience moved me very much.  This is when i realized 
these dolphins were the lucky ones and no dolphin should have
to be kept in a tank.  For over a year now i have been doing 
light research on dolphin captivity discovering many things that
have disgusted me.

here are some statistics and information that most people do not
know:
     mortality rate for bottlenose dolphin in captivity   50%
     (after 2 years)

     from 1972-1982 647 dolphins were captured, by 1984 only
     293 were still alive

     it is estimated that 1/3 of all dolphins captured in the 
     1980's are dead as well as those born in captivity

     many dolphins in the wild may live to be 40 years old but
     captive dolphins die on an average of under 10 years old

     dolphins in captivity have been known to commit suicide
     they have been known to slamm their heads against the side
     of the pool and voluntarily stop breathing

     **this is taken from the book INTO THE BLUE by virginia mckenna

i will probably have a lot more to say about this in the future
if u have an interest please share it with me!

                              mrs. t

From Cat@yabbs Thu Jul 21 21:30:38 1994
From: Cat@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: new base
Date: Thu Jul 21 21:30:38 1994

In message re: new base, Zbadba said:
> 
> Out of curiosity, is anyone out there a member of Greenpeace?

yup

-tammie


From dmonger@yabbs Thu Jul 21 23:23:12 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Cat@yabbs
Subject: re: new base
Date: Thu Jul 21 23:23:12 1994

figures :)

-peter


From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 00:08:35 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: mrstyler@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 00:08:35 1994

the only place i've ever been where i've seen dolphins in as close to 
their natural environment as possible is shedd oceanarium/aquarium in 
chicago.  if you ever get a chane to see it, do so...it's rad.  and i 
remember when i was little going to the beach and seeing dolphins leaping 
in the horizon...it was really cool.

natalie

From cosmos@yabbs Fri Jul 22 00:25:43 1994
From: cosmos@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 00:25:43 1994




From Death@yabbs Fri Jul 22 03:12:52 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: mrstyler@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 03:12:52 1994

Hmmm.. interesting... I'd never seen the figures.
Personally, I'm against just about any captivity of wild animals...
Having swum with dolphins in the ocean (it was very cool... thery are 
extremely friendly animals) I can't stand to see them caged up in zoos or 
places like Sea World either... They are docile, friendly, intelligent 
animals and, as such, do not deserve to be kept captive, away from their 
family and friends, and completely against their will. Do we do that to 
humans? NO!!
(just my three cents worth...)

    --Les

From PanPan@yabbs Fri Jul 22 10:07:36 1994
From: PanPan@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: environmentalism
Date: Fri Jul 22 10:07:36 1994

Well, I'm NOT a member of Greenpeace, but I do all of thenormal, 
politically-correct things like recycling paper, plastic bottles and cans, 
I don't burn plastics, don't use ozone-depleting hair care products.  
Basically, I'm here to learn (I am taking an Environmental Issues course 
in the fall, and want to know more about "the cause").

BTW, listen to Consolidated's _Play More Music_ album.  Especially the 
song: Meat is Murder.  They are a VERY political, VERY environmental, VERY 
vegetarian industrial/dance band.  I'm no vegetarian, but I give them 4 
stars anyways.

PanPan

From Deaska@yabbs Fri Jul 22 12:15:34 1994
From: Deaska@yabbs
To: Cat@yabbs
Subject: greenpeace
Date: Fri Jul 22 12:15:34 1994


yer kiddin' me?

geez.. tammie, climb the ranks and come visit me in antarctica oneday ;)

might get C jealous tho.. hehe

D'ster

From dmonger@yabbs Fri Jul 22 13:28:08 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 13:28:08 1994

In message re: dolphins, Death said:
> animals and, as such, do not deserve to be kept captive, away from their 
> family and friends, and completely against their will. Do we do that to 
> humans? NO!!

well, actually we do.  Just not as much, and we can complain more.

-peter


From Death@yabbs Fri Jul 22 13:41:48 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 13:41:48 1994

hehehe... that's not exactly what I meant. I meant: do we stick humans in 
cages in zoos? (aside from the zookeepers, of course). Sure, we have 
prisons for criminals, but what did a dolphin ever do to deserve the same 
treatment? They are a wild animal and, as such, deserve to be left free to 
swim the world's oceans...

    --Les

From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jul 22 14:35:42 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: Then their race will die.
Date: Fri Jul 22 14:35:42 1994

Listen to me. I hate the idea of captivity, zoos or whatever. But Zoo's do 
more than simply hold animals...they breed them for wild release and 
protect them from poachers and disease. While Game Preserves are better, 
and simply executing all of Humanity or moving us out into Space might be 
BETTER options, we don't currently have the ability. If we don't have 
Zoo's , we might as well hold the animals still for the trophy hunters and 
poachers to come and annihilate their prey.

Badger01
Who is considering ways to remove the human blight once and for all...too 
bad Atomic War will get everything else too...

From Death@yabbs Fri Jul 22 15:05:44 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Then their race will die.
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:05:44 1994

I know most zoos do more than just hold animals in captivity, but they 
could at least just put them in places more suited to their size, ie 
putting dolphins, sharks, whales etc. in a sizable tank (like the ones 
used for PERFORMANCES at Sea World) for each one (or pair if they are 
mated). As to getting rid of the human blight, pehaps we should 
bio-engineer a nice little virus... ;>

    --Les

From Covenant@yabbs Fri Jul 22 15:17:40 1994
From: Covenant@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: pro-anti-enviromentalist
Date: Fri Jul 22 15:17:40 1994



sorry, everyone's entitled to their opinions  :)

I lived above the Cincinnati greenpeace office near the campus for a year and
a half.  It was always so nice to come home and see them smoking filtered
cigarrets on the front step and flicking the butts into the street.  I asked
one of them about it once (some skinny punk with green hair) and was told
"Fuck off".  Little bastard almost felt some 'Appalachian fury'.  :)

And if any of you have talked to me before, you know that my life's goal is
to disband the EPA.  Come see the Ohio Valley coal mines sometime, if you
can find one.  The EPA shut us down: big time.

This is a discussion group so I don't really feel bad about slamming 
environmentalism though I'm not exactly against it.  It can be taken too far.

Hollywood is hilarious too.  Michael Stipe from REM (sorry Natalie  :)  )
led a big protest about 5 years ago against deuterium.  He said it was
being used to make nuclear weapons.  When someone goes out and protests
the making of water, I think things have gone too far.

Oh well, looking forward to reading this group,

Covenant, who will probably be in jail soon for using the internet from
   this site


From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 19:04:38 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: PanPan@yabbs
Subject: re: environmentalism
Date: Fri Jul 22 19:04:38 1994

i like the song meat is murder.  it's such a pretty song...it's too pretty 
to be so grisly...i especially like the cows mooing and the saws at the 
beginning *smirk*...i don't eat a lot of meat, but once in a while i just 
HAVE to have a greasy mcdonald's cheeseburger....just one of those things, 
i guess...

natalie

From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 19:06:58 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Then their race will die.
Date: Fri Jul 22 19:06:58 1994

not all zoos breed animals for wild release.  i know that the detroit zoo 
was, for a while, in the habit of euthanising 'surplus' animals.  this 
made a lot of ppl mad.  i don't think steve graham is the director 
anymore.  

speaking of zoos, anyone other than me remember when some chimps at the 
norfolk, virginia zoo went bonkers?  it was pretty cool...they threw their 
feces at all the ppl who came to see them.  served the ppl right, IMHO....

natalie

From dmonger@yabbs Fri Jul 22 20:23:04 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Fri Jul 22 20:23:04 1994

assylums - oh yeah, most of them are really good for your mental health :)

nursing homes - gee, lets just dump mom and pop ... we've got the cash


its not just people who have (arguably) done something to deserve being 
removed from the rest of society.  Anyone or anything that is less able
to defend itself gets put away.

-peter



From Death@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:32:20 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: dolphins
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:32:20 1994

true... that's the whole problem with our "civilized" world...

    --Les

From beachbum@yabbs Sat Jul 23 10:00:11 1994
From: beachbum@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: quote
Date: Sat Jul 23 10:00:11 1994

"In the end we will conserve only what we love,
we will love only what we understand,
and we will understand only what we are taught"

Baba Dloom
Senegal

Someone gave this to me, and I thought it made a lot of sense.
Hope you do to.

""""C____

From thantos@yabbs Sat Jul 23 14:02:36 1994
From: thantos@yabbs
To: Cat@yabbs
Subject: Greenpeace
Date: Sat Jul 23 14:02:36 1994

Greenpeace....BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!  You have my condolences.  If anyone out 
there would like to discuss why I would classify Greenpeace as "radical, 
egotistical, money-grubbing, scum"  Let me know.  This is not meant as 
personal offense at Cat or anyother particular member, just the groups 
methods.

Thantos.

From SueAnne@yabbs Sun Jul 24 01:18:30 1994
From: SueAnne@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Greenpeace
Date: Sun Jul 24 01:18:30 1994

I'm not a member of Greenpeace.
I am a member of the Sierra Club.
I also attend a place called Northland College, an Environmental/
Liberal Arts College located in Ashland WI. It's a really cool
place, has a great environmental studies program and I've really
learned a lot here. 
About environmental issues..... I thoroughly enjoy how much 
paperwork various environmental organizations have sent me to
try and join their causes. 
I personally try and do things myself... like reading the newspaper, 
finding out about issues that concern me and than sending mail 
to my local representatives and to my congressmen and women to try
and get changes enacted. 
The latest thing that I found time for was the Bad Actor Mining Bill
which was trying to get passed in Wisconsin. It would have basically 
forbid the EPA and other state government agencies from granting mining
rights to companies who had been fined more than $10,000 in the past 
several years. The debate focused around exxon and their desire to dig a 
mine in Mole Lake... A very pristine area which also happens to be close 
to a Native American Reservation. 
Now that I've babbled for 20 lines... oh well. Anyway, I'll probably post 
here frequently, so I'll babble more later.


From Deaska@yabbs Sun Jul 24 09:20:05 1994
From: Deaska@yabbs
To: thantos@yabbs
Subject: re: Greenpeace
Date: Sun Jul 24 09:20:05 1994

isn't everything the same? whether you're chasing bottom lines in some 
rented highrise office, or saving some poor animal habitat...

believe it or not, both cost money :)

groups methods *chuckle* no way I'm gonna get caught hanging from a bridge 
or something, cat might though...


purely fer yer enjoyment,

D'

From thantos@yabbs Mon Jul 25 00:57:38 1994
From: thantos@yabbs
To: Deaska@yabbs
Subject: re: Greenpeace
Date: Mon Jul 25 00:57:38 1994

Tell me this, which would you prefer......:

"Company X is polluting our environment.  Give money to group A so that 
they can go and lie in the paths of Company X's vehicles to stop this 
polution."

or

"Company X is polluting our environment.  Give money to group B so that 
they can fund research, and finance legislation to force Company X to 
change their methods of production to ones that are more environmentally 
sound."

Catch my drift?

Thantos.

From Deaska@yabbs Mon Jul 25 02:06:19 1994
From: Deaska@yabbs
To: thantos@yabbs
Subject: re: Greenpeace
Date: Mon Jul 25 02:06:19 1994

hehe... your drift?

i don't know.. but greenpeace has this stigma of college students with 
nothing else to do but go to demonstrations an' wave banners, an' do 
browneyes at the cops...

maybe, jus maybe its critics take a peek at the corporate side (well, i'm 
not sure that's the ideal use of the word corporate), but believe it or 
not, greenpeace is a bit more organsed than that thantos.. sure, we have 
the demonstrators doing the stuff that the 6 pm nightly news jus loves to 
focus on... but greenpeace is a helluva lot more than that...



btw, i am in no way defening greenpeaces actions, i'll leave the emotions 
out of it :)

er.. thats (defending) hehehe shit my typings farked...

D'
ps. shuddup steyr *smirk*

From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 08:46:21 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Covenant@yabbs
Subject: Coal Mines
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:46:21 1994

Covenant--

I have seen SE Ohio and I agree that it is just a shell of what is was a 
few decades ago.  But I have a story that will make you even more upset.  
Remember all the talk about acid rain back in the mid-80s?  It was killing 
our forests, killing our lakes, and eating the paint off of your car at 
the same time.  The FED government spent a couple hundred million dollars 
on a study of the problem using the best minds in the US.  Essentially it 
was an effort to kill the coal industry in the US.  It was believed that 
the report would show coal as the "Anti-Christ" of fuel sources.  It 
showed nothing of the sort.  Sen John Glenn took the report to the floor 
of the Senate and testified that the report showed that emmissions from 
coal plants were not the cause of a majority of acid rain.  And that acid 
rain was not nearly as large a problem as the media and environmental 
groups had portrayed it as.  He testified that for whatever the cause, 
increased PH in northern lakes could be countered with miniscule amounts 
of lime.  Yet, Environmentalist groups refused to believe the report 
because their assumptions about coal were stronger than the burden
scientific proof.  The regulations on coal mining were not repealed and 
parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia look like Dresden after 
WWII.  

    -Patton
Live Free or Die!

From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 08:47:58 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Meat is Murder
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:47:58 1994

I think Morrissey had the best line about the song during an interview 
with the BBC.  In which he said,
    "It's not that I'm against meat or anything, but I just want people to 
realize where it came from."

The mooing is a nice touch
    
    -Patton
Live Free or Die!

From dmonger@yabbs Mon Jul 25 09:11:36 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: blah
Date: Mon Jul 25 09:11:36 1994

Captain Planet ... what a show

-peter
who loves animated teenagers telling everyone that we shouldn't even bother 
researching new power sources and cleanup methods cause they MIGHT do more harm then good if a bunch of super powered eco-villians did indeed exist




From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:20:24 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Is meat an environmental?
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:20:24 1994

Are we gonna bitch about meat here or on the food group? :)

If we are remind me to post the poem I wrote about killing my pet cow on 
the poetry board.

Badger01

From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:21:23 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Then their race will die.
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:21:23 1994

Primates are ALWAYS flinging feces.

They are quite notorious for it.
Badger's, on the other hand, just stalk and kill the gawkers.
Badger01

From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:23:13 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: thantos@yabbs
Subject: re: Greenpeace
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:23:13 1994

I go with choice C.

"Wait for the CEO of Company A outside his house. Commit several felonies. 
Mail his body parts back to the Board of Directors for the next few 
years."

That'll make them sweat, anyway.
Badger01

From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:25:20 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: Alternate Power
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:25:20 1994

I've always wanted to leave the planet. Maybe Hydrogen scoops will become 
practical.

Badger01
Does anyone see any Alt.Power being developed, or are we just supposed to 
pray to the sun fairy all day?

From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 16:28:16 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: Cpt. Planet
Date: Mon Jul 25 16:28:16 1994

It is no coincidence that Captain Planet airs on Turner Network 
Television.  Turner and his wife Jane Fonda have been strong supporters of 
various eco-causes since it became fashionable back in the mid-80s.  In 
fact Turner once said that he agreed that journalists have gone beyond 
reporting the news and had started to actively pursue their own agendas on 
Environtal Issues.  I never saw anything like this under the "Impartiality 
" heading in my journalism AP Writing Guide.  

Also notice how the the voices on the villains and on the kids are members 
of the Hollywood Green Party (Whoopi Goldburg, Martin Sheen, etc).  I must 
stop before I start critiquing this further.

    -Patton
Live Free or Die!

From alarm@yabbs Mon Jul 25 20:16:08 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: consumption
Date: Mon Jul 25 20:16:08 1994

Some people think they deserve environmental kudos for recycling.
Funny thing is that recycling also polutes our environment.

Now I'm not against recycling, I do it as much as I can.
What I am agianst is overconsumption.

That means living like a normal American. Buy, buy, BUY.
Our throw away society is throwing away our society.

  sounding the
     alarm

From htoaster@yabbs Mon Jul 25 21:07:03 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Mon Jul 25 21:07:03 1994

In message consumption, alarm said:
> Now I'm not against recycling, I do it as much as I can.
> What I am agianst is overconsumption.

i totally agree with this...i was eating lunch today and someone was trying
to decide what utensils to get (they're plastic) and she said: "oh well, it
doesn't matter, they recycle"...

what a looser comment...i generally try and bring my backpack with my where
ever i go as well so that i don't need to get bags if i have the space...or
take the panniers from my bike into stores for the same reasons...

imagine all of the saved waste if everyone just carried a canvas bag or 
backpack or something with them everywhere.

alex


From Death@yabbs Tue Jul 26 00:53:22 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Tue Jul 26 00:53:22 1994

I agree with both of you completely...
If our nation were to reuse half of what it recylces, insteadof making 
more things and recycling them, our environment would be much better 
off... Did that make sense? I don't think it came out right... oh well.. 
anyways... I also usually carry my backpack with me, whenever I'm going to 
need a bag, because the amount of paper and plastic wasted on bagging 
things that people could carry themselves anyway is enormose. For example, 
I work at a Baskin & Robbins I Scream store, and frequently ppl come in 
and by 1 pint of ice cream, and then ask for a bag for it. In my opinion, 
this is ridiculous, because the contaner is better insulated than the bag 
is, and is probably easier to carry at that. The way people waste in this 
country, just because there is something TO waste, drives me nuts... If we 
wliminated a lot of things (like all the thousands of bags used per day in 
A supermarket) then ppl wouldn't waste them... Ah well, it looks like I'm 
rambling again... my $.03

    --Les

From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:18:12 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:18:12 1994

well, i work in a retail store, (for those of you who didn't know) and 
part of my job is baggin ppl's shit after i ring it...now, if i can get 
away with it, i won't bag awkward things, like toilet paper or like the 5 
pack tissue...or the 3 pack maxi pads we have on sale this week 
thateveryone is buying.  IMHO, it doesn't make it any easier to carry 
these things when they're bagged...they're gonna be awkward anyhoo...but 
some ppl want all their stuff bagged...even if it mean they stand
there and watch me struggle to get in in w/o helping me one bit (oh 
thatmakes me steamed)....but i always bag the stuff in paper before 
plastic, partly because paper bags hold more than the plastic ones do and 
also because altho the paper does kill trees, ppl are more likely to reuse 
a paper bag than a plastic one....i know *I* am at least...and the plastic 
ones take up space in the landfills, w/o ever degrading...and while i know 
that a lot of the stuff in landfills doesn't degrade, the paper bags'll do 
it before the plastic ones do...

natalie

From Death@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:44:07 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:44:07 1994

True... and ppl USUALLY replant trees after cutting them down for paper... 
But then, who knows? Maybe we're all going to die in 5 years anyways and 
it won't make a difference...

    --Les

From pbj@yabbs Tue Jul 26 03:31:49 1994
From: pbj@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Tue Jul 26 03:31:49 1994

just thought i'd mention this to ya'll.....

the amount of paper made from one acre of renewable( meaning it can be 
readily replanted) hemp is equal to the amount of paper made from 4 acres 
of nonrenewable(meaning the opposite of renewable) timber.....

no you will all think thta i m a drug freak but rest assured that i am 
bnot  or ever have been..i just think that that sucks

pbj Colleen Marie  Aweburning Mirrors

From Globe@yabbs Tue Jul 26 04:30:37 1994
From: Globe@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Earth
Date: Tue Jul 26 04:30:37 1994



Earth is cool, so everybody should try not to fuck( excuse the language) 
it up. I mean, if you look at guam, we have Ordot landfill it used to be a 
very small valley, now it is a 200 foot tall mountain of trash. Now, they 
are thinking of putting in a recycling plant, which everybody is for. So 
do not let earth look like Ordot Landfill. Ok?



Protect the,
  Globe

From thantos@yabbs Tue Jul 26 07:46:46 1994
From: thantos@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Earth
Date: Tue Jul 26 07:46:46 1994

There is another way of looking at this subject which very few people seem 
willing or able to see.  Here's an excerpt from the book Jurassic Park 
which pretty much sums it all up.

Although most people believe that the planet is in jeopardy, it is not.

    Our planet is four and a half billion years old.  There has been life 
on this planet for nearly that long.  3.8 billion years.  The first 
bacteria.  And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first 
complex creatures, in the sea, on the land.  Then the great sweeping ages 
of animals - the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting 
millions upon millions of years.  Great dynasties of creatures arising, 
flousishing, dying away.  All this happening against a background of 
continous and violent upheaval, mauntain ranges thrust up and eroded away, 
cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole 
continents moving... Endless and constand and violent change... Even 
today, the greatest geographical feature on the planet comes from two 
great continents colliding, buckling to make the Himalayan mountain range 
over millions of years.  The planet has survived everyting in its time.  
It will certainly survive us.

    "Just because it lasted a long time, doesn't mean it is permanent.  If 
there was a radiation accident..."

    Suppose there was.  Let's say we had a bad one, and all the plants and 
animals died, and the earth was clicking hot for a hundred thousand years. 
Life would survive somewhere - under the soil, or perhaps frozen in Arctic 
ice.  And after all those years, when the planet was no longer 
inhospitable, life would again spread over the planet.  The evolutionary 
process would begin again.  It might take a few billion years for life to 
regain its present variety.  And of course it would be very different from 
what it is now.  But the earth would survive our folly.  Life would 
survive our folly.  Only we, think it wouldn't.

    "Well, if the ozone layer gets thinner - "

    There would be more ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface. 
So what?

    "Well, it'll cause skin cancer."

    Ultraviolet radiation is good for life.  It is powerful energy.  It 
promotes mutation, change.  Many forms of life will thrive with more UV 
radiation.

    "And many other will die out."

    You think this is the first time such a thing has happened?  Don't you 
know about oxygen?

    "I know that it is necessary for life."

    It is now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison.  It's a 
corrosive gase, like flouring, which is used to etch glass.  And when 
oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells - say 
around 3 billion years ago - it created a crisis for all other life on our 
planet.  Those plant cells were polluting the environment with a deadly 
poison.  They were exhaling a lethal gas, and building up its 
concentration. A planet like Venus has less than one percent oxygen.  On 
earth, the concentration of oxygen was going up rapidly - five ten, 
eventually twenty-one percent.  Earthe had an atmosphere of pure poison! 
Incompatible with life!

    "So what is the point?  That modern pollutants will be incorporated 
too?"

    No.  The point is that life on earth can take care of itself.  In the 
thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time.  A hundred 
years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines... 
It was a whole different world.  But to the earth, a hundred years is 
nothing.  This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale.  We can't 
imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to 
try.  We have been residents here for the blink of an eye.  If we are gone 
tomorrow the earth will not miss us.

    "And we very well might be gone."

    Yes. We might.

    "So what are you saying? We shouldn't care about the environment?"

    No, ofcourse not.

    "Then what?"

    Let's be clear.  The planet is not in jeopardy.  We are in jepoardy.  
We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it.  But we 
might have the power to save ourselves.


Rather lengthy I will admitt, but I think it gets a point across.  Let's 
face it ....the planet's gonna survive with, or with out us.  The best we 
can do is to prolong it's livablility for our species.

Awaiting hate mail,

Thantos. o/o

From Patton@yabbs Tue Jul 26 09:02:28 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: thantos@yabbs
Subject: Hate Mail
Date: Tue Jul 26 09:02:28 1994

Thantos--

I really enjoyed your post.  Thanks for putting it on.

    -Patton
Live free or Die!

From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 09:45:42 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: Hemp and America
Date: Tue Jul 26 09:45:42 1994

HEmp is the most american substance there is. The father of our bleedin 
COUTRY farmed it, so what does the Fed Gov have against it? The uses 
BESIDES smoking it are pretty varied, and even tyhough I mainly used 
psychoactives and exotic drugs (PARADOX: I've shot up...but I've never 
smoked anything, EVER...I've never ever ingested any Marijuana) I can't 
see the harm in making Pot legal...God, booze is a drug that should be 
controlled heavier (Although thankfully for my anemic social life it wont)

Badger01

From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 09:48:11 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: thantos@yabbs
Subject: re: Earth
Date: Tue Jul 26 09:48:11 1994

Beautifully put, o Thanatos. In fact, it's been revealed that if every 
singel nuclear weapon on the face of the planet went off at once...the 
planet would NOT crack like an egg, as some people thought. We'd just lose 
the surface thousand feet, probably. The planet would still be here...and 
eventually, would support life again (Not HUMAN life...but hey, I've been 
arguing to eliminate them anyway.)

Badger01

From htoaster@yabbs Tue Jul 26 13:45:36 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Tue Jul 26 13:45:36 1994

In message re: consumption, pbj said:
> the amount of paper made from one acre of renewable( meaning it can be 
> readily replanted) hemp is equal to the amount of paper made from 4 acres 
> of nonrenewable(meaning the opposite of renewable) timber.....

and it doesn't require any pesticides to grow it, like cotton, which gets
half of the pesticdes used in our country (according to the hemp faq, which
is probably slightly biased, but the figure is still probably up there)...

alex


From hawke@yabbs Wed Jul 27 03:38:17 1994
From: hawke@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: consumption
Date: Wed Jul 27 03:38:17 1994

pbj not to sound like i am bashing ya or nothin but the last time i 
checked trees were a renewable resource . yes it does take longer to grow 
but that is why selective cutting was created.  you selectively cut 
certain trees and leave others to grow then you replant the trees you took 
in the end everything ballances.  and as far as pesticides trees dont need 
those either .  

     I was born and raised in a small northern wisconsin town that 
survived off of the paper mill there i have been to many of there 
operations because my father is a foreman there using selective cutting 
process i have never seen an area were the wood was harested for our mill 
that suffered.  we still had plenty of animals and birds and bugs in those 
areas as in others in fact there were at times even more because it 
created open spaces for food to grow for the herbavores.  

well thats enough for nowoh one last thing the mills in wisconsin also 
used a mixture of 50% wood 50% recycled paper now i cant speak for the 
rest of the mills b ut this works just great and wiscosin still has 
lots-o-trees.  :)


hawke


From alarm@yabbs Wed Jul 27 16:02:59 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: hawke@yabbs
Subject: paper or plastic
Date: Wed Jul 27 16:02:59 1994

hawke,
Since you grew up near a mill, could you, or anyone else, try to clear 
something up for me. I like to use paper bags and paper cups and such 
instead of plastic and styrofoam because it seems more environmentally 
sound, but someone told me that it takes a lot more energy and causes more 
air polution to make paper products than plastic and  especially 
styrofoam. So the question is, do mills polute the air and water?

thanks,
alarm

From Covenant@yabbs Wed Jul 27 20:08:19 1994
From: Covenant@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: paper or plastic
Date: Wed Jul 27 20:08:19 1994

hmm, I've heard that too alarm but I'm not sure if it's true.
one thing I DO know is that recycling aluminum (today) pollutes more than
just mining new ore.

and just a little trivia:

did you all know that the CFC-ozone reaction has ONLY been seen in very
controlled laboratory experiments.  It has never been observed in nature.
Even in the laboratory, the reaction is soo small as to be neglected.

Coal Power Forever!

Covenant, The Appalachian 

oh yeah, death to the EPA :)


From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 01:24:53 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: paper
Date: Thu Jul 28 01:24:53 1994

Bleaching of paper ends up with the subsequent production of waste 
dioxins, the same carcinogens found in Agent Orange and other herbicides.

Production of plastic isn't so much environmentally irresponsible as the 


If you want to stick with paper, go with unbleached products.  And beware 
of claims of packaging made with "recyled" cardboard.  Cardboard, in true 
essence, is reconstituted paper.  Read the post-consumer content and make 
sure it is acceptable; EPA requires at least 35% to be called recycled.

X

From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 01:29:31 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Covenant@yabbs
Subject: re: paper or plastic
Date: Thu Jul 28 01:29:31 1994

Are you certain recycling aluminium pollutes more than mining new ore?  
Recycling previously mined ore uses a third of the electricity, as the 
separation of Al from the ore uses a shitload of juice.  Using less 
fossil-fuel driven electricity would be less polluting...

Also, UV B radiation levels have been steadily increasing... The CFC-ozone 
reaction may have scientific merit; what remains is to draw the 
colleration *scientifically* with more studies.  Until then it is always 
wise to wait until we're sure.

X

From Phreddie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 02:42:28 1994
From: Phreddie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Hemp and America
Date: Thu Jul 28 02:42:28 1994

Yep.. that's right.. Cypress Hill's Black Sunday has a very good cover.. 
inside it lists some of the history of hemp, and how the US advocated it 
it during the world war.. things like that..

I think that if alcohol is legal, then hemp/cannibis/mj/whatever you call 
it should also be legalized..

Like Cypress Hill put it:

    "More than 150,000 Americans die of alcohol abuse each year.
  But in 10,000 years of usage, no one has ever died from marijuana."


From hawke@yabbs Thu Jul 28 03:18:28 1994
From: hawke@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: paper or plastic
Date: Thu Jul 28 03:18:28 1994

as far as energy is concerned it now takes less energy to make paper than 
styrofoam and plastic although a few years agoo it wasnt that way.  as far 
as pollution is concerned yes paper mills do cause some pollution but , 
with all of the new technology in preventiong pollution in the papermill 
industry it has been drastically cut down although it hasnt been 
eliminated.  compared to plastic and styraphoam mills paper mills cause a 
little bit more initial pollution but when you figure in that styraphoam 
stays around for about 200 years because it isnt bio degradable it makes 
me think that paper is alot less polluting .

hawke

From Deluge@yabbs Thu Jul 28 04:57:19 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Phreddie@yabbs
Subject: re: Hemp and America
Date: Thu Jul 28 04:57:19 1994

Thats the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard...Have you ever heard
of people who've got blunted, try to drive, and kill theirselves? I have.
Although not as many as alchol, it has happened. Also, in 1987 17 people
died on a train because the conductor had been smokin' pot, and he screwed
up big time.



From Famine@yabbs Thu Jul 28 05:34:57 1994
From: Famine@yabbs
To: Deluge@yabbs
Subject: re: Hemp and America
Date: Thu Jul 28 05:34:57 1994

In message re: Hemp and America, Deluge said:
> Thats the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard...Have you ever heard
> of people who've got blunted, try to drive, and kill theirselves? I have.
> Although not as many as alchol, it has happened. Also, in 1987 17 people
> died on a train because the conductor had been smokin' pot, and he screwed
> up big time.
> 

The answer to your statement is so obvious, drink driving is dangerous, no
thats too kind, stupid, irresponsible and anti-social. But so also is driving
whilst under the influence of other narcotics. Its not the drug thats doing
the killing in that situation its the person who is unable to respond to a
situation as the result of being intoxicated.

In the case of alcohol, you won't blame the drug would you Deluge, so why
blame pot for the train crash?

Famine.

p.s. I think I should have changed the title to Heap and the World and Large!




From Deluge@yabbs Thu Jul 28 08:52:28 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Famine@yabbs
Subject: re: Hemp and America
Date: Thu Jul 28 08:52:28 1994

You are absolutely right, Famine. sorry :) It is the idiot's fault who
decides to get stoned before he does one of those things...I get those
confused sometimes....



From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 13:04:20 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Carnivores that will die
Date: Thu Jul 28 13:04:20 1994

Enogh with the Frigging Dolphin.
Let's talk about Sharks...They ain't cuddly, cute, or even smart, but they 
ARE extinction bound. For every human a shark kills, five million sharks 
die. Why?
I don't know. Why are the Alaskan Wol\f Hunts still happening?
That's the activity where a bunch of human with high powered rifles go up 
in a helicopter and assasinate a pack of wolves...
Why? I don't know. 
It seems that if an animal is made to eat meat, we hate it.
I hate us for it.

Badger01

Stop Killing Natures Harvesters.

From PanPan@yabbs Thu Jul 28 14:41:38 1994
From: PanPan@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Consolidated
Date: Thu Jul 28 14:41:38 1994

I'll have to dig out my old C'dated tapes.  I haven't listened to any of 
their stuff in a while, so I don't know if there are other pro-environment 
songs or not.  I know there's at least two more on Play More Music, but 
I'd have to ask around for the others.

As for vegetarianism, that's fine if that's what you want to do.  Call me 
a hypocrite, but I can't eat JUST vegetables/plants, I crave meat (and Soy 
just doesn't do it for me).  Oh well, I guess I'm just an uncultured 
neanderthal!  Grug make fire!  Arr!

PanPan

From Razzlman@yabbs Thu Jul 28 20:16:41 1994
From: Razzlman@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Alternate Power
Date: Thu Jul 28 20:16:41 1994

I think were just supposed to wait for the next Comets.  Whether they be 
those big flying thingies or a giant can of cleaner.


Razzlman
list
q

From Zbadba@yabbs Fri Jul 29 18:19:55 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Generic, all-purpose reply
Date: Fri Jul 29 18:19:55 1994

First, I am a member of Greenpeace, tho, like any organization, it has its 
problems. 

Second, it is absolutely true that CFC's don't decompose ozone. They are, 
however, a catalyst; it is the exposure of ozone to UV radiation in the 
presence or CFC's that leads to a breakdown.

Third, Hemp kills. Just as alcohol kills, cocaine kills, or apple
juice kills. Everything you consume contains something toxic to your 
body. The Cypress Hill album (if I remember correctly), attributes a high 
death toll to alcohol which includes accidents (i.e. DUI). Not only do 
they ignore the accident factor, they also ignore other factors (i.e. the 
damage the smoke inflicts on your lungs, etc.) 

Who knows how many cases of lung cancer can be attributed to hemp?

That's all for now.


From htoaster@yabbs Fri Jul 29 19:16:24 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Generic, all-purpose reply
Date: Fri Jul 29 19:16:24 1994

> Who knows how many cases of lung cancer can be attributed to hemp?

zero.

the only deaths that have ever come from hemp have come through accidents
while high (like crashing a car).  no deaths can be attributed to hemp
itself or smoking it.

of course since it is an illegal drug not a whole lot of careful scientific
study has been done on it.  what has been done was done by very biased
organizations and has been considered un-useful by the scientific community.

with regards to smoking it hemp does have some different properities from
tobacco in that it opens up the lungs, making it easier for your lungs to
expell the smoke itself.  tobacco doesn't have this property.  this is one
of the reasons that hemp is seen as having some medical uses for the
asmatha community.

disclaimer: i don't have any direct evidence for this, and it all comes as
hearsay from the hemp faq and other sources that i've read.  if you're 
in more of this stuff you should read the hemp faq, which you can get from
alt.hemp or rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/alt.hemp or /pub/usenet/alt.drugs.

alex


From Steyr@yabbs Sat Jul 30 07:20:06 1994
From: Steyr@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Hemp
Date: Sat Jul 30 07:20:06 1994

 * Alcohol can be attributed to far more deaths than hemp.
 
 * Hemp is not overly harmful to an individuals health.
   (Actions while under the influence excepted, as per alcohol)
 
 * Alcohol is both legal and socially accepted.  Why not hemp ?
 
It's not the substance that kills, it's the dickhead that 
smokes/drinks/injects/snorts/etc it.
 
I have nothing against someone getting quietly stonned in the
privacy of their own homes.  I have nothing against people going
to a place specifically set up for smoking.  I DO have something
against idiots that do one of the above and THEN make a public
nuisance/danger of themselves.
 
Either ban alcohol, or lay off hemp.  Anyone who stands by alcohol
but tries to shit-can hemp should pull their head out of their ass 
and have a look around.
 
               ,,, 
              (o o)
     +----oOO--(_)--OOo----+  +--------------------------+
     |                     \  \                          |
     |     Barry Noble     /  /   Melbourne, Australia.  |
     |       (Steyr)       \  \   Steyr@GPO.swin.edu.au  |
     |                     /  /                          |
     +---------------------+  +--------------------------+

From Badger01@yabbs Sat Jul 30 13:55:28 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: Hello, Greenie
Date: Sat Jul 30 13:55:28 1994

Okay, I want to know something:
(And altyhough I am emotionally invested in this, my rage is not aimed at 
YOU, Zbadba...so I should make haste to apologize for any inadverdent 
flame that spills on you.)
Where the HELL is Greenpeace during the Wolf Hunts in Russia and America? 
Durnoing the Japaneese Shark Slaughtere? Or the Pirhana killings? Why do 
they worry about the cute and the smart and the loveable, but not the 
predatorial!? Why are cougars and wolves and suchlike expendable to them!? 
WHY!? Why can the American Badger nearly go the way of the FUCKING DODO 
without word ONE from them!

Again, that wasn't aimed at you, Zbadba...you may very well care for this 
issue. BUT GREENPEACE DOESN'T!!!

I say it's time to get my gun and go out into the woods...and the next 
poacher I see DIES.

Badger01
Hunting the Human Animal

From Zbadba@yabbs Sat Jul 30 22:55:15 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Sat Jul 30 22:55:15 1994

For the record, Greenpeace was among the groups in opposition to the wolf 
hunts in Alaska.

Can't say about the others; I just don't have the data.

Go get your gun, if you like, but the only thing you have a perogative to 
kill is yourself.


From Steyr@yabbs Mon Aug  1 00:22:03 1994
From: Steyr@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 00:22:03 1994

"the only thing you have a perogative to kill is yourself".

Suicide is illegal.

From GPF@yabbs Mon Aug  1 00:40:53 1994
From: GPF@yabbs
To: Steyr@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 00:40:53 1994

In message re: Hello, Greenie, Steyr said:
> "the only thing you have a perogative to kill is yourself".
> 
> Suicide is illegal.

so what are they going to do? execute you?

sorry, couldn't resist...


From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug  1 08:32:08 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: cute and cuddly
Date: Mon Aug  1 08:32:08 1994

Cute and Cuddly brings in the donations.  Sharks don't (except for Charlie 
Tuna).

    -patton

From Bearclaw@yabbs Mon Aug  1 11:21:03 1994
From: Bearclaw@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 11:21:03 1994

So, you advocate the Poacher's right to kill, but not Badge's?
(Okay, we happen to be the same guy, but still....)


From Zbadba@yabbs Mon Aug  1 15:14:54 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Steyr@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 15:14:54 1994

"Suicide is illegal"

Wrong. Not anymore. No state has laws on the books now agains suicide. 
There are, however, laws in many states about assisting in a suicide.

From Zbadba@yabbs Mon Aug  1 15:16:24 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Bearclaw@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 15:16:24 1994

"So, you advocate the Poacher's right to kill, but not Badge's?"

Did I say that? I don't think I did.

From Covenant@yabbs Mon Aug  1 19:57:58 1994
From: Covenant@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 19:57:58 1994

heeheeeee, remember when Greenpeace went to save the baby seals?   They
painted the poor things green so that their pelts wouldn't be worth anything
so that hunters would leave them alone.  One problem, these poor creatures
relied on that white coat for camoflague.  The predators had a field day.



From Badger01@yabbs Mon Aug  1 20:54:23 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Covenant@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Mon Aug  1 20:54:23 1994

It's almsot as if nature abhorres a seal :)

Badger01

From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug  2 01:00:50 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Hello, Greenie
Date: Tue Aug  2 01:00:50 1994

note: dr. kevorkian was tried the first time in the 52nd district court, 
which is about 3 miles from my house.  he's jes' a local boy....now they 
try him down in royal oak.  *sigh*  our claim to fame is gone gone gone...

natalie

From Patton@yabbs Tue Aug  2 09:19:13 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: the good Dr.
Date: Tue Aug  2 09:19:13 1994

Natalie--
this may be a little off the enviro subject, but the Good Doctor K, just 
cracks me up.  Not what he does, but how he goes about doing it.  He 
assists and the courts tell him no.  He assists and wins in court.  He 
assists and wins in court again.  The MI legislature passes a law 
forbidding assisted suicide.  He assists two or three more times before 
the law goes into effect.  He assists the week the law goes into effect to 
challenge the law.  He wins in court.  Etc, etc, etc.

If they were casting the part of a creepy pathologist, this guy would get 
it hands down.  He is unapologetic.  He is readily defiant of anything in 
his crusade.  He is Jack the Dripper.  The guy just cracks me up.

    -Patton
Live Free or Die!

From Badger01@yabbs Tue Aug  2 09:44:07 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: the good Dr.
Date: Tue Aug  2 09:44:07 1994

Check out his artwork...he doesn't just WORK in death...He lives there.

Badger01

From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug  2 10:33:24 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: the good Dr.
Date: Tue Aug  2 10:33:24 1994

dr. kevorkian is rad.  he cracks me up everytime.  they can't stop him.  
heehee...

natalie

From icebox@yabbs Tue Aug  2 16:05:18 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: SHARKS!
Date: Tue Aug  2 16:05:18 1994

Did anyone see the special on the discovery channel the other day?
SHARKS are not only harmless, they are VERY intelligent!  Makes ya
kinda
wonder where our heads are at, eh pilgrim?

From Steyr@yabbs Wed Aug  3 07:03:33 1994
From: Steyr@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: Suicide
Date: Wed Aug  3 07:03:33 1994

Legal ?  That's cool.  I always thought it should be.

Still, to the best of my knowledge, it's illegal here (Australia).

               ,,, 
              (o o)
     +----oOO--(_)--OOo----+  +--------------------------+
     |                     \  \                          |
     |     Barry Noble     /  /   Melbourne, Australia.  |
     |       (Steyr)       \  \   Steyr@GPO.swin.edu.au  |
     |                     /  /                          |
     +---------------------+  +--------------------------+

From Badger01@yabbs Wed Aug  3 08:47:39 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: icebox@yabbs
Subject: re: SHARKS!
Date: Wed Aug  3 08:47:39 1994

Yeah, SHARK WEEK is one of the D channels good ideas, but they don't take 
it far enough. EVERY endangered predator deserves at least a week. (I CAN 
SEE IT NOW! Wolf Week, Bear Week, BADGER WEEK!!!)

Badger01

From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug  3 11:50:49 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: sharks
Date: Wed Aug  3 11:50:49 1994

I hate to bring up a negative post about sharks, but I saw a really cool 
special on shark attacks on surfers this weekend.  Seems as if sharks have 
really bad eyes (Sorry Badger01...) and mistake paddling surfers for seals 
or other tastey morsels.  Some great stories about seeing something rise 
out of the waves and go after them.

One other thing.  When I was much younger I was down in Hilton Head, SC a 
few days before a tropical depression blew in.  In a foot of water you 
could see small (4-6 inch) baby sharks swimming around.  We thought it was 
cool so we would catch them in buckets to get a closer look (don't worry 
we released them unharmed).  Is this normal behaviour?  Was it because of 
the impending storm?

    -Patton
Live Free or Die!

From Badger01@yabbs Wed Aug  3 13:17:31 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Wed Aug  3 13:17:31 1994

Why do you think sharks attacking surfers is negative? Sharks are 
PREDATORS...they eat meat, and yes, occasionally they mistake surfers for 
seals...but they don't eat the surfers, they bite them, taste the man 
taste (For some reason I don't understand, Humans are the most unpalatable 
animal to 99% of the worlds predators) and usually let go (NOT always, but 
usually) And even if they don't, do the ten or fifteen attacks a year 
really equal the MILLIONS of sharks killed every year? Doubtful,
and besides my point is that Sharks, Wolves, and other endangered animals, 
while not cute and friendly like the dolphin, are even MORE important to 
the foodchain (Without natural arch predation, species expansion leads to 
species extinction)

Save our meat eating uncute bretheren!

Badger01

From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug  3 16:00:51 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Wed Aug  3 16:00:51 1994

last winter, the last time the discover channel had shark week, apparently 
they kept a running count of how many of the divers were attacked by 
sharks as opposed to the divers attacking sharks. it was pretty 
rad...you'd see on the screen, Sharks 10, Humans 0.  they were totally on 
the sharks side too....it was coooool...i think sharks are the neatest 
animals, i really do.  

natalie

From Deluge@yabbs Wed Aug  3 16:24:20 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Wed Aug  3 16:24:20 1994

Are you saying that I'm not too tasty? darn...I guess I'll have to stop
wearing my ode de garlic. :)



From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug  3 16:38:25 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: shark attacks
Date: Wed Aug  3 16:38:25 1994

Call me soft hearted, but I still can't come out and openly endorse shark 
attacks on people :).  But you have a real point in that millions give 
generously to causes to save pandas, sea otters, and other critters that 
make up the backbone of the stuffed toy industry.  Are their places in the 
ecosystem any more important than the chief carnivore of the seas?  Are 
they just guilty of "Lookism" and "Specieism"?  They are so PC one minute, 
then so un-PC the next.  How could this be?

    -Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...

From Badger01@yabbs Thu Aug  4 09:13:15 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: shark attacks
Date: Thu Aug  4 09:13:15 1994

That's cool, I guess..you are loyal to your species. I myself have no 
compunctions, because the truth is, SOMETHING IS GOING TO KILL EVERYONE. 
Americans have this obsession with immortality...they don't want to admit 
they'll die somehow, no matter what they do.
For instance, the cougar is expanding his range now that we aren't 
slaughtering him with the same impunity...causing him to have
more encounters with man...causing some people to cry to the hills that 
the cougar is a dangerous killer. Yes, he is. But compared to man, he's an 
amatuerish buffoon...Mankind is the most lethal killer. So these people 
are trying to get the cougars protection revoked, so if they see one, 
instead of avoiding it, they can kill it. This is typical human arrogance. 
If the COUGAR doesn't kill them, eventually, FAT CELLS might!

Badger01
Who knows that cougars try like hell to avoid evil, smelly, bad tasting 
humans

From alarm@yabbs Thu Aug  4 16:58:39 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: death
Date: Thu Aug  4 16:58:39 1994

statistics show that one out of one die
-that's just about everyone, don't you think.

Terry 

From pbj@yabbs Fri Aug  5 01:20:45 1994
From: pbj@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: death
Date: Fri Aug  5 01:20:45 1994

hey did you know that such activities as breathing and eating tomatoes can 
kill you......everybody that did that in 1855 is
 dead.....hmmmmm....i wonder...hehehe

pbj
mirrors
aweburning
colleen marie

From Death@yabbs Fri Aug  5 03:21:47 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Fri Aug  5 03:21:47 1994

Hey! Who ever said wolves aren't cute? sure, they're vicious predators, 
but once they get to know you, they are actually VERY friendly, as well as 
extraordinarily protective. They are also one of the most intelligent 
"wild" animals that lives on land. I had the opportunity to study a wolf, 
up close and personal (although at first I didn't get too close) a couple 
of years ago, and I found that after about a month or so, he was actually 
playful. (this doesn't just happen in the movies). granted, I have a 
couple of scars from him nipping at me, but I learned a lot obout wolves, 
and animals in general from it. 

    --Les
Keep in mind that not only do humans taste bad to other animals, but they 
also, as was said earlier, are the worst killers of animals and destroyers 
of animals' environments that EVER walked, crawled, swum, or flew on the 
face of the earth.

From Typhon@yabbs Fri Aug  5 09:41:56 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Fri Aug  5 09:41:56 1994

When I said that Wolves aren't "Cute" (BTW: I'm The Former 
Badger01...Seems I really want to change my name, huh? I keep doing it.) 
What I meant was that they aren't HARMLESS cute. People like the way 
wolves look, but don't want them around them. The same with Mountain Lions 
Re; Cougars Re: Pumas, whereas the human population loves them if they 
stay penned up in a distant valley instead of attempting to fulfill their 
niche in the ecosystem. Hell, Badgers are very attractive 
animals...Predators are usually Aesthetically pleasing (Why this is isn't 
clear) and if you look at what Humankind has made domestic for the sake of 
Pets as opposed to meat, the overwhelming majority were predatorial...but 
the ones in the wild we assasinate.

Typhon the Usurper

From alarm@yabbs Fri Aug  5 12:52:50 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: shark attacks
Date: Fri Aug  5 12:52:50 1994

Hey, 
   You said that humans smell bad and taste bad. I was thinking, is the 
reason that people are not often attacked by animals mostly because they 
stink. In Taiwan they sell this stuff called stinky tofu and it smells 
like sewage to me. I could never get the stuff into my mouth. 
   Maybe we are just the stinky tofu of the wild kingdom. :)
alarm, that smelly guy.

From Death@yabbs Fri Aug  5 13:27:04 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Fri Aug  5 13:27:04 1994

All too true, my friend. As to why predators are good looking: wouldn't 
YOU like it if a stupid animal who thought you were "cute" came right up 
to you, practically into your jaws (ie that stupid woman in Alaska who 
jumped the fences around a polar bear's cage to get closer for a better 
picture of the "polar bear that looked SO cute when it was asleep..."). 
It's yet another tool they employ to catch their pray. And wolves, as well 
as most other predators, ARE "harmless cute." They will only attack humans 
if the humans attack them first. We stupid humans think that WE own the 
world, but the animals don't see it that way, and if we invade their 
territory they respond the same way that, for instance, the US would 
respond to an invasion from Canada: they attack back. (that was TOTALLY 
hypothetical, so don't get on a thread about how that'll never happen, 
please). 
my 2% of a dollar's worth

    --Les

From Death@yabbs Fri Aug  5 13:27:45 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Fri Aug  5 13:27:45 1994

BTW, nice new name :>

From icebox@yabbs Sat Aug  6 21:14:15 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: SHARKS!
Date: Sat Aug  6 21:14:15 1994

Very cute....very cute - Badger.

From icebox@yabbs Sat Aug  6 21:20:33 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Sat Aug  6 21:20:33 1994

Very good.  I would think that the electrical properties in the storm
may have a tremendous effect on their activity - so much that a .001 of
a watt could drive them crazy.  If you saw any of the D channel this week
they showed how electricity increases their hyperactivity.  I think
that any lightning produce may have sent them in this direction.  If 
there are any oceanographers out there, it could be a sign that a
terrible storm is coming.

Tell (or pass around) this to others if it sounds decisive. I'm sure
others will probably agree (a little).

ICEBOX

P.S.  By the way - you should 've kept them. They may be the last ones
you may see.

From icebox@yabbs Sat Aug  6 21:23:21 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: shark attacks
Date: Sat Aug  6 21:23:21 1994

Our interpretation of sharks is not only deadly but endangering.  I'll 
fill you in later.

From dmonger@yabbs Sun Aug  7 09:11:07 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: shark attacks
Date: Sun Aug  7 09:11:07 1994

well, its not shark attacks ... blah blah

anyway ... i don't think aminals aren't cute cause it makes them better preda
tors ... cute something that we assign to them as beings of "greater intellect"

although the markings and patterns do serve for identification purposes (
along with scent) and for mating purposes.

-peter


From balistic@yabbs Sun Aug  7 15:24:22 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: sharks
Date: Sun Aug  7 15:24:22 1994

actually this is not regarding sharks...but since this is the enviro base, 
I thought I would say something.

  I think the environment deals with more than just animals (note: I'm not 
a treehugger but...) I realized this a coupla days ago when a forest fire 
errupted just 30 miles from  my house.  Seeing all the trees spontaneosly 
ignite and explode really makes your heart sink....hundreds of years of 
nature's work going up in a fireball.....so far the fire's 50% contained 
and has toasted 7000+ acres...just injecting my 3 cents

later
balistic

From Steyr@yabbs Sun Aug  7 18:15:32 1994
From: Steyr@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: Fires
Date: Sun Aug  7 18:15:32 1994

Here in Australia, large bush fires are a way of life.  We have many 
species of plant here which RELY on fires to crack open their seed pods.  
Everything which seems bad, usually has a good side to it aswell.  And 
although the fire may or may not have been started by natural causes, 
fires are natural, and as such, are pretty neutral in the good/bad stakes.

                            - Steyr.

From balistic@yabbs Mon Aug  8 15:39:43 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Steyr@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Mon Aug  8 15:39:43 1994

   Yes, fires can be helpful, but not the kind that are a 200 foot wall of 
flame that sends up such a tremendous plume it can be seen from space.  
Not only were plants destroyed but 10 structures and over 7000 acres of 
pondeerosa pines and buck brush were burned (sctually I guess those ARE 
plants but anyway you get my point :)0
This fire was so big HOW BIG WAS IT it was so big that when it first 
ignited it was burning so haot it had it's own storm system depeloping 
above it.  The good news is is that it is at least 90% contained and no 
firefighters died.

later,
(man what a bad speller!)
balistic

From htoaster@yabbs Mon Aug  8 20:05:37 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Mon Aug  8 20:05:37 1994

the reason that the fire was so big was that the forest had so much
fuel in it (baby trees) that it could burn for ages.  the big trees (which
are a lot more resistant to fire) were cut down long ago for logging
purposes.  if nature did its thing naturally fires would hit a forest every
few years (10 or 12), burn out all of the trees that weren't strong enough,
and let the big ones live (darwinism)...forests shouldn't be so thick that
walking through them is hopeless...right now they are just way too crowded.

let the forest fires burn within the forest, and just build breaks near
homes and towns and stuff.  the forest fires have been burning for 1000's
of years and the forest has survived...we as humans have done a lot more
damage to it in the last 100 years than it ever saw before.

alex


From balistic@yabbs Tue Aug  9 14:47:23 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Tue Aug  9 14:47:23 1994

   I realize forestfires have little impact on the forest as a whole, but 
when that fire is man-made it kinda pisses you off.  All the people that 
lost their homes to the fire probably feel kind of cheated.  

   I agree that fires CAN help the forest, but this one didn't.  Nevada is 
in the middle of a 10 year drought and thus the trees were as flammable as 
gassoline.  It's scary to watch a tree literally explode into flames, even 
the adult ones, and within seconds they are nothing more than a pile of 
smoldering cinders.  If we wern't in the drought, and there was actually 
some humidity in the air (it averges about 5-10% here) the situation might 
have been different.....maybe the oldgrowth would have spared and the 
forest could continue .....but as it is there is nothing left on 7000 acre 
of ex-forest land.  And as I'm writing this there are about 3-4 other 
forest and brush fires within 60 miles of my house.  One fire in the 
middle of nowhere would aid in evolution...but here in nevada it's a 
freaking (no pun intended :)) warzone.  

oh well, later
Brian "flammable" Prince 

From htoaster@yabbs Tue Aug  9 16:39:53 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Tue Aug  9 16:39:53 1994

In message re: Fires, balistic said:
>    I realize forestfires have little impact on the forest as a whole, but 
> when that fire is man-made it kinda pisses you off.  All the people that 
> lost their homes to the fire probably feel kind of cheated.  

well, most forest fires are started by lighting, not humans.  at least all
of the current fires in WA are from lighting...

alex


From Grieves@yabbs Tue Aug  9 17:35:09 1994
From: Grieves@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Tue Aug  9 17:35:09 1994

Exactly, I wish more people here in the US would get the picture.  We got 
all these tree huggers saying shit like "We can't cut down all those dying 
trees even thought theyre a fire hazzard, Just think of all the endangered 
animals that live there"  Jeez, then the damn forest catches on fire and 
they go crazy wanting to put the fire out ...if we could have just cut the 
trees and cleared the underbrush that has been gathering ever since the 
forest service started to put the forest fires out, back in the 40's, then 
planted new trees, the forest would have been healthy.   Maybe one day our 
people will realize that our efforts of conservation are just making 
things worse

From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Aug  9 21:38:13 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Grieves@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Tue Aug  9 21:38:13 1994

Grieves, the reason the fires happening now are so bad is because of the 
Forest Service's actions! Of course, one can't blame the forest service 
alone- the timber industry is the other main culprit. The Forest Service, 
believeing it was helping to *prevent* fires, replanted areas burned out 
by fire. The only problem is that these new trees do not survive fires- 
they feed fires. Tho most of the old growth has been chopped down by the 
timber industry, what's left is destroyed because the flames are too 
intense (fed by the young trees). 

Conservation doesn't make things worse - meddling makes things worse. The 
Forest Service should do us all a service and let the forests recover 
naturally from fires and stop actively dousing wild forest fires. 
(focusing on protecting homes and lives would be a better expenditure of 
effort and capital.)


From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 10 13:20:45 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:20:45 1994

this fire was caused by an unknown piece of machinery...probably a spark 
from a dirtbike.

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 10 13:26:23 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Grieves@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:26:23 1994

   I am definitly not a tree hugger.....I don't really care one way or the 
other when it comes to the forests (although I do think the rainforests 
need to be saved).....I read that the spotted owl is no longer endangered 
and all the environmentalists are pissed of...excuse me, isn't this what 
they were trying to accomplish?  I don't think cared about spotted owls at 
all, they just wanted a reason to stop logging.  I also heard that spotted 
owls are not limited to living in old-growth forests...there is one living 
in a k-mart sign in WA!!!  I think some environmentalists and tree-huggers 
take it way to far sometimes.

From dmonger@yabbs Wed Aug 10 13:48:17 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: spotted owl
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:48:17 1994

depends on whether or not the owl is still endangered, not what the government
has decided.  I'm willing to be that they disagree with the government's
decision.

as for the k-mart sign i'm wondering what that shows.  I could live in a kmart
sign too if it was big enough, the idea is that we shouldn't be destroying these
animal's homes and forcing them to move to shopping malls.

now while i will agree that some environmentalists can get a little 
enthusiastic at times, i  do think that have the best interests at heart, as
opposed to the logging industry who i'd trust about as far as i can throw.

-peter



From Typhon@yabbs Wed Aug 10 17:30:19 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 17:30:19 1994

Australia had some of the worst fires ever seen by humans last year...Far 
worse than the ones happening in the west now. Steyr knows forest fires 
and brush fires very well.

Typhon the Usurper

From Steyr@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:21:38 1994
From: Steyr@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:21:38 1994

Yeah Typhon, that sounds pretty right to me (about OZ having some of the 
worst fires in the world).  But we don't have forest fires or brush fires. 
 We call them bush fires.  :)

Although I know some places in America have fires as bad as what we have.

As for greenies (tree huggers), most of the ones we have hereare more 
interested in attending protests and stuff just for something to do than 
out of a serious concern for the welfare of the bush.  They think "Wow, if 
I go chain myself to the front of a bulldozer, I might get my face on TV".

Logging is a NECESSARY evil I think.  Sure, it has it's bad effects, but 
we sure couldn't get by without it either.

My advice to greenies is to a) get a haircut, b) get a job,  and c) get a 
life.  If they are seriously concerned about the bush, there are much 
better ways of going about it's conservation than protests in loggin 
areas.  We get a lot of that out here, and the interesting thing is, the 
state the greenines leave the place in is attrocious !  Incredible amounts 
of rubbish and litter left laying about the place.

                                Steyr

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:31:53 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: spotted owl
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:31:53 1994

the reason I brought up the k-mart sign is that the environmentalists were 
saying that spotted owls could live nowhere but in old growth....but they 
were wrong.  There's even an owl living in a tree in the middle of a 
logging camp.  The loggers (I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...:)) feed the 
the owl by hand!!!  My point is that animals can adapt to new surroundings 
just as we can, hundreds of thousands of people depend on the logging 
inddustry, we can't just abruptly stop it.  I do believe that 
clear-cutting is wrong and we should limit ourselves to taking only as 
many trees as we need.  I also believe that within the next hundred years 
humans won't even need wood anymore...we are already beginning to phase 
away from wood.  Just look at how many trees I saved by sending this 
message by email, rather than snail mail.  I see the light at the end of 
the tunnel. . . .

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:35:53 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:35:53 1994

   I don't dought that austrailia had killer brush fires last year....all 
that dry grass and brush and such.  Just heard on the news that the 2 7000 
acre fires nearest to me were intentionly set by an arsonist.....man would 
I like to wring that guy's neck.

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:41:06 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Steyr@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:41:06 1994

   I agree logging is neccesary...the town I used to live in depended 
mainly on logging.......If it werent for the loggers that town wouldn't 
exist, mainly because the logging above the town (on the sierra buttes, 
anyone heard of em?)saved the town from a MAJOR forest fire just a few 
years ago.  We had to evacuate and everything....mondo bummer.

balistic

From dmonger@yabbs Wed Aug 10 21:00:28 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 21:00:28 1994

i'll agree too that logging is a necesary evil, but i i still think we should
be careful as to what we allow them to do.  

and don't forget that the logging industry isn't really interested in logging
either ... just profit.  like many of the companies in the us they are still
very short sited and (i don't think) are still not looking too deeply into
the crystal ball

and would you like it if the state came to your door and said "hi, get out.
we're buildinga highway here"

i sure wouldn't

-peter



From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 10 22:55:18 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Wed Aug 10 22:55:18 1994

don't even talk about building highways thru ppl's houses to me, peter...i 
live right next to interstate 75 (as in, it's 100 ft from my house) and 
i'm soooo scared that they're going to widen it or something (we gets lots 
and lots of traffic on it here) and i'm gonna lose my house...eminent 
domain sucks...

natalie
who can't fall asleep at night w/o the sound of cars rushing past at 80 
mph

From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 11 09:51:30 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: spotten owls
Date: Thu Aug 11 09:51:30 1994

Excuse me, spotted owls.

There was a report back in '93 that in Oregon, the spotted owl was more 
prosperous in second growth forests due to the fact that the increased 
undergrowth caused by more sunlight allowed for more of their prey
 to thrive (field mice and others I guess).  I guess they will need 
another reason to run the loggin industry out of business.

    -Patton
"You know what they say about WASPs, Buddy?  Love animals, can't stand 
people"    -Gordon Gekko, from the movie "Wall Street"

-this is not Patton's personal opinion

From balistic@yabbs Thu Aug 11 16:48:46 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Thu Aug 11 16:48:46 1994

   I don't know if the head-logging-honchos like logging, but I was 
friends with several lumberjacks and they seemed to enjoy and apreciate 
the forest, they were definitly not in it for the money......I don't 
really see what logging has to do with road construction though.
balistic

From balistic@yabbs Thu Aug 11 16:49:49 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: spotten owls
Date: Thu Aug 11 16:49:49 1994

hehheh....sure it's not

From dmonger@yabbs Thu Aug 11 18:39:12 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Thu Aug 11 18:39:12 1994

here, let me give you an different example to show what i was saying:

i'm sure that many (maybe even most) of microsoft's employees like what they
do and where they are working ... but i find it hard to believe that microsoft
(as a corporation) is in the busineess out of the goodness of their hearts and 
to help out the world, if they were they wouldn't be suing practically anyone 
who tries to write software for windows.

well, i'm exagerating a bit ... but my point was that the logging INDUSTRY is
in it for the money, not that the loggers themselves are.  There's a difference


as to the highway bit, at least the government would have the descence to give
you a warning and let you move out before bulldozing your house.  The loggers
don't know and say "mr. owl, get out", they just start sawing away.

-peter




From Typhon@yabbs Thu Aug 11 19:45:48 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Death in the Wild
Date: Thu Aug 11 19:45:48 1994

A wolf cub recently was found and then died in my ares...actually, it was 
a coydog pup, most like, but it had some kind of disease that killed it.

Typhon the Usurper
With no else to say

From icebox@yabbs Thu Aug 11 22:24:23 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Death in the Wild
Date: Thu Aug 11 22:24:23 1994

You think that's bad?
An atual number (X * 1000) are being killed here - so much that they 
are on the endangered list as well.  I had some great ideas - some still 
pending; but like everything else, we'll see.

From laelth@yabbs Fri Aug 12 00:49:14 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: Owls?
Date: Fri Aug 12 00:49:14 1994

Hey, it's not about the owls!
People in the environmental science biz. call the spotted owl a
"bellweather species."  They use it to test the general health of 
the entire ecosystem, that being Northwest American Forests.  They
mesure how well the owls are faring in order to determine how well
the entire ecosystem is doing.  It doesn't matter if the owls can 
survive in an urban setting.  If the owls are dying in the forest, then
the thousands and millions of other species that live in the forest
are dying too.  Granted, a few species may even profit from human
destruction of the ecosystem, but the logic is that if the owls are
dying, then the entire system is thrown out of whack by human
intervention.  The species in the forest took millions of years to evolve.
Some trees live for over a thousand years.  Human greed, stupidity, and
short-term thinking cannot justify the destruction of an entire
ecosystem which has as much right to exist as we do.

-laelth

From Typhon@yabbs Fri Aug 12 08:42:28 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: icebox@yabbs
Subject: re: Death in the Wild
Date: Fri Aug 12 08:42:28 1994

I've already complained about the Alaska Wolf Hunts...Didn't see the point 
in re-hashing it.

Typhon The Tired

From Pinochet@yabbs Fri Aug 12 09:23:53 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: Ecosystems
Date: Fri Aug 12 09:23:53 1994

Why cry for the ecosystems?  Why cry out against industrialization?  There 
isn't a place left in the industryial world that hasn't been totally 
messed with ecosystem wise.  The undeveloped world is worse off than we.  
It's been happeneing since the dawn of MANKIND.  If the spotted owl dies, 
then so be it.  If that ferret dies in Nebraska, so long.  This isn't
a modern problem.  Our ancestors changed our world far before we got here. 
 Why keep everything as is now?  The Chinese killed off all of the 
predators that could challenge mankind way befroe the arrival of Christ.  
The Persians and the Mesopatamians did the same with the Lion and a specie 
of bear.  iF Logging doesn't do away with the owl, maybe increased 
volcanic activity in the NW US will.  Nature has said, "You specie, you 
may not live".  So be it.


From balistic@yabbs Fri Aug 12 19:30:19 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: Fires
Date: Fri Aug 12 19:30:19 1994

ahhh...I get it, just confused because somehow this conversation shifted 
from forest fires to spotted owls, oh well :)

From balistic@yabbs Fri Aug 12 19:33:59 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Owls?
Date: Fri Aug 12 19:33:59 1994

   My point was that the owls weren't dying, they were faring pretty well. 
 And as for the destruction of an ecosystem, most trees that are logged 
are crops.  Most logging companies don't even touch the old growth, they 
cut what was planted a few years ago.

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Fri Aug 12 19:35:21 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: Ecosystems
Date: Fri Aug 12 19:35:21 1994

hell yeah!

:)

balistic the terraformer

From laelth@yabbs Sun Aug 14 00:08:59 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: Ecosystems
Date: Sun Aug 14 00:08:59 1994

In message 123 Pinochet asked:

"Why cry for the ecosystems?"

I'm concerned about the millions of species that are unique to each 
ecosystem because I believe, firmly, that every species on this planet has 
a RIGHT to be here.  I also believe that humans have no right to deny any 
species existence.  It may be true that we have caused some species to 
become extinct.  It may be true that nature allows some species to become 
extinct on their own.  That's evolution.  But what humanity is doing to
this planet at the moment is not right.  So many species have become
extinct in the last century that scientists can't even gauge how much 
damage we've done.  It's tragic.  It's unjust.  And we're responsible!
That's why I, and a lot of people like me, are "crying" about ecosystems.

-laelth

From Typhon@yabbs Mon Aug 15 13:21:28 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Ecosystems
Date: Mon Aug 15 13:21:28 1994

My basic opinion is a simple one..Onec they all go, so do we.
O, I so wanna live!

Typhon the Self-Involved

From Pinochet@yabbs Mon Aug 15 13:49:45 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Mon Aug 15 13:49:45 1994

I agree with you, every specie is unique.  Every specie has rights.  I 
have a right to quality health care, or so Bill says.  I also have the 
right to affordable housing, or so Bill says.  I feel that animals are 
impinging upon my rights!  In fact, they are denying me my rights!  

How can I have my house when the spotted owl makes it so I can't get 
lumber?  How can I have affordable health care if the Furry Tailed Vole 
won't allow me to help build that superhighway because it migrates across 
the Old I-80?  I am being denied my rights...I am the victim here!

And when the annual frog migration hit back in the summer of '83, how many 
people died because they didn't allow ambulances to exceed 10MPH?  (see 
the Oregonian 8/11/83, pg 8B).  Don't people matter more than a frog, no 
matter how rare that frog has become?

And why is that frog and other species endangered?  It is because they 
have failed to adapt to their new environment.  They have been left at the 
curbside of hisotry.  It isn't our fault, it's theirs.  Other species have 
thrived since the introduction of man, like the deer.  The deer adapted, 
they deserve to go on.  

In everything we do (from going to church on sunday to going to Woodstock 
'94 to get really loaded on shrooms) we change our environment.  Don't 
apologize for it, revel in it!

"I've got something to say...It's bettter to burn out, than to fade away!"

From dmonger@yabbs Mon Aug 15 15:25:07 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Mon Aug 15 15:25:07 1994

In message don't cry for the ecosystem, Pinochet said:
> I agree with you, every specie is unique.  Every specie has rights.  I 
> have a right to quality health care, or so Bill says.  I also have the 
> right to affordable housing, or so Bill says.  I feel that animals are 
> impinging upon my rights!  In fact, they are denying me my rights!  

and we're denying them their lives ... hmmmmm

> How can I have my house when the spotted owl makes it so I can't get 
> lumber?  How can I have affordable health care if the Furry Tailed Vole 
> won't allow me to help build that superhighway because it migrates across 
> the Old I-80?  I am being denied my rights...I am the victim here!
> 
> And when the annual frog migration hit back in the summer of '83, how many 
> people died because they didn't allow ambulances to exceed 10MPH?  (see 
> the Oregonian 8/11/83, pg 8B).  Don't people matter more than a frog, no 
> matter how rare that frog has become?

I'd agree that a person's life or health matters more than an animals, but not
that their comfort does.  The argument that animals should die cause i want a
cheap new home doesn't work for me.

> And why is that frog and other species endangered?  It is because they 
> have failed to adapt to their new environment.  They have been left at the 
> curbside of hisotry.  It isn't our fault, it's theirs.  Other species have 
> thrived since the introduction of man, like the deer.  The deer adapted, 
> they deserve to go on.  

the deer adapted mostly because we killed off all their natural preditors.

and by this argument most things that kill off people are okay too.  Lets have 
a nationwide drug problem, it will kill off the weak and feeble.
 
> In everything we do (from going to church on sunday to going to Woodstock 
> '94 to get really loaded on shrooms) we change our environment.  Don't 
> apologize for it, revel in it!

changing is inevitable, destroying isn't.


From balistic@yabbs Mon Aug 15 18:40:12 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Mon Aug 15 18:40:12 1994

YES!!!! I agree, habitat loss encourages natural selection by increasing 
the chances of a species to survive in a changing world.

till Bill gets de-throned,
balistic
the conservative liberal (but mostly conservative)
:)

From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 15 22:15:12 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Mon Aug 15 22:15:12 1994

oh, satire is soooooo fun....

at least i hope you were being satirical...

natalie

From Globe@yabbs Mon Aug 15 22:55:33 1994
From: Globe@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Earth
Date: Mon Aug 15 22:55:33 1994


Hey all I have to say is dont fuck oup the planet because one day, 
everybody will make a big mistake, and we will die, it doesnt matter if it 
is of cancer because of the ozone and all those morons who use spray cans 
that use cfc's I admt I use them too, but only 1 everynow and then. And 
look at the garbage problem, I have read that if we use garbagew at the 
present rate, we will have covered the earth in grabage by the year 2157. 
Well I am not an environmentalist, as most of you know, I am only 13, and 
I just want to live a healthy life and now have to put on sunblock 
5,000,000,000,000,000 everytime I go outside of the house. 


Well Later
  Globe

From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 15 23:01:32 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Globe@yabbs
Subject: re: Earth
Date: Mon Aug 15 23:01:32 1994

i have to use spf 5,000,000,000,000,000 right now anyways....cause i'm a 
super pale person who needs to go outside more...



natalie

From Pinochet@yabbs Tue Aug 16 11:49:07 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Tue Aug 16 11:49:07 1994

They don't understand, Balistic.  We look at it from nature's point of 
view.  Just think of the possibilities man has created for the awesome 
evolutionary powers of nature.  Man is part of the ecosystem now.  There 
is no changing that.  And because we cause entropy, we are releasing the 
creativity of species everywhere.  Those who don't adapt, die.  Very 
simple.  Very clean cut.  Those who do, prosper.  Species after species 
died when something new enterred their ecosystem (when a monitor lizard 
floated across a sea on a log after a storm.  it lands and finds a specie 
of parrot that had evolved with no natural enemies and lost its capacity 
of flight.  a couple of years later...no more parrot).  Man is the 
ultimate product of nature.  It harnesses its surrounding and changes them 
to his betterment.  It modifies...it cajoles...it helps the winners win 
and the losers lose.  

Read Ian Malcolm in the novel _Jurrasic Park_.  His is the best 
explanation of the power of nature I have seen.  Nature is not a harmless, 
treed bear club.  It is nasty and brutish and we are part of it.


From Pinochet@yabbs Tue Aug 16 11:50:08 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: sarcasm
Date: Tue Aug 16 11:50:08 1994

one never knows if I'm serous or not :)

i guess it is open to interpretation :)

From Pinochet@yabbs Tue Aug 16 11:53:29 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: Globe@yabbs
Subject: sunblock
Date: Tue Aug 16 11:53:29 1994

actually the ozone hole (that has never been proven to be a product of 
anything man has ever done...only been observed under lab conditions with 
massive amounts of CFCs per cubic centimeter) actually will be beneficial 
to live on earth overall.  Except for the mammals.  Most everything else 
will prosper.  Increased temperatures will free up a lot of water.  And 
the increased raditation will cause more mutations to occur, helping to 
create better adapted animals (as well as exhibits for our carnivals).  
And hey, Iowa will be tropical, so I guess that's where I will be 
vacationing between my melanoma surgeries.  



From dmonger@yabbs Tue Aug 16 14:47:57 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Tue Aug 16 14:47:57 1994

i read jurassic park, i thought ian malcom was a twit.

sure we're a unique part of the ecosystem, we aren't driven simply by
instinct, but have a much better ability to make decisions.  

with that ability come (IMO) greater responsibility for our actions.  I for
one consider chopping down forests, destroying species of animals and
generally forcing "evolution" (as you've been calling it) along a more 
destructive path simply cause i want to be comfy.  

-peter
who find's very little that's natural about this form of selection


From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug 16 16:23:47 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: ugh
Date: Tue Aug 16 16:23:47 1994

well, this is way off topic (heehee), but i just wanted to state that I 
HATE GETTING SUNBURNED WHEN I'M ONLY OUTSIDE FOR 20 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!!!  
i'm really annoyed by this.  i FINALLY get the annoying tan to go away, 
then i get to do someone else's job at work, and all my hrd work (hiding 
in the basement) goes to waste.  *sigh*  at least i'm not outside so much 
that i'm totally freckled (all the freckles i do have are from when i was 
little)

a slightly red natalie

From Death@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:00:09 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: ugh
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:00:09 1994

You get that way too, eh Nat?
hehehe I don't even last 10 minutes though...
(If you don't believe me, just ask paradox :)
I think that whoever comes up with a sunblock that REALLY blocks the sun 
from reaching the skin will become the most wealthy person in the world... 
Heck, I'D certainly pay any price for it :>

    --Les
Who is in a great deal of pain from his roasted skin right now...

From dmonger@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:08:08 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: ugh
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:08:08 1994

oh i never used to burn ... i still don't too much, although when i do its
a great way to keep people from tickling you :)

last year i got really burnt ... never go for a 3-4 hour tubbing trip on the
delaware with now shirt or sunblock.  Big ol blisters all over my shoulders.

I guess i really just wanted to say nya-nya-nya-nya-nay :P

-peter
who knows how toasted he's going to get during freshman orientation this year


From balistic@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:24:46 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Globe@yabbs
Subject: re: Earth
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:24:46 1994

   Actually the hole in the ozone is natural.  Core drilling of ice in 
antarctica tells us that the ozone thins periodically as the Earth's orbit 
(actually the Earth's axis) wobbles.  Anyways CFC are no longer in 
use......you can't produce them anymore.

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:27:25 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:27:25 1994

hehheh, I like the monitor part :).  He's the chotiscian (spelling?) 
right?   I hear the book was much better than the movie....but I'm not an 
avid reader.

balistic the velociraptor

From balistic@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:31:21 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:31:21 1994

humans ARE natural!  Maybe you don't like to admit that we are animals 
slightly more advanced than chimps, but the fact remains that we are part 
of the environment, and we are natural.  

just my $0.33333333333333333 cents
balistic

From dmonger@yabbs Tue Aug 16 20:58:25 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Tue Aug 16 20:58:25 1994

you don't seem to get my point, you probably never will.

-peter
who is sick of rephrasing pretty much the same thing over and over again


From Cat@yabbs Tue Aug 16 21:27:32 1994
From: Cat@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: ugh
Date: Tue Aug 16 21:27:32 1994

In message re: ugh, dmonger said:
> oh i never used to burn ... i still don't too much, although when i do its
> a great way to keep people from tickling you :)

nah it's cheating

> last year i got really burnt ... never go for a 3-4 hour tubbing trip on the
> delaware with now shirt or sunblock.  Big ol blisters all over my shoulders.

well next time wear a shirt and don't try to be so macho :)

-tammie, she who never tans or burns because we don't get warm enough 
weather for it here


From Pinochet@yabbs Wed Aug 17 08:31:49 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 08:31:49 1994

Okay, I've got a scenario for you.  Nature comes along and produces a 
super-cow.  We are talking a veritable lawn-mower of herbivores.  Grows 10 
feet tall, weighs a few tons...elephant sized here.  It could possibly 
solve the third world's protein and dairy problem forever.  But it only 
likes to eat a certain kind of plant.  In fact, it eats all of these 
plants. The super-cows, even though they are bovine stupid, have changed 
the environment.  They have caused the extinction of another specie.  

Is the cow guilty.  It couldn't reason that it was killing off all of 
plant "A", but it did it anyway.  

Evolution kicks some species to the curb.  Weather shifts kick some 
species to the curb.  The shifting of tectonic plates have caused more 
extinctions through the ages than one would dream about.  And lets not 
forget disease.  Man is not very efficient at extinction, it should take 
lessons from nature.

From Pinochet@yabbs Wed Aug 17 08:37:16 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: CFCs
Date: Wed Aug 17 08:37:16 1994

Remember that anti-American "Earth Summit" that all the tree-huggers were 
salivating over back in '92?  They wanted everyone to sit down and put CFC 
production under a global council to monitor what was being done.  And all 
those "ecosystem rich" tin pot countries refused to sign!  The granola 
heads were stunned.  Wasn't this the great panacea that woud solve all the 
worlds problems in one fell swoop?  They want refridgeration.  They want 
to be able to store food.  They told the pseudoscientists to go to 
hell...they wanted Ben and Jerry's in the freezer.  China is pumping out 
more CFCs at the moment than the entire US production in the entire 1970s. 

The hole has never been proven to be caused by CFCs, so give me a can of 
PAM and I'm going to eat non-stick muffins for dinner!  

From dmonger@yabbs Wed Aug 17 08:53:30 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 08:53:30 1994

whatever


From htoaster@yabbs Wed Aug 17 11:41:28 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 11:41:28 1994

In message forced evolution, Pinochet said:
> Okay, I've got a scenario for you.  Nature comes along and produces a 
> super-cow.  We are talking a veritable lawn-mower of herbivores.  Grows 10 
> feet tall, weighs a few tons...elephant sized here.  It could possibly 
> solve the third world's protein and dairy problem forever.  But it only 
> likes to eat a certain kind of plant.  In fact, it eats all of these 
> plants. The super-cows, even though they are bovine stupid, have changed 
> the environment.  They have caused the extinction of another specie.  

first of all, meat will never solve the worlds food problems.  no matter what
kind it is meat takes a lot more resources (water, food, etc) to create than
a similar amount of plant matter...i've heard ratios from 1:10 to 1:40 or so...

also, if a cow is twice the size of a current cow, it would probably require
twice the amount of resources to stay alive, so a bigger cow is not necessarily
a win over a current cow...

> Is the cow guilty.  It couldn't reason that it was killing off all of 
> plant "A", but it did it anyway.  

at this point in time humans have control over most such evolution (through
controlled breeding and stuff).  so man would probably make this super-cow,
and man would be responsible...

the cow would also kill itself by eating all of these plants, since these
plants are its only food source...

> Evolution kicks some species to the curb.  Weather shifts kick some 
> species to the curb.  The shifting of tectonic plates have caused more 
> extinctions through the ages than one would dream about.  And lets not 
> forget disease.  Man is not very efficient at extinction, it should take 
> lessons from nature.

Man tends to accelarate natural progression.  At our current rate we will 
pretty much make exticent any animal that needs its own land to live in...
we'll end up with a world of parasites and rodents...

yumm...rats for dinner...

alex


From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 17 12:03:38 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 12:03:38 1994

"yumm...rats for dinner..."

but i didn't think you ate meat, alex

natalie :)

From Typhon@yabbs Wed Aug 17 12:34:06 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 12:34:06 1994

Humans are natural yes. I agree. As natural beings with no natural enemies 
and no one oprey species, we exploit and overfill our niche (All omnivores 
will do this unless stopped by arc-predation, leading to their own 
extinction.) We will succeed in killing ourselves off fairly soon.

Typhon the Anticipating

From Pinochet@yabbs Wed Aug 17 12:54:32 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 12:54:32 1994

On the topic of the Super Cow "Wonder Cow", I was only dealing in 
hypotheticals.  I never said that the cow could solve the worlds food 
problems...I said protein problems.  Big difference.  And the cow was said 
to "like" eating the plant not that the cow was totally dependent upon the 
plant for survival like in som symbiosis.

If man is an animal and animals are parts of nature then isn't man a part 
of nature?  And because he is part of nature how is anything he does 
unnatural?  

Other species have come along and totally whiped out other species, but we 
don't hold prayer vigils for them.  This is human bashing at its highest
!!!!!!!!!!!

From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 17 13:36:01 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 13:36:01 1994

well, i don't consider myself an environmentalist or anti-human in any 
way.  but i do think that we destroy toooo much of the environment.  we 
kill animals for fun.  it's called deer season.  my family participates 
every year.  my family doesn't need the meat to survive.  they just want 
to sit in the forest, drink beer, tell stories, and maybe kill bambi.  
(not that anyone has actually gotten a deer recently.)  but my point is 
this: we do more damage to the world than we have to to survive.  we're in 
the process of wiping out everything that is in technology's way.  we have 
to pay more attention to the environment, or else there won't be and more 
forests for my family to sit in and drink beer.  

natalie
who had the misfortune of being born on the opening day of rifle season in 
michigan...this sorta thing's in my blood, folx...

From dmonger@yabbs Wed Aug 17 13:55:20 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 13:55:20 1994

and for that matter, aren't we stopping our own evolution with a lot of these
silly moral laws we have.  I mean come on, thou shalt not kill ... that's
gonna stop natural selection among ourselves.

i think the USDA should start tainting beef at random (as if its not done 
enough already) to start weeding out the week humans.

after all, its only natural 

-peter


From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:14:24 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:14:24 1994

   I understand your point and I agree that we are advancing too fast for 
some species to keep up, but the fact remains that we are the dominant 
species and we cant help impacting the environment in some way or another. 
 Mother nature likes to destroy just as much as we do.  You can't expect 
to all of the sudden stop human advancement.  Eventually we will colonize 
other worlds and leave Earth as a nature reserve, but until then we can't 
stop impacting the ecosystems without halting technologival advancement.

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:16:08 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:16:08 1994

there's somethin to meditate on :)

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:18:29 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: CFCs
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:18:29 1994

   Almost forgot to mention that the environmentalists also deprived us of 
THE best fire-fighting chemical ever, HALON.  It used to save hundreds of 
lives a year and no suitable replacement has been found.

balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:25:27 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:25:27 1994

   Valid point, humans actually have stopped evolving.  In the good ol 
days, a near-sighted person would have been lunch for a smilodon, but now 
he gets glasses, thus passing the near-sighted gene to his off spring.  
(sorry to offend any near-sighted ppl out ther, I have atshma and thus 
would have been killed off too).  Humans have eliminated their own natural 
selection because we feel sorry for anyone with a medical or physical 
problem.  One day we will be the sickest species around.  One can only 
hope for genetic engineering...
balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:27:34 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: tainted meat
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:27:34 1994

cancel that cheeseburger    :)

balistic

From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 17 16:04:55 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 16:04:55 1994

i hope that genetic engineering doesn't become a reality.  because then 
those with 'undesirable' characteristics will be considered inferior.  and 
who does the deciding of the 'desirable' characteristics?  why those in 
power of course...if i see the day when THAT happens, that is the day i 
commit suicide.

natalie

From htoaster@yabbs Wed Aug 17 17:10:11 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: forced evolution
Date: Wed Aug 17 17:10:11 1994

In message re: forced evolution, Natalie said:
> "yumm...rats for dinner..."
> 
> but i didn't think you ate meat, alex

i don't...but i don't think too many people would enjoy rats anyway...

wait, maybe they taste like chicken...

alex


From dmonger@yabbs Wed Aug 17 17:31:34 1994
From: dmonger@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 17:31:34 1994

In message re: don't cry for the ecosystem, balistic said:
>    I understand your point and I agree that we are advancing too fast for 
> some species to keep up, but the fact remains that we are the dominant 
> species and we cant help impacting the environment in some way or another. 

i agree with this fact.  I've never said we should keep from impacting the 
environment.  

>  Mother nature likes to destroy just as much as we do.  

Except that mother nature is much more random than we are, and is perfectly 
willing to take humans down a peg as well.

> stop impacting the ecosystems without halting technologival advancement.

i don't remmeber when i said we should become cave-dwelling apes again, except
to counter what was (IMO) an equally extreme example.

i realize that we will have an effect on the ecosystem in everything we do.  
What you have to realize is that we can potentially have a less detrimental
effect, if we're willing to give up a little of our own comfort and convenieice

for example, if people were willing to walk more or ride bikes, or use other
less poluting forms of transportation than the current a-car-in-every-pot 
situation that we have, ozone and carbon monoxide levels in the city wouldn't
be as bad.

As i've said, the argument that we're just another species tooling our way 
through life isn't one i really buy.  I agree we're pretty much just apes with
bigger brains, and we still have some reminants of our former evolutionary 
selves, but we also have a few "gifts".  When we destroy a wetland so we can
put in a mini-mall, its not a random, mother-naturesque act.  

my point is still that we have a greater responsibility for our actions 
and their detrimental (or positive) effects on the ecosystem, because we have
a much free-er hand in our own actions.  

If the uber-cow decides to destroy all of one type of grass, its cause it had 
little choice in the matter, it was eat or survive.  If we destroy all of one 
type of grass, its usually cause we wanted a dairy-queen.

-peter
who's really in the mood for some uberhamburgers right about now 



From Typhon@yabbs Wed Aug 17 18:49:08 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: balistic@yabbs
Subject: Weak Humans
Date: Wed Aug 17 18:49:08 1994

Not only that, but mentally we've deteriorated in some ways.
Case in point: In the past, before Civilization, stupid people would have 
been beastfood. Now, they are politicians.

Typhon the Usurper

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 22:19:07 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 22:19:07 1994

   If genetic engineering was controlled by a monopoly, then yes it would 
be unfair, but if it was used to create cures for diseases and 
more-adaptable animals then I feel it would be beneficial.

balistic the genome

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 22:24:18 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: dmonger@yabbs
Subject: re: don't cry for the ecosystem
Date: Wed Aug 17 22:24:18 1994

We could argue about this for centuries and get almost nowhere, oh well, I 
don't think humans have ver been completely curtain about anything.  Some 
good news on the CO3 front though.  I think hydrogen will be the fuel of 
the future.  Not only is it highly flammable, but when you burn it all you 
get out the exhaust is pure water.  Another good reason to suck on a 
tailpipe :)

P.S.....dairy queen sucks :)
balistic

From balistic@yabbs Wed Aug 17 22:25:19 1994
From: balistic@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Weak Humans
Date: Wed Aug 17 22:25:19 1994

hehheh....and game show hosts :)
balistic the de-evolved

From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 18 08:17:23 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: politicians
Date: Thu Aug 18 08:17:23 1994

"In the past, before Cvilization studpid people would have been beastfood. 
 Now they are polticians."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

From rick@yabbs Sun Aug 21 21:38:51 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: swamp kill
Date: Sun Aug 21 21:38:51 1994

i wanted some feed back to a problem that i discovered this week. will 
driving down a dirt road near my home i discovered a swamp that had been 
totaly killed. if you have ever seen a swamp you know that it is normaly 
full of life. death giving life. but what i have seen was a barren waste 
land turned totaly white from a kaolin plant neer the swamp. it was like 
going through a blank spot in a music tape. no sounds...no 
movement...nothing

i am not what is known as an eviromental whack-o but what i saw caused a 
rage that cannot be stopped. i have hunted in the swamps for years. i am 
at home in the swamp and respect it's purpose but to see one totaly dead 
was to much... what can i do short of blowing the plant to cosmic dust

not a whack0 just a human

rick

From Natalie@yabbs Sun Aug 21 22:03:06 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: rick@yabbs
Subject: re: swamp kill
Date: Sun Aug 21 22:03:06 1994

hmmm....i don't know what to tell you....there's a swamp behind my house, 
and it's so cooooool...there's tons and tons of wetlands around where i 
live, and i michigan, you can't do anything to hurt them, which i think is 
really cool....and it stops a lot of the developers tooooo...i HATE 
subdivisions, i hate them i hate them i hate them...

natalie

From Jazzy@yabbs Tue Aug 23 09:11:52 1994
From: Jazzy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: read /i roth
Date: Tue Aug 23 09:11:52 1994