Full Marx Squeers!

That last post of mine was a cross-post, but I trust not too cross. (I had written it before I saw your re-read acknowledgement, but having polished it to 350 words I was damned if I was going to waste it!) Anyone can misread a post. I, for one, momentarily misread Poirot's post as "I've got to say that it does sound a tad fanciful for Flannery to assume mankind is approaching some sort of fulfilling zenith of correctedness - disconnectedness, more likely." Now why would I have ever thought that? Correctedness. Dear, dear. Nearly enough silly sausages for a virtuous barbecue!




Bugsy says, with reference to Banjo's opening post quotes and in response to my questioning of his/her questioning of Banjo's having watched the video:

"... I would have thought it would be obvious!
Selective , out of context quotes that just happen
to exactly match selective, out of context quotes
from both Andrew Bolts blog ... and Tim Blair's
blog at the Daily Telegraph."

If this proves anything, it is that neither Banjo nor I read these two blogsters. Neither of us recognised the origin of Flannery's words. More to the point, however, is that we must all question why Flannery was effectively quoting them! Are they all, unbeknown to us lesser mortals, singing from the same hymn book?

I, for my part, must confess to not only having not read Bolt or Blair, but to a faith-based assessment of Flannery's words. I had faith Banjo had quoted accurately from the video (never having watched it myself), and I was right, with Bugsy standing as witness to the efficacy of that act of faith. Now don't nobody tell me Bugsy didn't watch it neither!

Perhaps we can agree Tim Flannery is the Man who fell to Earth, that he is really here to steal our water for his android mates who are off the planet, and that he has no idea as to the duplicity of globalized corporatism.



Why don't people take me more seriously?

Just thinking again that this assumption of a super-organism, connected and in harmony with all its parts is really a Western-centric point of view.

According to Jessica Williams in her book "50 Facts that Should Change the World", published last decade, 70 percent of the world's population have never heard a dial tone. At the time of the book's publication there were probably 600 million internet users in the world, nearly all of them in industrialised countries.
According to Jessica, in Africa less than one percent of its 800 million people had a computer. Only one in four people owned a radio and one in forty a telephone.

"We will be regulating intelligence for the planet"

....mmmm sounds a little too Orwellian for my liking - in fact, just a ramping up of the globalised paradigm already installed quite successfully throughout the developing world.

It seems to height of arrogance to conclude that man has it all stitched up just because the more fortunate of the species have fashioned a system of swift communication and knowledge dissemination.

Someone once said that despite man's innovations, when the earth shrugs all is in ruin. We should head that lesson - and we only have to look at Japan's current plight to see that it is true

How often do I lament my lack of editing skills? - very often : )

That last sentence should begin.....We should "heed" that lesson....

"So funny to see these 'scientist' conjure up lies and claim it is science"......Iam not going to say a word:)

LEAP

And you two across the road! Its more than sarcasm:) private message:)

Members Not apply!

Please continue.

Squeers
What is "neoliberalism", pray?

I had thought it was a species of liberalism, but obviously it includes government officials appointed to promote government schemes of government control of production based on government propaganda.