Do as we say, but don't do as we do.

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

Quote:

---

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

---

Or, it can be gathered up and used as a power source. Which has already been done, by the way.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

---

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything. :inquisitive:

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

Over here nobody (either way) pays for the recycling per-se; everybody pays for the service that is collecting the waste and disposing of it somehow... though.

Perhaps I am on a different planet? :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river :yes:

---

If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything. :inquisitive:

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

---

Garbage men are volunteers?

You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.

---

Yes, this is what I was refering to.

Quote:

---

Garbage men are volunteers?

---

That is something different, also Garbage men play a very important part in our healthcare. Garbage men are probably the most underrated and unrespected lines of work compared to how very important they are to the daily running of our cities and places. :book2:

Making them handle recycling with seperate bins is also using the existing service to make mass recycling which is very effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

No it doesn't.*

Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.

There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.

As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.

*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.

---

speaking as someone who ran a recycling and reprocessing company, and operated a household source segregated recycling scheme; it all depends on the level of contamination.

mixed paper products contaminated with food waste cannot be given away, a 40ft container would be turned away from shotton is more than a few bits of brown card were found in office paper recycling.
white office paper without contamination can be worth £80/tonne.

mixed glass used to be worth about £15/tonne
colour separated cullet varies from £30 to £60 depending on the colour, because while we use a lot of green glass such as wine and beer bottles, we don't actually produce it, whereas clear glass is something we produce a tonne of.

mixed plastics (of both type and form) is worth very little, however some plastics such a PET can be worth as much as £800/tonne when uncontaminated, cleaned, and re-pelleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

These first two are very interesting, since majority of conservatives want less regulation, however, it is regulation that prevents monopolies and cartels and very many call for no state interventation at all saying it should be the "market forces". However, the absense of regulation mean companies go uncheck as they become above the law in a big way (worse than some practises today) and they form cartels and monopolies, even to a point of running the state and oppressing the people themselves. It is generally the left which calls for greater regulation to prevent economic abuse by businesses and banks and other things, as they believe that oppression and authoritianship is a bad thing.

(Which goes back to the point, that saying a dictatorship is left-wing is completely invalid, since the left-wing is against authoritarianship, since it doesn't meet the basic criteria, it is obviously not the left.)

---

Look up the Corn Laws for an example of Liberals breaking cartels through removing regulation. Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.

Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.

The modern Left is autocratic in that it oppresses the individual in favour of some nebulous "greater good", decided by the Left itself. I prefer the original Liberals, who had concern for both the individual and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.

Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.

---

Well, if you don't have regulation on the economy, just like you have regulation on government, you get exploited and manulapated by those with vast amounts of undeserved power. Lots of people tend to forget this, the ones who get hit by regulation are generally not the "common man", it would be the CEO's and other higher managers of the companies. Regulation prevents monoplies, they prevent price fixing, they are there to stop companies trying to exploit their consumers.

I think the banking crisis is the perfect example of what happens if you don't keep those with vast amounts of power not on a leash. Since all the countries which have tighter regulation got hit no where near as hard and they only got hit due to trade with nations that did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).

Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.



I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency. :beam:

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

---

Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.

Looks like your energy efficiency is terribad actually :-(

Edit: For the sources, go here. Yeah yeah, they are envo's nutjobs greeno terrorists.

Edit2: And I don't pay anyone to take the recycling away. Never had, never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevDave

If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for.

---

Companies try to rip the consummer off as much as possible anyway? Why don't you rant about that for a change?

And I am no leftie but thanks anyway. Maybe some day the american right will get its head off its bum and actually realizes that all people who care about global warming aren't greeno's nutjobs. Crazy **** I know, but many people on the right also think global warming is an important issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Well, if you don't have regulation on the economy, just like you have regulation on government, you get exploited and manulapated by those with vast amounts of undeserved power. Lots of people tend to forget this, the ones who get hit by regulation are generally not the "common man", it would be the CEO's and other higher managers of the companies. Regulation prevents monoplies, they prevent price fixing, they are there to stop companies trying to exploit their consumers.

I think the banking crisis is the perfect example of what happens if you don't keep those with vast amounts of power not on a leash. Since all the countries which have tighter regulation got hit no where near as hard and they only got hit due to trade with nations that did.

---

You presume I believe in such a thing as, "deserved power", though that begs the question of who people who make money are "undeserving".

Actual price fixing is done by regulation, collusion is arguably less dangerous because most businesses tend to react when people become too poor/the black market takes over. The government blithly ignores such problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.

---

Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.

---

Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.

Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.

Political will is the overriding reason.



Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.

And the amount of CO2 compared by GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

The US and Australia are somewhere down below in between Malawi and the People's Democratic Republic of Laos.

Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.

Note where Japan, Germany, Britain and all the other economical powerhouses of this world are. Somewhere near the top, together with the rest of the industrialised world. So there is no economical penalty for being energy efficient. It will not ruin your economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.

Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.

Political will is the overriding reason.



Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.

---

More BS. Idaho has a lower per capita than California. And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN. :wall:

I don't want to pay more for anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The US has more emissions because it's larger, has more people spread out over a much bigger area, and we're not about to idiotically cripple our industry to stop CO2 from being emitted.

Quote:

---

Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.

---

I guess that shows who the smart ones are. :laugh4:

CR

Quote:

---

And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.

---

Venus is hotter than Mercury. :book:

Quote:

---

And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.

---

Azatoth is right. This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Venus is hotter than Mercury. :book:

---

The clincher as to why that is the case, is amusing in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The clincher as to why that is the case, is amusing in this discussion.

---

Really? Because mercury has no atmosphere, the direct opposite of venus?

Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Is venus' temperature increasing? Or is it at equilibrium now?

Quote:

---

This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.

---

Yes, lots of CO2 - and other gases.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Really? Because mercury has no atmosphere, the direct opposite of venus?

Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Is venus' temperature increasing? Or is it at equilibrium now?

---

If it is at equilibrium, it's probably because massive cloud of gas blocks out the sunlight.

I don't think venus is a telling example for either side of the argument, and louis didn't really intend it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Azatoth is right. This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.

---

while an amusing little aside, that overly simplifies the issue, as venus lacks the single largest carbon control mechanism available to a planet; plate tectonics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is?

---

Sure. See links below. :book:


Only greenhouse effects on planet earth are controversial. All of the other planets lack an oil industry so the study of their greenhouse effects can be studied objectively.


NASA would be a good place to start. There are such scientific endeavors as planetology and astrobiology, where it is commonly understood that greenhouse effects are an important constituency of a planet's climate. These greenhouse effects are studied and commonly accepted. No 'lack of complete models', no fake or bought science, no vested interests trying to create 'controversy'.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/new...ws.cfm?id=1386

Or Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Sure. See links below. :book:


Only greenhouse effects on planet earth are controversial. All of the other planets lack an oil industry so the study of their greenhouse effects can be studied objectively.


NASA would be a good place to start. There are such scientific endeavors as planetology and astrobiology, where it is commonly understood that greenhouse effects are an important constituency of a planet's climate. These greenhouse effects are studied and commonly accepted. No 'lack of complete models', no fake or bought science, no vested interests trying to create 'controversy'.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/new...ws.cfm?id=1386

Or Wikipedia:

---

"The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other"
those two words, and the specific placement, seem important for some reason.

and again, no plate tectonics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

"The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other"
those two words, and the specific placement, seem important for some reason.

and again, no plate tectonics.

---

The exact differences between Venus and Earth are not the point. The point is that it is commonly understood that - all else being equal - the emission of greenhouse gasses causes a...greenhouse effect.

Except, apparantly, on earth. Where this very basic, two centuries old scientific fact just a theory is 'controversial'.

Is the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere rising?
Is CO2 a greenhouse effect?
If yes, then all else being equal there will be an increase in greenhouse effect.



Plate tectonics work in a timeframe irrelevant to the human experience. I don't care about the climate a million years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The exact differences between Venus and Earth are not the point. The point is that it is commonly understood that - all else being equal - the emission of greenhouse gasses causes a...greenhouse effect.

Except, apparantly, on earth. Where this very basic, two centuries old scientific fact just a theory is 'controversial'.

Is the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere rising?
Is CO2 a greenhouse effect?
If yes, then all else being equal there will be an increase in greenhouse effect.



Plate tectonics work in a timeframe irrelevant to the human experience. I don't care about the climate a million years from now.

---

and yet you quote back at me the geologicial history of venus, as if it has some consequent relevance as a comparison to the earth right now...........

Louis,

i have NEVER argued that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, i merely have doubts that our climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 as per the IPCC consensus.

my point about plate tectonics was made to create an awareness within a layman that this is a complex system that is poorly understood, and that the assumptions that underpin climate models may have no basis in reality, thus the IPCC diagnosis may be wildly wrong, thus their recommended prescription totally irrelevant, and their prognosis of no consequence.

I like how we do the same posts over 3 different threads and they will never end due to either side unwilling to give ground amongst those who are completely unreasonable posting in between who call everything a grand socialist dictatorship in the making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

.....................amongst those who are completely unreasonable posting in between who call everything a grand socialist dictatorship in the making.

---

nearly as daft as those who brand skepticism as "deniers", and merely useful idiots* for Big-Oil/US-multinationals/MIC/Neo-Cons/etc.



* well, you guys would recognise that one most readily!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

nearly as daft as those who brand skepticism as denial, and merely useful idiots* for Big-Oil/US-multinationals/MIC/Neo-Cons/etc.



* well, you guys would know best!

---

Well, I already gave my position on Global Warming some where, and if I remember correctly, you agreed with it.

So I know you are not on about me. :beam:

edit: Though much of the skepticism argument is funded and backed up by Big-Oil/US-Multinationals/etc, it is just one of those amusing facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Well, I already gave my position on Global Warming some where, and if I remember correctly, you agreed with it.

So I know you are not on about me. :beam:

---

and i know mine has been bandied about, is it so extreme?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and i know mine has been bandied about, is it so extreme?

---

If I remember correctly, you just stated about large economic costs, amongst other things. You haven't outright denied climate change/global warming, you probably believe there are alternative methods and the threat might not be as serious as some claim which would call for such urgent very high costs and really inefficient methods.

I commented my personal opinion that there are many things that should be done anyway (such as a need for increased energy efficiency, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, etc), which as a secondary benefit (as in, not the aim of the changes) would lower CO2 emissions anyway, as I don't care/mind if those things are done. Though, I would agree that some of the suggested ideas and plans, and some of the more expensive ones are a total waste.

* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"

I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.

I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.

I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.

I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.

And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.

My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.

Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

edit: Though much of the skepticism argument is funded and backed up by Big-Oil/US-Multinationals/etc, it is just one of those amusing facts.

---

Indeed. And almost all of the alarmist argument is funded by people who are making a ton of money on it (Al Gore) or by governments. The truth is that everybody will back the result they prefer, and neither side should be vilified simply for who backs them, since both sides are backed by groups which are equally distasteful in some eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Indeed. And almost all of the alarmist argument is funded by people who are making a ton of money on it (Al Gore) or by governments. The truth is that everybody will back the result they prefer, and neither side should be vilified simply for who backs them, since both sides are backed by groups which are equally distasteful in some eyes.

---

Reminds me of a comedy sketch, I think it was South Park though...

Anyway, no one would vote on the same side as the racists/facists, and they kept voting for the person they wanted and they would obviously get elected. So some one came up for the bright idea of them voting for the otherside, and what happened was, people shifted to vote for the choice they wanted.

That admittedly, tickled me.

Yes, there are new green economics which want to take advantage, even businesses. But the thing is, the worst offenders voting against something is a bad sign. They could do alternative things to make themselves and that position look far better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Yes, there are new green economics which want to take advantage, even businesses. But the thing is, the worst offenders voting against something is a bad sign. They could do alternative things to make themselves and that position look far better.

---

Perhaps so, but they are not funding the majority of the skeptic movement. On the other hand, government and people such as Al Gore and pro-green businesses are funding the global warming side, because they all have a lot to lose if it fails. Therefore, who funds what doesn't matter, because both sides have a vested interest in seeing their side prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

---

Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?

---

I think indiana has coal. And lots of manufacturing.

CO2 emission by State reflects the distribution of energy sources available, the existence of energy production, and manufacturing activities. So I'll give Louisiana and Alaska a pass. Oil refinery and oil exploitation create a lot of CO2 emission.

But the story does not stop there. Compare for example:

New Mexico 29.81
Arizona 15.98


The leftist West Coast is simply at European / Japanese levels:

Washington State 12.80
Oregon 12.35
California 11.07

Half that of their neighbours in the Rockies. Yet these three states are not economically ruined by clamping down on pollution. Far from it. Neither is Sweden or Denmark or Japan. Wastefulness is not a succesful business model. Except for those who exploit and sell the resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Washington State 12.80
Oregon 12.35
California 11.07

Half that of their neighbours in the Rockies. Yet these three states are not economically ruined by clamping down on pollution. Far from it.

---

In the case of Cali, the economic effects of low-C02 usage may be lost in the general collapse. ~;)

In the case of states in the Rockies, you have mining, agriculture, lower population density, higher heating costs, and a dearth of 4WD vehicles that are actually being used for their intended purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

a dearth of 4WD vehicles that are actually being used for their intended purpose.

---

I think you mean "plethora," not "dearth," but yeah. I never mind seeing AWD vehicles in the country, but a Hummer in Manhattan is deeply offensive. Best bumper-sticker I ever saw on a civilian Humvee: "I'm changing the environment; ask me how!" Obviously not put there by the owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think you mean "plethora," not "dearth," but yeah.

---

Gah! Fancy word attempt fails! Even missed out on using my fav, plethora. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Gah! Fancy word attempt fails! Even missed out on using my fav, plethora. :shame:

---

plethora has always been one of my favourite words too, alongside plenipotentiary and plinth.

There was a plethora of plenipotentiary plinths in the narthex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There was a plethora of plenipotentiary plinths in the narthex.

---

Enough bloviating already.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Enough bloviating already.

Ajax

---

While I'm as much of a logolept as the next guy, threads shouldn't derail because of our logomachical strepsirrhine. Enough of this floccinaucinihilipilification indeed.

[loquacious irrelevancies]

I eschew ersatz ennui.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Hodor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Hodor.

---

See, there is power and strength to the Scandinavian languages.

Hødør!


I had to look it up in the dictionary. What appears at first sight as a random growl, has an intricate meaning, grounded in ancient culture and Nordic ritual. Hødør is an ancient word, used as an intervention, with a very specific, intricate meaning.

It means: 'I am sitting in my meadhall, surrounded by my warriors. I am nearly finished with that roasted wild boar. I'm drinking beer by the gallon out of the skull of the man I slew earlier today. Note that it is nearly empty. I shall soon need a refill. So I suggest you people stop your effiminate chatter full of fancy words and instead find me another keg of beer real soon or I'll start to rip off random limbs'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

---

https://i336.photobucket.com/albums/...ce-Diagram.gif

Ajax

(yeah, I know, I should have put the subjects in spec VP and then showed how they moved to spec TP . . . so sue me)

edit: and oops, forgot to capitalize Buffalo the city except for the first one. The two Buffalo's on the leftmost NP branches should also be capitalized.

Quote:

---

Ajax

(yeah, I know, I should have put the subjects in spec VP and then showed how they moved to spec TP . . . so sue me)

edit: and oops, forgot to capitalize Buffalo the city except for the first one. The two Buffalo's on the leftmost NP branches should also be capitalized.

---

What.

carbon must be reduced, yet we close our plant only for the same capacity and more to open in other countries, while the company doing the opening and closing rakes in more than a billion in carbon credits, all which is paid for by the british taxpayer who now hasn't even got that 'horrible' polluting job anymore:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...in-Redcar.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

What.

---

It's the syntactic structure of the sentence you posted ~;)

Ajax