I get all that stuff about downs and 10yards, and about kicking the ball through the goals and all. But, having never played gridiron/American football, there is one thing I just dont get everytime I watch the bleedin' game. I have played Australian football(aussie rules) and Rugby league. In these two games there is a lot of passing; you get the ball and you pass it, more often than not, rather than get tackled. BUT in American footy, a guy on the line of scrimmage gets the ball and throws it through his legs to another guy who then throws it to another guy who never ever passes it. I'm always sitting there and wondering why this guy never passes it off to someone running passed or to someone on his own who could run it in for a try. Is it against the rules to pass it more than 2 times or something...
Posts by Zep
-
62Could some-one please explain American football to me!
by Zep ini get all that stuff about downs and 10yards, and about kicking the ball through the goals and all.
but, having never played gridiron/american football, there is one thing i just dont get everytime i watch the bleedin' game.
i have played australian football(aussie rules) and rugby league.
-
-
-
46
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep ini get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it.
or, that its really not that bad.
govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, i'm thinking of australia and the usa at the moment.
-
-
Zep
ABOVE ARTICLE SAID: "Under the Kyoto Protocol, undeveloped Third-World nations – including China, India, Brazil and Mexico – will be free to produce whatever they want. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries. This is why many critics see is global wealth redistribution scheme rather than a real plan to improve the environment."...................................... "The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target," ............................................................................This is a very interesting. The flip side of this is that although these countries will account for 82% percent of projected emissions growth (note it isn't saying they will increase world emissions by 82%)I mean, developing countries tend to initially have a higher rate of economic growth than developed nations until it eventually levels out around the 3% mark as they become more developed, big deal. The biggest polluters as far as Greenhouse gas emmisions, would, I bet, still be, Western developed countries. They have been using fossil fuels far longer and in greater quantities than any developed nation has yet to do. They have reaped enormous benefits technology wise from their use. They themselves, if you believe global warming is real and caused by man, have largely used up the green house credit limit of the earth all by themselves. It is therefore just not fair for the developed world to say to developing world: "Hey, we caused this problem, we benefited greatly from the uninhibited use of greenhouse gases, you now have to shouldler the same burden as us in reducing them, you shouldn't be allowed to profit like we did"...................................................Kyoto, acording to Lomborg(author of the sceptical enviromentalist meantioned earlier), won't put a dent in the Global warming problem, the cuts in emissions are not enough. This is nothing new, Scientists and politicians, HELL, the Green movement have been saying the same thing for ages. Why they still want to implement the accord(as opposed to Lomborg), as far as I understand, is that it gives the world a foot in the door to work collectively on the problem of Global warming, it's a start not an end. Future discussions and agreements would eventually happen. These future agreements could involve cut backs in the emissions of developing countries, FOR THOSE STINGY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONCERNED THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MIGHT USURP U.S. MARKET DOMINANCE THROUGH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL. WHAT BULLSH*T!
-
46
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep ini get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it.
or, that its really not that bad.
govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, i'm thinking of australia and the usa at the moment.
-
-
Zep
SATANUS (apologies for lack of paragraphing, I'm using a different browser(Opera) that doesn't work too well on this site).................................................................................I just read what you wrote about the ocean acting as a carbon sink. You make it sound like there is no problem, that the ocean has almost an infinite ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Thats probably not what you meant, but thats how I'm reading what you just wrote. Is that what your implying? I looked at one of the sites you posted, the PLANKTOS site. They certainly dont seem to believe that the ocean has an almost infinite ability to absorb C02. I refer you their homepage, and just one quote from it: "...the ocean ecology is so delicately balanced it is already showing devastating change due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.".................................. .................................................................... In a previous post I said that some scientists are saying we might have to migrate to Nuclear technology in order to avoid the effects of global warming caused by increased burning of fossil fuels. The source of that claim was an interview of scientist James Lovelock. From what I read, he actually works in this area of science dealing plankton and the marine evironment. The interview can be seen here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1222553.htm. In it he says that basically the ocean has a tipping point where it will no longer be able to act as a carbon sink, where the plankton will begin to die due to warming of the ocean that si already happening. This is along similar lines to what PLANKTOS seem to be saying on their homepage.
-
46
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep ini get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it.
or, that its really not that bad.
govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, i'm thinking of australia and the usa at the moment.
-
-
Zep
FOUR QUESTIONS TO ASK A PERSON WHO DENIES MAN HAS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR GLOBAL WARMING: "If ever you meet one of these people[people who deny man has any responsibility for global warming], I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no – at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics." http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/27/the-fossil-fools/
-
26
NWO descends on iraqi farmers
by Satanus in"as part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the bush administration in iraq, iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years.
instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from us corporations.
that is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples.
-
-
Zep
Yeah, this is happening in India too. There is a huge protest movement on over there dealing with this issue. The documentary THE CORPORATION deals with some of this patenting of genes and WTO free trade stuff. If you aint seen it, you gotta. I like the story about how some South American country tried to to re-finance its public water company through the world bank. The World trade organisation required it privatized as a condition of the loan. People were forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money to brectel just for water. THE PEOPLE WERE EVEN FORBIDDEN TO COLLECT RAIN WATER. A huge protest movement kicked out brectel which subsequntly got a 25 million dollar payout via a WTO hearing. It's profiteering off the poor. It's immoral.
-
46
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep ini get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it.
or, that its really not that bad.
govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, i'm thinking of australia and the usa at the moment.
-
-
Zep
Logan said:
"I took an enviornmental biology course last semester and I can say quite confidently that the vast (vast!) majority of scientists believe global warming is a real problem."
--------------
This is what I hear too. Among the scientific community there is very little debate about the fact that Global warming is happening, AND THAT IT IS MAN MADE.
BUT...
The problem seems to be that there is a growing number of people denying that it is either happening or that man is causing it. High profile environmentalist David Bellamy, for example, who's a botanist and not a climatologist for the record, denies that its a problem...and says that it's even a good thing.
As far as Hydrogen goes as an alternative fuel. What I also hear is that its a bit of a scam. You have to burn a lot carbon just to produce one fuel cell?
As far as alternative energy sources are concerned in general, a lot of scientists are saying that it's just not going to be enough to maintain our current rate of consumption THERFORE we will have to turn go NUCLEAR as a sort of stop gap measure before alternative sources become viable. OR we will have to reduce consumption, THIS ESSENTIALLY MEANS JOB LOSSES AND REDUCED LIVING STANDARDS, just for those who only think in terms of modern economics.
On Kyoto, the main problem that countries who refuse to sign Kyoto (Australia and USA) have with the treaty is that it doesn't require growing economies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as much as 1st world countries. The retort from these growing economies is that the western industrial countries are the biggest polluters as far as Greenhouse gas is concerned. They have basically used up Earths Green-house gas credit limit themselves and profited very nicely from their use. Growing economies are p*ssed off that they don't get to profit from greenhouse gas use like the west has, and instead have to shoulder the same burden as western countries as far as reducing green house gas emissions are concerned. The US and Australia(countries that refuse to sign Kyoto) are just being selfish is what it breaks down to. They are too concerned about maintaining their market dominance over growing economies.
-
46
Is Global Warming just a load of BS...
by Zep ini get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it.
or, that its really not that bad.
govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, i'm thinking of australia and the usa at the moment.
-
-
Zep
I get the impression that a lot of the industrial countries really dont give a sh*t. Recently there seems to be a lot of people saying man has nothing to do with it. Or, that its really not that bad. Govenrnments dont seem to care too greatly either, I'm thinking of Australia and the USA at the moment. Both refuse to sign Kyoto. To them it seems to be a pain in the ass issue that they dont really want to deal with. Too concerned with GDP figures.
In the mean-time, while we are guzzling gas like there is no tommorrow, some prominient, non-petroleum company aligned scientists are starting to say we might have to switch to Nuclear Power (I dont know if Bush would like that) or dramatically reduce consumption.
What do you say. Is Greehouse just a load of hype about nothing?
-
75
I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian
by Zep inthe first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.
this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.
the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.
-
-
Zep
Sunchild
"Following any spiritual path is about finding one's own most effective, meaningful way of communing with the Divine, both in terms of God however you perceive Him/Her/It and the spark of God that lives within ourselves. Being a Pagan didn't work for me because I didn't experience that, at least not in the same "real" sense that I feel it as a Christian. It's a hard concept to put into words, but it's unmistakable."
Yeah, i get this one. This is good. I was just kiddin' around with the orgies stuff too BTW.
Little toe
Ummm....yeah well, i've completely forgotten what I've written in my last few posts.I cant be bothered trying to thrash it out so it makes sense because it just don't seem that important really. Logan sort of sounds right...I'd like to have the guys vocabulary too.
Fundamentalists(in all their variety) are ignorant and/or dishonest, thats what I'm saying. You can agree or disagree with that claim, thats your choice. But thats how I see it.
Funkyderek
sorry 'bout trying to turn you into cult figure. But i thought it sounded kinda good. Thats my warped sense of humour for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
75
I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian
by Zep inthe first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.
this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.
the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.
-
-
Zep
little toe
Yeah,well....
I don't think your reading me correctly.
Sunchild
Sorry, I am curious about your version of Christianity. I could throw heaps of questions at you right now...but I aint got time. I might get around to reading your essay fully too. But really, I feel theres no point, I'm too set in my ways. I'm an atheist, i'm not hugely passionate about Jesus, I don't see it changing.
I do want to ask: whats Christianity got that Paganism doesn't. I've never met a Pagan, atleast a person who'd call themselves a Pagan. It sounds like fun. All those festivals...orgies?????? Christianity must be so dull in comparison!
-
75
I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian
by Zep inthe first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.
this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.
the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.
-
-
Zep
sunchild
this is what funkyderek said:
"I think there's a third way. It's possible to follow (some or all of) the teachings of the biblical character Jesus without believing all of the mythology surrounding him. For some people, to be a Christian is simply to be like Christ - compassionate, contemplative, disdainful of religious hypocrisy. A story doesn't have to be literally true to have resonance."
I think this fits rev Shelby Spong perfectly. As far as I see this is a very broad catagory that FD is proposing.
"But why do non-fundamentlist definitions of Christianity bother you? Is there any specific reason?"
It doesn't bother, in the sense of making me angry, that Spong, or anyone for that matter, call themselves Christians. I just don't relate to it. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to use the FD definition or anything. I'm just too use to the idea that to be a Christian you have to believe in the literal truth of the bible. For me a Christian IS a fundamentalist. They believe that the bible is the word of God and it's pretty much all true and all that stuff happened. Thats my problem.
With FD's definition of a Christian you don't have to believe in any of the bible. You can dismiss it as complete hogwash, that its all made up. But you can still use the stories in the bible as motivational tools in your own life. Like FD says, a story doesn't have to be true to have resonance. With this definition of a Christian, because you don't believe that the bible is literally true, you can also dismiss certain moral tenants of the bible and still claim to be a Christian. You can sort of pick and choose your morality. Where do you draw the line as far as being a Christian is concerned? It's just too murky a definition of a Christian for me. Nah, I prefer to see a Christian as someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible and tries to follow all it's moral direction. Simple!
But...
Ok...I suppose there are 2 types of Christians: Fundamentalist Christians and Funkderek Christians. Both groups are very broad catagories. The Fundamentalists, with respect to their religion, are ignorant and dishonest. They may or may not be ignorant and/or dishonest in other aspects of life. The Funkyderek Christians are far more open minded and dont use the bible as an absolute road map to life. When science or reasoned argument weigh heavily against the bible the Funkyderek Christians dismiss the bible in favor of common sense. It is possible to be both a Funkyderek Christian and Fundamentalist Christian.
So..........long live the Cult of Funky Christians, even though i'm still not 100% comfortable with the definition and will probably still view a lot of them as unbelieving atheists like myself.