Alternative Facts predicted by Dr. Who 40 years ago

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:21:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:13:42 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:40:24 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:12:50 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:07:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:18:34 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I firmly believe that nobody should ever experience poverty, but that
growing up with only the resources needed to just get by is valuable,

Hypocrite.

Another word you don't understand.

As a sociopath, your participation in this discussion is pointless.

You had better watch that libel, peterson.

Now, if YOU grew up even mildly privileged, then who are you to muse on growing up poor being a good thing? Hypocrite.

This is a discussion for those who comprehend what good ethics and
good moral character are.

That counts you out, peterson.

Not for monsters such as yourself.

You're the socialist monster, peterson.

Now, think back on the advantages you had and how little you made of them, peterson.

As usual, you are clueless about what the discussion is about.

This discussion is about your hypocrisy, peterson. If you think it is OK for a child to have just enough to get by, then it would be OK for a dried up boomer such as you to have just enough to get by. And when YOU were a child, you had MORE than enough to get by, so who the **** are YOU to preach?

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:

As usual, you are clueless about what the discussion is about.

This discussion is about your hypocrisy, peterson. If you think it is OK for a child to have just enough to get by, then it would be OK for a dried up boomer such as you to have just enough to get by. And when YOU were a child, you had MORE than enough to get by, so who the **** are YOU to preach?

As noted, clueless. When is your next court ordered treatment? Things
are always so much more intelligent around here without your
corruption.

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 23:25:19 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

As noted, clueless. When is your next court ordered treatment? Things
are always so much more intelligent around here without your
corruption.

Chris, Stop feeding the bogeyman and it can go back to being a *mythical* monster.

IMO: Car ownership is an extreme form of luxury denied to several billions.
I was a very late adopter and still do almost all of our shopping by cycle.
Most of it in hilly rural conditions in cold weather for many months of the year.
Only great size or great weight cannot be easily managed by ordinary cycle.
Though trailers can greatly extend the capability.
These can easily be built from scrap/found materials.
50-60 mile cycle shopping trips are easily possible once basic cycle fitness has been reached.
It just needs manageable roads or cycle paths.

Many city living Danes eschew car ownership and choose cycling for its greater speed and convenience over driving.
No doubt they are much healthier for the exercise.
AND much wealthier for not having to fill the bottomless hole in the road outside their homes or for city parking.

The poor who deny themselves the use of charity/thrift shops for their clothing needs are choosing greater poverty over empty pride.
Those who smoke, drink alcohol, gamble or abuse drugs, are NOT poor.
If they can afford ANY of these then they deliberately choose greater poverty for themselves and their families.
Any claim of a need for escape from their misery is just bull****.

What makes me sick is that older cars are/were much less secure against theft.
So, unless one removed the rotor arm it was fair game.
For every scum bag who just needed a free ride home from the pub or club.

Poverty, of thought, is a chosen lifestyle for many scum bags.
They steal from those of their own social and lower economic class.
Street gangs and organized criminality are the perfect manifestation of that blind, parasitic sociopathy.
They bring poverty of choice, environment and lifestyle to countless others.

Over 50 million Americans per year use dangerous, illegal drugs.
That is absolute poverty of the imagination.
The Golden Bogeyman's Great Wall is not going to stop American's desperate need to escape from their chosen poverty of lifestyle.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:41:11 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Many city living Danes eschew car ownership and choose cycling for its greater speed and convenience over driving.
No doubt they are much healthier for the exercise.
AND much wealthier for not having to fill the bottomless hole in the road outside their homes or for city parking.

I have bicycled many miles in Denmark, mainly in the surrounds of
Viborg and of Odense. Very pleasant terrain for that. A bit in
Copenhagen, as well, but I prefer not biking around heavy car traffic.

Certainly, living in any reasonable sized city with modern
infrastructure there is little reason to own a car. Indeed, I think
the next decade or two will see a significant shift away from owning
cars to owning shares in them, or to utilizing public networks of
shared vehicles. It's a pretty obvious direction.

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 15:59:55 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I have bicycled many miles in Denmark, mainly in the surrounds of
Viborg and of Odense. Very pleasant terrain for that. A bit in
Copenhagen, as well, but I prefer not biking around heavy car traffic.

Congratulations. My usual patch is on Fyn. I always take two bike locks to Odense. ;-)

Certainly, living in any reasonable sized city with modern
infrastructure there is little reason to own a car. Indeed, I think
the next decade or two will see a significant shift away from owning
cars to owning shares in them, or to utilizing public networks of
shared vehicles. It's a pretty obvious direction.

Agreed. Fleet sharing makes most sense.
Most people [probably] don't want to share simultaneously.
AI will safely deliver the car to the door on demand.

Universal Robotix and AI will soon sweep all the jobs away.
So the need for commuting at exactly the same start and finish times should finally end.
It's odd how poorly the human race is organized.
Ants [and women] are far better at this sort of thing.

Talking of the organization of mass human migration:

"Great Pride and Prejudice."
A very short story about The Golden-Maned Bogeyman. El Trumpo!
Hitler and Stalin had their famous moustaches and their micro-penises...
This one swapped a golden Tower of Babel for a half-arsed, Gringo wall..
If only he had been better at sums.. We, and he, wouldn't be in this mess now.
The Germans are usually much better at organizing mass transits.
What went wrong this time?

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
Um, how do you define "poverty"? Usually, the definition in use in developed
countries includes not having anything for luxuries - not merely having
inadequate resources for the absolute necessities.

Well, it is certainly relative in many respects.

Some people will say that it isn't legitimate to take relative poverty into
account, because that's just catering to the vice of envy.

However, they are forgetting one thing.

Some of the necessities of life are in limited supply, so that those who are
relatively poorer don't have a chance of getting them.

For men, finding a mate depends quite a bit on one's relative wealth. And
without a mate, one's genes are absent from the next generation - a form of
death.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

As noted, clueless. When is your next court ordered treatment?

That's libel, peterson.

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:41:11 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Many city living Danes eschew car ownership and choose cycling for its greater speed and convenience over driving.
No doubt they are much healthier for the exercise.
AND much wealthier for not having to fill the bottomless hole in the road outside their homes or for city parking.

I have bicycled many miles in Denmark, mainly in the surrounds of
Viborg and of Odense. Very pleasant terrain for that. A bit in
Copenhagen, as well, but I prefer not biking around heavy car traffic.

When in Colorado Springs, your SUV contributes to "heavy car traffic."

Certainly, living in any reasonable sized city with modern
infrastructure there is little reason to own a car. Indeed, I think
the next decade or two will see a significant shift away from owning
cars to owning shares in them, or to utilizing public networks of
shared vehicles. It's a pretty obvious direction.

Then you should move to Colorado Springs, which should have a decent-enough bus system, where you can stop driving and where you can transport your dogs to a nearby vet in a toy wagon. It's up to you to find a walk-able neighborhood, though.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." -MG

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:53:51 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
Um, how do you define "poverty"? Usually, the definition in use in developed
countries includes not having anything for luxuries - not merely having
inadequate resources for the absolute necessities.

Well, it is certainly relative in many respects.

Some people will say that it isn't legitimate to take relative poverty into
account, because that's just catering to the vice of envy.

However, they are forgetting one thing.

Some of the necessities of life are in limited supply, so that those who are
relatively poorer don't have a chance of getting them.

For men, finding a mate depends quite a bit on one's relative wealth. And
without a mate, one's genes are absent from the next generation - a form of
death.

John Savard

So you're saying it's women who drive the demand for McMansions, SUVs and other luxuries?

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:03:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:

As usual, you are clueless about what the discussion is about.

This discussion is about your hypocrisy, peterson. If you think it is OK for a child to have just enough to get by, then it would be OK for a dried up boomer such as you to have just enough to get by. And when YOU were a child, you had MORE than enough to get by, so who the **** are YOU to preach?

As noted, clueless.

So you are refusing to engage in discussion, and resort to your usual empty insult, peterson?

You didn't grow up with "just enough to get by." If, as an adult, (and I use that term lightly when applying it to you, peterson) you are concerned about global warming, perhaps you should get rid of everything except "just what you need to get by."

Some parents use their discretionary income to pay for music lessons, dance lessons, sports, books, telescopes, etc, for their children. A family or child "just getting by" would not have those.

Hypocrite.