Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
Yup, Spring St. Communisto Dribblers and their fellow travellers their worst nightmares have come true: ruthless hunters are scalping hapless victims in return for a view of the footy game this weekend.First things first, anyone scalped have you reported this matter to the police.No. Oh don’t give me that bull about, well , I’ve been scalped thus: my pate has been sliced off or, like the top of an egg the top of the head has been sliced clean through and the grey matter is sliding out onto the floor around my feet like a bowl of Spaghetti. Dying, dead, you’ve been scalped, bleeding to death,brainless, not an excuse for not reporting an horrendous crimes, lest you be charged with aiding, abetting, harbouring crims.Who are these monsters, bye the bye,who have learnt to weild the weapons of tribesmen who, according to greenies and communisto clerics and anthropologists, and those charlatans sociologists, are otherwise Mary’s little lamb’s immediate cousins.Right image, wrong target.The primitives are the Spring St.Communisto Dribblers led by Blunebottle B..ks.

Let me see. AFL is happy to sell tickets at whatever price sold at on release.They make profit out of it.Notice the bottle doesn’t accuse them of scalping but, who can tell, that maybe next in the insidious course the commies on the treasury benches are steering, not in a SUV but an Abrams Battle tank, in overthrowing property rights.Waverley Park, hotels , restaurants, casinos , the last three on the count of smoking.

Footy ticket buyer, lucky bugger, has secured property rightsas follows - a lawyer can supply the correct terms and form.Title to the rental of one seat in the stadium on a time decay basis which is roughly, from time gates open to exit and closure of gates.Your’e property.They are your’e common law upheld freedoms. Just to check, having sold you the ticket, is AFL telling you, no punter,we just sold you a scrap of paper.

One doesn’t have to be a disitnguished jurist to deduce, you own the property therefore, you are free to sell at whatever price you are happy to sell at.That someone should be happy to pay $100/200/500/jackpot, 1000 is coincidence.

Co-incidence, though comprised of several things some of which might only be immediately observable.Scarcity, as in, of all the tickets, only a few resold.For the punter happy to shell out, the game has a value, whatever that may be, greater than any other game played during the season.So, such considerations co-incide. What then , is a fair price, any price which buyer is happy to pay, providing there is a seller happy to sell at that price. A price comprised of considerations of which only a few, a tiny fraction might be observable.

Next, Blunebottler’s sealer, `scalpers’, i.e. scum, morality, the whiff of Hell clings to them like fleas on an unwashed doggy, or is it flies to doggy doo.Blunebottle and his band of snivellers must be mystic psychics, for I can’t tell why a seller is out to sell at $100 or whatever. Nor a buyer.It’s not exactly a business with repeating prospects.One an easily imagine, instead, some modest punter deciding to take the money and pay a bill, though originally desireous of thrilling to the game from the seat in the stands.

Yes, Blunebottle, the sort of punter which commies claim to shed tears but only ensure they sink further into the mire of poverty. Who are the scalpers. Government.You weild police powers to enforce soemthing called tax, irrerspective of whether the bleeding vicitm will or no.You use the same to hike them further. You use the same, when not satisified with such unfettered revelling in collecting coup or just simply splitting the nonce like a soft boiled googy egg, you contract debt: there that ‘ll fix, don’t like us scalpers, well, at least you’ll pay the price of every blood cell long after we are gone, to Capris on the victims’ money called tax via super and etc.

Geelongolites have added woe. Prior to the last election, their pack of scalpers, otherwise politely called a council, City is a bit pretentious pre-nomial,hiked the rates of property owners by a staggering amount.Can’t recollect the figures, but no wonder the victims felt they’d been brain oozingly scalped.Spring Street Spivs dribbling communistos, the real scalpers are you bloody lot.
(Continued)

Posted by D
Australian Bolshevik Corpororation rarely misses an opportunity to push communard causes, as Uncle of ABC Watch recently mused over ABC’s `Earth Beat’ and Angela de Blas repetition of the calumnies heaped upon Lomborg. Lomborg’s real crime is, perhaps, he defected from communisto movements like the greenies, on the strenght of science.It is the other way around, `environmental science’ , as not only the oxymoron implies but also that vulgar meaningless drivel `environmental’ , is real charlatanism, and the only explanation for the proliferation of that tripe is Big Booby Governments.Some reasons are hinted well enough below, coercive governments picking up things which provide an excuse for increasing coercive power , via agencies bestowed police state like powers. In this case, EPA and related bodies which, in the U.S.A. includes such viscious outfits as ESA.Environmentalism and `environmental science’ is boon only for those pol potians the greenies, bureaucrats, and politicians bent on increasing the coercive powers of governments. It is destructive of science and more besides. Let’s chew the cud.

When ABC pushes a communards’ causes , the proverbial flies back and clings all over its silly mug. On Lomborg, they’ve manged to cover themselves in shit again. Missing from the Lomborg bashing effort are inconvenient facts. A few telling ones are summed up by Professor (em; molecular genetics) Arthur Rorsch in his review of of the Dutch version of the Spanish Inquisition or, fairer, just a good old fashioned witch sniffing trial of Lomborg, DCSD.

Rorsch relates, of the complaint lodged with the DCSD, 27 allegations can be inferred. Three quarters of them are unambiguously false. Only two allegations contain just a shred only of substance. Rorsch concludes, `it is difficult to imagine that DCSD had itself investigated the allegations on a scientific basis’, and, DCSD had made itself an instrument of Lomborg’s opponents in accepting the complaint.

The judgement rests on the DCSD’s conclusions: Lomborg had deviated from good scientific practice; Lomborg had failed to convince his opponents. In view of the comments on the allegations, the first charge is utter tripe. The second supposes a demand which is nonsense in science: Lomborg somehow,carried a special burden of proof and, from what one can infer, required some sort of special proofs other than science.Rorsch’s comments are courteous, but in view of what transpired, yes , DCSD verges on a witch hunter’s court.As Rorsch points out , bad science is sooner or later found out and these days, because of modern communications, rather sooner than even in the past.Why is there a need for a central government coercive body to dictate what is a good scientific paper or not ,one might well ask?

In other words, the complaint against Lomborg doesn’t devolve on the arguments from science on which Lomborg based his claims.It devolves on, the claims of greenies and environmentalists are false and no less, because science contradicts the claims, the evidence does not depart. Lomborg’s felony, he departed from a litany of firmly held dogmas to which `environemental scientists’ bend science in support. This, begs the question of, in view of the allegations from the complaint raised against Lomborg, is it `environmental scientists’ who bend science, misrepesent data, and so forth in favour of dogmas which do not sit happily at all with science.

Things degenerate furhter for ABC and others doing their best to blacken Lomborg’s name downunder in Oz.The complaint and the DCSD trial of Lomborg, it seems, devolves on an 11 page article, dedicated to the rebuttal of Lomborg’s claims in his, “The Skeptical Environmentalist : measuring the real state of the world”; published by , Science America, January 2002.The journal offered Lomborg one page to rebut the criticism.Instead,sensibly, Lomborg copied the article and published a point for point treatment on his internet site.He, promptly removed his rejoinder when the journal threatened copyright action.Lomborg, however, stood on terrae firma as another site shows out, carrying Lomborg’s reply in pdf format.

The substance of the journal’s column is indicated by the title: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist. As Lomborg’s commentary states: `This staement is potentially the most surprising of all- that the following critique should be science defending itslef against my book.In a sense this encapsualtes the bias of the folowing critiques. My book clealry makes a claim to science and to be factually based.I openly state the facts and my sources, and thus anybody is free to point out where these are faulty or incorrect and of course , such errors will then be posted on my website.Thus, there is no need to defend science from my book… ( This) headline would make more sense : Alarmist environmentalism defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.’

The baseless allegations inferred from the DCSD complaint are resonatingly consitstent with the baseless criticisms of Lomborg’s claims published by the journal.

It is not Lomborg who has set out to decieve the publy by misrepresenting science.Quite a sutained effort has been expended on misrepresenting Lomborg, an effort now enjoined by ABC and its `Earth Beat’. How sloppy can ABC be, its Planet Slayer website, crude in format , plumbs the miserable depths of green quackery and their pol potian communism.

In contrast, if any charlatanism is being promoted, its name is `environmental science’. Not only the oxymoron but the vulgar nonsencial `environmental’ points up, it is not science.To those objecting, please supply a definition for, otherwise, the accounts of the quackey are only descriptions. The following is a reliable summary of Univerisities information on their courses in `environmental science’:

Environmental science is a multi-disciplinary , non-anthropocentric science,unified in the non-human centred discipline of ecology. It invloves the study of issues of anthropogenic degradation of the environment requiring the formulation of public policy in order to :regulate the anthropogenic impact of humans upon the environment and the causes of such impacts; to direct effort into sustainable investment, while making persons aware what they can do to help protect the environment.These aims require: learning mangerial sciences in order to manage public issues and policies, with, as a requisite, politics to understand what guides mangement requirements and understand public dialogue and issues, and policies. It is expected graduates will contribute in formulating public policies in order to gain experience in the effort and need to regulate anthropogecens, and so how to implement them in order to protect the environment and achieve asustainable future for society.

Those descriptions can only please only those bent on increasing the coercive powers of central governments, along with economic planning control.They are descriptions which could be written for departments of government set up to just do that , matched with coercive powers bestowed upon it by parlaiments. And agencies which have immediate bearing are, EPA and, for the US,ESA.Slang jargon, `managerialise’, the rubbish of bureacrats charged with ruling and dictating over peoples lives. Science,just as the description relates,in so far as science is drawn upon which can be exploited to support the mumbo jumbo which is the core of `environmental science’. Moreover, the quackery thinly disguises some of the greenies aims,; to be inferred is the rubbish which is the `precautionary principle; and as for anthropogecens, the inference is clear enough, open free markets, capital, and a comlemenatary rule of(commonlaw);in favour of rule by dictat translated via the administrative apparatus of bureaucracy, and the subjugation of the individual.

Environmental science, on charges, is unified not by science, but dogmas which favour totalitarian goververnment.It is the stuff of the central planner who rules by decree.Environmental science is a manadrin’- indoctrination into a psuedo-rational religion which only, in the end buttresses Big Booby Governemnts, who succeed in mangling so many good things.

(Continued)