cutting of goolies off

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Anonymous, Feb 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Tags:


  2. says...
    > It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would
    > we do?' box (very near the bottom).

    That paragraph sounds positively sinister.

    Interestingly, of the two factors he has decided are responsible for congestion, population and
    economic activity, he chooses population to be reduced rather than economic activity.

    Colin
     
  3. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:22:52 -0000, "Clive George"

    >It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    >http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would we
    >do?' box (very near the bottom).

    "encourage"... it says "encourage". :)
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  4. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    news:[email protected].uk...
    > It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would
    > we do?' box (very near the bottom).

    Scary. "We would encourage population reduction in any way we could. Congestion is really the result
    of overpopulation and plenty of economic activity."

    And the cars need the Lebensraum.

    Take the cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers out and shoot them.

    Close all factories that are not car factories (as their economic activity is depriving the cars of
    their slave labour work-force).

    Today, Inverness -- tomorrow zee welt!! Mount a gun on my Volvo and invade Poland!!

    Gulp. I thought we were just dealing with some sad little prick with a bee in his bonnet and a poor
    understanding of statistics.

    T
     
  5. John B

    John B Guest

    Colin Blackburn wrote:

    > says...
    > > It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    > > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would
    > > we do?' box (very near the bottom).
    >
    > That paragraph sounds positively sinister.

    Quite.

    Quote: "In the long term, we would encourage population reduction in any way we could."

    It clarifies his mindset - as if we didn't already know. It is the "in any way we could" that shows
    his true agenda.

    > Interestingly, of the two factors he has decided are responsible for congestion, population and
    > economic activity, he chooses population to be reduced rather than economic activity.

    John B
     
  6. John B

    John B Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:22:52 -0000, "Clive George"

    >
    > >It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    > >http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would
    > >we do?' box (very near the bottom).
    >
    > "encourage"... it says "encourage". :)
    >

    Hiding behing a smiley won't wash.

    Explain "in any way we could".

    Oh, you can't because it would show your true colours. Remember that 'logo' at the top of your page?

    What a nasty piece of work.

    John B
     
  7. Tony W wrote:
    >
    > And the cars need the Lebensraum.
    >

    I remember seeing buses in Germany which had signs on the back (in German before anyone starts
    getting funny :)), "In my place there could be 50 cars".

    Paul Smith seems to think that putting more cars on the road will ease congestion. Strange person.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  8. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:09:51 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What would
    >> we do?' box (very near the bottom).

    >Scary. "We would encourage population reduction in any way we could. Congestion is really the
    >result of overpopulation and plenty of economic activity."

    >And the cars need the Lebensraum.

    >Take the cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers out and shoot them.

    >Close all factories that are not car factories (as their economic activity is depriving the cars of
    >their slave labour work-force).

    >Today, Inverness -- tomorrow zee welt!! Mount a gun on my Volvo and invade Poland!!

    >Gulp. I thought we were just dealing with some sad little prick with a bee in his bonnet and a poor
    >understanding of statistics.

    Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    following benefits for zero effort:

    Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less) Double the space for
    each person Double the inherited wealth for each person

    Side effects of the above would include reductions in criminality.

    And we don't need to do anything to get the benefits... The death rate throughout Western Europe
    exceeds the birth rate by a small but useful margin.

    Funny thing is governments are scared of the tax take reducing and encourage immigration to counter
    the effect. How stupid is that?

    And no, I'd not suggest sending anyone to their death.

    I've done a big "population reduction exercise" and I like the effect very much. How? I moved to
    rural North Scotland.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  9. Henry Braun

    Henry Braun Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Paul Smith wrote:
    > Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    > following benefits for zero effort:
    >
    > Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less) Double the space
    > for each person Double the inherited wealth for each person

    No. Wealth is not a constant like that. It needs to be generated all the time, and a capital
    investment (in a car factory, say) is only worth anything if there are people to work it, and a
    demand for its products. With a falling population all capital investments are used more and more
    inefficiently, and wealth is destroyed.

    "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
    Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

    In particular, your precious roads are a capital investment and they are worth less and less, the
    less traffic is on them. So you will have empty roads, but potholed ones, and very soon your four or
    eight inherited cars will be worthless too.

    The last major population decline in Britain and Europe, during the Black Death, caused a terrible
    recession lasting over a hundred years. And the proportion of wealth held in capital investments in
    the fourteenth century (as opposed to the natural wealth of unimproved farmland and fisheries) was
    tiny as compared with now.

    Even a small change in demographics for the worse, such as with the "pensions timebomb" is a
    tremendous problem for the macroeconomy, compared with which the current difficulties of the road
    transport system---caused by too wealthy a society!---are minuscule. You really don't want, if you
    have thought about it at all, to live through a population crunch.

    > Side effects of the above would include reductions in criminality.

    Provided, as I suggested recently, all the extra inherited wealth is held in the form of bicycles.
    [Token reference to newsgroup subject]

    > I've done a big "population reduction exercise" and I like the effect very much. How? I moved to
    > rural North Scotland.

    No, you've done a neighbour reduction exercise. Your lifestyle is possible because the north of
    Scotland benefits from the wealth of an expanding economy. Don't knock it.
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:09:51 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> It occurred to me that there is somebody else who approves of this.
    > >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html, second to last paragraph in the 'What
    > >> would we do?' box (very near the bottom).
    >
    > >Scary. "We would encourage population reduction in any way we could. Congestion is really the
    > >result of overpopulation and plenty of economic activity."
    >
    > >And the cars need the Lebensraum.
    >
    > >Take the cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers out and shoot them.
    >
    > >Close all factories that are not car factories (as their economic activity is depriving the cars
    > >of their slave labour work-force).
    >
    > >Today, Inverness -- tomorrow zee welt!! Mount a gun on my Volvo and invade Poland!!
    >
    > >Gulp. I thought we were just dealing with some sad little prick with a bee in his bonnet and a
    > >poor understanding of statistics.
    >
    > Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    > following benefits for zero effort:
    >
    > Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less)

    Not if the half you allow into your paradise on earth are the car drivers.

    > Double the space for each person Double the inherited wealth for each person

    I've heard that pyramid marketing schemes can create wealth out of nothing.

    Colin
     
  11. Mike

    Mike Guest

    I really don't know that much about the thread but did take the link to the safe speed site for a
    look. To say I am offended by the imagery and the context in which it is used would be an
    understatement. I would ask if Mr Smith is reading this to change the red circle picture. I am sure
    Mr Smith is happy is his lot and world, I wonder how would this be disrupted by a couple of hundred
    combat 18 thugs all wanting to shake his hand and learn about the new doctrine the motor car.
    Perhaps they would call it the "peoples car"(sic). Take a long hard look at your imagery Mr Smith
    ask your self am I a fascist, do I wish to associate my interest group with genocide,racism,violence
    then look again at your image. You should ashamed of yourself.
     
  12. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:54:06 -0000, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I really don't know that much about the thread but did take the link to the safe speed site for a
    >look. To say I am offended by the imagery and the context in which it is used would be an
    >understatement. I would ask if Mr Smith is reading this to change the red circle picture. I am sure
    >Mr Smith is happy is his lot and world, I wonder how would this be disrupted by a couple of hundred
    >combat 18 thugs all wanting to shake his hand and learn about the new doctrine the motor car.
    >Perhaps they would call it the "peoples car"(sic). Take a long hard look at your imagery Mr Smith
    >ask your self am I a fascist, do I wish to associate my interest group with
    >genocide,racism,violence then look again at your image. You should ashamed of yourself.

    You're offended because "SS" is used in a speed limit sign when the whole purpose of the web site is
    about ensuring that drivers use "Safe Speeds"?

    Perhaps you would like to ban the letter "S", just in case someone uses it?

    What about "Germany"? It that offensive?

    I'm sorry if you're offended, but really... The second world war is a long time ago. And SafeSpeed
    has no connection of any kind ever with Nazi anything.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  13. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:37:44 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    >> following benefits for zero effort:

    >> Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less)

    >Not if the half you allow into your paradise on earth are the car drivers.

    Of course you do. Congestion happens when road saturate. It's not a "linear" effect.

    >> Double the space for each person Double the inherited wealth for each person

    >I've heard that pyramid marketing schemes can create wealth out of nothing.

    Oh right... so if you have 10 people in a room and 5 of them leave there isn't twice as much floor
    area for those that remain?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  14. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    > following benefits for zero effort:

    Snip

    God Almighty -- you are a humourless nerk.
     
  15. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:38 +0000, Henry Braun <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    >> following benefits for zero effort:

    >> Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less) Double the space
    >> for each person Double the inherited wealth for each person

    >No. Wealth is not a constant like that. It needs to be generated all the time, and a capital
    >investment (in a car factory, say) is only worth anything if there are people to work it, and a
    >demand for its products. With a falling population all capital investments are used more and more
    >inefficiently, and wealth is destroyed.

    I agree that there are complexities, but much asset wealth is sufficiently durable to provide medium
    / long term benefits.

    > "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
    > Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

    >In particular, your precious roads are a capital investment and they are worth less and less, the
    >less traffic is on them. So you will have empty roads, but potholed ones, and very soon your four
    >or eight inherited cars will be worthless too.

    That would certainly be part of the picture, but it doesn't seem like an unmanageable or
    important part.

    >The last major population decline in Britain and Europe, during the Black Death, caused a terrible
    >recession lasting over a hundred years. And the proportion of wealth held in capital investments in
    >the fourteenth century (as opposed to the natural wealth of unimproved farmland and fisheries) was
    >tiny as compared with now.

    I wouldn't expect things to happen so fast, it would be a gradual process, over a few hundred
    years perhaps.

    >Even a small change in demographics for the worse, such as with the "pensions timebomb" is a
    >tremendous problem for the macroeconomy, compared with which the current difficulties of the road
    >transport system---caused by too wealthy a society!---are minuscule. You really don't want, if you
    >have thought about it at all, to live through a population crunch.

    No. The timescale would need to be very many generations.

    >> Side effects of the above would include reductions in criminality.

    >Provided, as I suggested recently, all the extra inherited wealth is held in the form of bicycles.
    >[Token reference to newsgroup subject]

    <grin>

    >> I've done a big "population reduction exercise" and I like the effect very much. How? I moved to
    >> rural North Scotland.

    >No, you've done a neighbour reduction exercise. Your lifestyle is possible because the north of
    >Scotland benefits from the wealth of an expanding economy. Don't knock it.

    We can't any longer afford to take a pure economic view. We need to look at more factors, such as
    the long term impact of the species on the planet, and how much human meat is lying around to
    encourage new germs to develop and spread.

    I've long considered that we are seriously overpopulated. Since we are getting a natural decline in
    population, I don't think it's wise to fight the trend.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:37:44 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    > >> following benefits for zero effort:
    >
    > >> Half the pollution Half the CO2 (if it matters) 10% of the congestion (or less)
    >
    > >Not if the half you allow into your paradise on earth are the car drivers.
    >
    > Of course you do. Congestion happens when road saturate. It's not a "linear" effect.

    Doh! I didn't guess that. But taking out the non-car drivers will not give you your heavenly 10%.

    > >> Double the space for each person Double the inherited wealth for each person
    >
    > >I've heard that pyramid marketing schemes can create wealth out of nothing.
    >
    > Oh right... so if you have 10 people in a room and 5 of them leave there isn't twice as much floor
    > area for those that remain?

    Crikey, your maths is good. Unfortunately your comprehension let you down this time since I clearly
    wasn't referring to the the space.

    Colin
     
  17. Paul Smith wrote: the
    > whole purpose of the web site is about ensuring that drivers use "Safe Speeds"?

    Quite, and it's the authorities who get to determine "safe speeds" and enforce them in many
    situations.

    Not often enough in the opinion of some.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  18. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:58 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Paul Smith wrote:

    >> the whole purpose of the web site is about ensuring that drivers use "Safe Speeds"?

    >Quite, and it's the authorities who get to determine "safe speeds" and enforce them in many
    >situations.

    That opinion is dangerously inadequate.

    At best it fails to understand the well know use of the term "safe speed". At worst it entrusts your
    safety to an anonymous official who has probably never even seen the road you're on.

    Read about "Safe Speeds" here if you like:

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html

    >Not often enough in the opinion of some.

    <sigh>
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:

    > Perhaps you haven't thought about it? If you allow the population to (say) halve you get the
    > following benefits for zero effort:

    You are Mike Vandeman and I claim my five pounds.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:

    >>> the whole purpose of the web site is about ensuring that drivers use "Safe Speeds"?

    As opposed to "safe and legal" speeds, an alternative whose very existence you repeatedly deny.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...