Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Brilliant.

Well thank you. Because that is a good descriptor of exactly that - when attempting to claim that anyone in support of X are automatically guilty of Y. It doesn't wash and it certainly doesn't help the discussion.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Again more false attribution and misquoting?

Ive said from the very start that greta should lead by example and cut down unnecessary travel. She can raise 'awareness' without traipsing halfway around the planet for sure.

If she really seeks to influence and change things then this is a no brainer. Where better to start than the hugely publicised "climate Conferences'

Big picture. She has travelled efficiently. She has garnered massive public attention leading to record marches virtually everywhere she has been.

Worldwide, for the last several generations, the attendance of key people at an event has dramatically raised the significance of it.


(Also, could you stop falsely accusing me of misquoting and false attribution when what I am doing is quoting your comments verbatim. You can argue the interpretation of those, but if you don't like how your words read, don't write them)

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Well thank you. Because that is a good descriptor of exactly what those attempting to claim that anyone in support of X are automatically guilty of Y. It doesn't wash and it certainly doesn't help the discussion.

People advocating for X, are asked to defend it.
Asking them do so or suggesting they must mean Y is not unfair given many of the statements.

Glad to see this is recognized as a discussion once again and no longer a meme dump.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Big picture. She has travelled efficiently. She has garnered massive public attention leading to record marches virtually everywhere she has been.
Worldwide, for the last several generations, the attendance of key people at an event has dramatically raised the significance of it.


(Also, could you stop falsely accusing me of misquoting and false attribution when what I am doing is quoting your comments verbatim. You can argue the interpretation of those, but if you don't like how your words read, don't write them)

Nope. Incorrect. greta hasn't travelled efficiently. Her refusal to fly has involved a greater spend in terms of carbon emissions for those who went with her and had to fly back - than if she had simply flown. She can garner attention online - she seems to be well versed in this already.

The point made is that all those conferences should be moved to a digital format. Greta is in an unique position to push that by example.

Btw you have not quoted 'verbatim'. You made an erroneous claim that I was finally agreeing about cutting down Gretas unnecessary travel. And that is wrong . That is a point I have made consistently.

I pointed out the erroneous misquoting already here

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

People advocating for X, are asked to defend it.
Asking them do so or suggesting they must mean Y is not unfair given many of the statements.
Glad to see this is recognized as a discussion once again and no longer a meme dump.

It simply more verbage as in this example already given. It is not discussion.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112033583&postcount=8308

Here's a meme relative to this if you are missing them

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No she hasn't travelled efficiently. Her refusal to fly has involved a greater spend in terms of carbon emissions for those who went with her and had to fly back - than if she had simply flown. She can garner attention online - she seems to be well versed in this already.

Btw you gave not quoted 'verbatim'. You made an erroneous claim that I was finally agreeing about cutting down Gretas unnecessary travel. A point I have made consistently.

I pointed out this already here

You need to research quoting versus paraphrasing.

There's quite a difference and it does matter when it comes to a discussion and someone talking about what someone else has said.

Also, because I disagree with you and explain how and why I do, that does not necessarily mean it is either misquoting or paraphrasing.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Incorrect. greta hasn't travelled efficiently. Her refusal to fly has involved a greater spend in terms of carbon emissions

I think it was equal wasn't it?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You need to research quoting versus paraphrasing.
There's quite a difference and it does matter when it comes to a discussion and someone talking about what someone else has said.
Also, because I disagree with you and explain how and why I do, that does not necessarily mean it is either misquoting or paraphrasing.

Easy to spot verbage tbh. But yes I would simply delighted if you could explain your erroneous attribution as in the example already linked and bellow. Your claims as to what was said / suggested were not only completely inaccurate they were also grossly disingenuous.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112033583&postcount=8308

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think I said anything to ignore carbon emission? That's a pretty stupid interpretation of my comments. Read what I said - we need to address the source, not put a patch on the symptom

That's nonsense. Addressing carbon emissions isn't putting a patch on the symptoms.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Easy to spot verbage tbh. But yes I would simply delighted if you could explain your erroneous attribution as in the example already linked and bellow. Your claims as to what was said / suggested were not only completely inaccurate they were also grossly disingenuous.

Ah yes, righteous indignation.

I see no need to explain anything any further other than what I've already said in the posts you've quoted. You having a problem with them does not mean I must do so.

You are second only to me in the posts on this thread and if you think I am posting anything which hasn't been influenced by the content which has been posted by you then you go ahead and think that.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think it was equal wasn't it?

The report I read recently had totted up both voyages plus the flights of the first crew and the skipper who flew in for the second. I believe it exceeded any savings. I'll see if I can find it again.

But the point is that these conferences shouldn't be the the circus they are. A digital platform is not only possible but more accessible to most. Plus it sets an excellent example for others.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

The report I read recently had totted up both voyages plus the flights of the first crew and the skipper who flew in for the second. I believe it exceeded any savings. I'll see if I can find it again.

But the point is that these conferences shouldn't be the the circus they are. A digital platform is not only possible but more accessible to most. Plus it sets an excellent example for others.

Greta would be proud of you.
Finally, after several hundred posts, a suggestion to help the environment.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ah yes, righteous indignation. I see no need to explain anything any further other than what I've already said in the posts you've quoted. You having a problem with them does not mean I must do so.
You are second only to me in the posts on this thread and if you think I am posting anything which hasn't been influenced by the content which has been posted by you then you go ahead and think that.

Simply pointing out the facts after you incorrectly claimed and to quote "what I am doing is quoting your comments verbatim" .

But agreed that what you are claiming others are saying and thinking as in the example linked has been mainly bunkum to date in this thread and certainly not within an asses roar of 'verbatim'. But no worries apology accepted.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

The report I read recently had totted up both voyages plus the flights of the first crew and the skipper who flew in for the second. I believe it exceeded any savings. I'll see if I can find it again.

Yeah I'd read one that said undone but not exceeded.

The figures in both reports could be less than reliable anyway.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

But the point is that these conferences shouldn't be the the circus they are. A digital platform is not only possible but more accessible to most. Plus it sets an excellent example for others.

I'd agree with this. I'd imagine Greta would too

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Greta would be proud of you. Finally, after several hundred posts, a suggestion to help the environment.

Lol. Well that didn't last long. Plenty of good suggestions made already. Go read the thread if you are in any doubt.

And on that note I think I'll leave you at that misquoting others to suit the comments. Thanks

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Simply pointing out the facts. And agreed that what you are claiming others are saying and thinking has been mainly bunkum to date in this thread. But no worries apology accepted.

Wow, if you saw an apology in that, it's no wonder some other posts are annoying you.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Because, the right to have a child is one of the most fundamental basic human rights, which people have. In evolutionary terms, it is our reason for being here.

You are suggesting that it would be better to cut the population and to continue being wasteful. The majority of people recognize that we should try to reduce waste first.

And, leaving the above aside, if there was a decision to reduce the population. How would that be done in a fair and balanced manner?
Would a grand dad be told, 'Sorry, but we've decided not to treat you because you are over 78', what would happen the economy which is reliant on people to make purchases and pay taxes.

You're using what you think is a simple answer without thinking about the implications of it.

I know you are saying I am being dramatic, but how would you see it being implemented?

Do you really not understand what

population growth

is? Really?

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Do you really not understand what is? Really?

Do you still think it would be easy to implement?
More or less acceptable to society in general than efficient use of resources?

How di you propose implementing it?

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

Because, the right to have a child is one of the most fundamental basic human rights, which people have. In evolutionary terms, it is our reason for being here.

You are suggesting that it would be better to cut the population and to continue being wasteful. The majority of people recognize that we should try to reduce waste first.

And, leaving the above aside, if there was a decision to reduce the population. How would that be done in a fair and balanced manner?
Would a grand dad be told, 'Sorry, but we've decided not to treat you because you are over 78', what would happen the economy which is reliant on people to make purchases and pay taxes.

You're using what you think is a simple answer without thinking about the implications of it.

I know you are saying I am being dramatic, but how would you see it being implemented?

She could take a leaf out of fellow Swede PewDiePie's book and just hit YouTube for her speechifying. He has 102m subscribers!

171170

Tell me how wrote: »

Big picture guys. She travelled the world in an effort to raise awareness, something which was successfully done.

To raise awareness of her or of her cause?

Because every time that I see her incredibly slappable face in the media, I get an almost unstoppable urge to throw another couple of tractor tyres on the bonfire.

Thelonious Monk

171170 wrote: »

To raise awareness of her or of her cause?

Because every time that I see her incredibly slappable face in the media, I get an almost unstoppable urge to throw another couple of tractor tyres on the bonfire.

Slappable face. Wtf is wrong with you people?

Professor Moriarty

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Slappable face. Wtf is wrong with you people?

Don't bite.

171170

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Slappable face. Wtf is wrong with you people?

An uncanny ability to see what lies behind the look at me bullsh1t?

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

She could take a leaf out of fellow Swede PewDiePie's book and just hit YouTube for her speechifying. He has 102m subscribers!

The point you made had nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted.

Want to try again?

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't bite.

Folks can't help themselves. It's logging in that does it to all of us. Very hard to keep your finger off the trigger!

_Kaiser_

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Slappable face. Wtf is wrong with you people?

Maybe a bit tired of the sermonising and sanctimonious nonsense from this girl?

I'm not on this thread daily so I'm assuming this was posted yesterday :

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/greta-thunberg-german-rail-firm-hits-back-in-seat-row-1.4116753

Tries to call out Deutsche Bahn in another twitter publicity stunt , but then it transpires she spent the trip in first class nibbling on chocolates provided by the staff who apparently fawned over her.

Yea.. I'm gonna take anything this one says seriously :rolleyes:

It's a stunt, the latest Internet-led crusade that's gone viral. The only difference between this and stuff like ice bucket challenges is for some bizarre reason the media and politicians are giving her a platform.

Thelonious Monk

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Maybe a bit tired of the sermonising and sanctimonious nonsense from this girl?

I'm not on this thread daily so I'm assuming this was posted yesterday :

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/greta-thunberg-german-rail-firm-hits-back-in-seat-row-1.4116753

Tries to call out Deutsche Bahn in another twitter publicity stunt , but then it transpires she spent the trip in first class nibbling on chocolates provided by the staff who apparently fawned over her.

Yea.. I'm gonna take anything this one says seriously :rolleyes:

It's a stunt, the latest Internet-led crusade that's gone viral. The only difference between this and stuff like ice bucket challenges is for some bizarre reason the media and politicians are giving her a platform.

We've been over this seating arrangement thing many times.
I really don't know how you all get so irritated by her, I haven't seen any of her speeches and I believe in climate change. I saw a bit of her how dare you thing but changed the channel as it was so cringe. I'm just glad people are trying to spread the message that we need to change.

Beechwoodspark

Great to see GT back in her native Land

Huge amount of likes on social media

Her message is getting through !!

_Kaiser_

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We've been over this seating arrangement thing many times.
I really don't know how you all get so irritated by her, I haven't seen any of her speeches and I believe in climate change. I saw a bit of her how dare you thing but changed the channel as it was so cringe. I'm just glad people are trying to spread the message that we need to change.

Nope, not convinced!

It's obvious this girl is being used and manipulated to make an ideological statement by others. That's the real issue here.

But asking us in the West (or even just Ireland) to adopt some sort of climate guilt complex and live like we're in some third world backwater, while nations like China and others do a lot more ecological damage than we ever could for twitter "feels" and kudos? Pass!

It's nonsense. It's a distraction, and I for one am not buying into it.