On 09/01/2025 18:52, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 06:56:46 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
>> them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them into
>> the mainland.
>
> Norway tried that. "We're going to lodge you at a luxury resort -- north
> of the Arctic Circle" .
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-
> idUSKBN0U207Y20151219/
>
> It's a paywall but you can see enough to get the idea.
Not paywalled for me...

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:40:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:03:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Race isn't a nature concept, its obviously a sociological and
>>>> political construct, and fluid to some extent.
>>>
>>> If you have a E-V38 Y chromosome I'm guessing you can't pass for a
>>> Swede.
>>
>> Which race of dog have you owned?
>>
>> There's far more variation between dog breeds than between human
>> "races".
>
> You really want to go there? Would you rather have a lab or a pit bull
> minding the kids? Humans have had their thumbs on the scales but their
> breeding attempts have resulted in a wide range of breeds with differing
> characteristics. In the case of humans, it was natural selection for the
> most part although in many cultures a preference for lighter skin
> prevailed.

So what? I'm talking about categorization by "race".

> Would you prefer 'breed' to race? Then you could call people breedists.
> How about subspecies?

Talk about going off on a tangent.

> Let's look at the keeper of absolute truth.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
>
> "Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the
> same species,[4] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g.
> geographically, or physiologically"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social
qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given
society. The term came into common usage during the 16th century, when
it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those
characterized by close kinship relations. By the 17th century, the term
began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to
national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct,
an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.
While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not
have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of
race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based
on the superiority of one race over another.

Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often
involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based
on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider such biological
essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for
collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.

--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
-- Philip K. Dick

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:56:14 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
>> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
>> colored.
>
> Schwarzer.

In one of Edgar Rice Burrough's novels, one of the characters (a Chicago boy
IIRC) used the term "smokes".

"Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.

How about ... "human"?

--
Festivity Level 1: Your guests are chatting amiably with each
other, admiring your Christmas-tree ornaments, singing carols around
the upright piano, sipping at their drinks and nibbling hors d'oeuvres.
Festivity Level 2: Your guests are talking loudly -- sometimes
to each other, and sometimes to nobody at all, rearranging your
Christmas-tree ornaments, singing "I Gotta Be Me" around the upright
piano, gulping their drinks and wolfing down hors d'oeuvres.
Festivity Level 3: Your guests are arguing violently with
inanimate objects, singing "I can't get no satisfaction," gulping down
other peoples' drinks, wolfing down Christmas tree ornaments and
placing hors d'oeuvres in the upright piano to see what happens when
the little hammers strike.
Festivity Level 4: Your guests, hors d'oeuvres smeared all over
their naked bodies are performing a ritual dance around the burning
Christmas tree. The piano is missing.
You want to keep your party somewhere around level 3, unless
you rent your home and own Firearms, in which case you can go to level
4. The best way to get to level 3 is egg-nog.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>
> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>
> How about ... "human"?
>

The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
about it in their spurious journals.

Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
they do -- including fucking.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>
>> How about ... "human"?
>
>The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
>fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
>about it in their spurious journals.
>
>Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
>tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
>they do -- including fucking.

Yeah sure but how would I believe *you* could get with an of-age black
woman?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 16:39, Joel wrote:
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>
>>> How about ... "human"?
>>
>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
>> fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
>> about it in their spurious journals.
>>
>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
>> tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
>> they do -- including fucking.
>
>
> Yeah sure but how would I believe *you* could get with an of-age black
> woman?

Actually, I've been with a black woman when I was 25 or so. She was 21,
as far as I remember. The sex was okay.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-01-09 16:39, Joel wrote:
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>>
>>>> How about ... "human"?
>>>
>>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
>>> fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
>>> about it in their spurious journals.
>>>
>>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
>>> tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
>>> they do -- including fucking.
>>
>> Yeah sure but how would I believe *you* could get with an of-age black
>> woman?
>
>Actually, I've been with a black woman when I was 25 or so. She was 21,
>as far as I remember. The sex was okay.

So you aren't entirely racist. :)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 17:00, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 16:39, Joel wrote:
>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about ... "human"?
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
>>>> fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
>>>> about it in their spurious journals.
>>>>
>>>> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
>>>> tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
>>>> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
>>>> they do -- including fucking.
>>>
>>> Yeah sure but how would I believe *you* could get with an of-age black
>>> woman?
>>
>> Actually, I've been with a black woman when I was 25 or so. She was 21,
>> as far as I remember. The sex was okay.
>
>
> So you aren't entirely racist. :)

I was 25 and I was single. I wasn't looking for the woman of my dreams
there, but she was cute too.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

-hh wrote:

>No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:

What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing. Today, they
want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
"public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit your "carbon
limit".

>If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
>Its a simple principle & trade-off.

The "trade off" is from leftists gutting our power generation capacity
for unreliable and inadequate "green" alternatives.

>If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
>Its a simple principle & trade-off.

I'm talking about bugs vs beef.

>Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
>happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".

Golly, some people have a different point of view, a different point
to make, than others!

> (idiocy snipped)

On 1/9/25 3:32 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:35:15 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jigaboo" was the term Archie Bunker used.
>>
>> How about ... "human"?
>>
>
> The problem is that none of these armchair racists has ever
> fucked a black chick. They can only, pathetically, read
> about it in their spurious journals.
>
> Compared to white chicks, who are riddled with neurotic
> tendencies due their thousand-year Christian indoctrination,
> blacks chicks are refreshingly natural in everything that
> they do -- including fucking.
>
>

You've got a point there. The second summer I spent in USA, I fucked
Black girls throughout. It was a new experience for me, cause in Iran,
only in the far south you could spot a Black person here and there.

Then Fall semester began and I replaced them with, again, the white
feminists in humanities dept.

I fucked ordinary young whites too, all along, but only here and there,
when the occasion came up. Managers in work place, fellow employees, etc.

And as early as that, I noticed there was some difference between Whites
and Blacks. Blacks were always cleaner for one. Many White girls smelled
bad. Many of them were problematic to an extent. Black girls were always
more ... "natural" as you said.

Blacks in pre-ice-age Europe _lost_ something to later evolve into
Neanderthals. So Whites do not have all the features of Modern Human in
them. They're on one side descendants of albinos among Blacks, the
Neanderthals, and albinos have a whole set of genes missing, not just
the one responsible for protection against too much sunlight.

So today's Black people at least do not suffer from what they lost in
Europe by the force of nature. For one, they're much more enthusiastic
individuals than Whites. Whites fear them. They know that if they let
them develop tastes for science and tech as strongly as they see they
have for sports and competition, they won't be able to stop the Blacks
from taking over their unmerited and unearned temporary control.

So Whites consciously suppress and subjugate Blacks to prevent them from
ruining their control. But Billionaires here know that and they
understand performance, not looks, and other stereotypical features and
stigma. So Billionaires have been busy to slowly let the Blacks come up
and get the opportunities in science and tech. They think they get much
better results with Blacks than with the problematic Whites.

The likes of rbowman in the future will be farting in the wind and
spitting on the ground to call it a day, while Blacks will be heatedly
busy with wonderful lives in science and tech. This is what the
Billionaires want! This is what they'll get.

On 2025-01-09 17:14, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>
> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing. Today, they
> want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
> "public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit your "carbon
> limit".

I've read the same thing. Of course, these are things that are never
admitted in the highly discredited mainstream publications Hugh
Huntzinger relies on to make an ass of himself.
< snip >

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/9/25 5:14 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>
> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing.

Just providing my perspective.

> Today, they want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want,
> e.g. some "public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit
> your "carbon limit".

And of course the same sources have also been shouting that they're
going to take away your guns too ... for the past 40+ years.

>> If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
>> Its a simple principle & trade-off.
>
> The "trade off" is from leftists gutting our power generation capacity
> for unreliable and inadequate "green" alternatives.

Nope, has nothing really to do with the type of power source: if one
wants a high degree of power demand variance, it is infrastructure that
needs to be built, and thus paid for.

>> If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
>> Its a simple principle & trade-off.
>
> I'm talking about bugs vs beef.

So? Are you actually trying to suggest that beef is 100% safe and no
one has ever died from it? Sounds like you're really just being
squeamish & emotionally triggered about foods which aren't culturally
"normal" to you. I'll have to post a short video clip I have of a plate
of Japanese 'Octopus balls' that's visibly wiggling around.

>> Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
>> happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".
>
> Golly, some people have a different point of view, a different point
> to make, than others!

Nope, same poster.

>
>> (idiocy snipped)
>

Because it is more that you can't counter:

[quote]
cv> I agree. There is no answer to the problems with mining.

Depends on what answer one is looking for: a short term gratification
of cheap energy, or more holistic perspective of addressing the costs of
most of its actual externality costs too? For example, a "clean up the
mess you've caused" tax to pay for the damage that it is doing (and has
done) would create the market incentive to reduce its externality costs,
and shift the market to less bad alternatives...even if the tax money is
never spent as it should be on actual clean-up.
[/quote]

Well?

[quote]
cv> There is no answer to the problems from being utterly dependant
cv> upon communist China for everything from minerals to the
cv> completed car or solar panel or wind turbine or power transformer.

True, the West has allowed short term capitalism to be the priority and
outweigh strategic positioning, but there has been some leadership to
allow some rebalancing. For example, because of policy, domestic
manufacturing capacity of solar cells has quadrupled since Biden took
office.

<https://seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt/>

<https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/102224-us-solar-manufacturing-soars-but-gaps-and-uncertainty-persist>
[/quote]

Well?

[quote]
cv> The West takes a massive hit, while China laughs and builds
cv> a hundred coal plants every year. They are happy to take
cv> our money and make everything for us, until we are as dependant
cv> and as weak as babies.

Yet we keep on buying stuff at WalMart, because we're unwilling to pay
more for domestically produced.

Gosh, its almost as if there strategically needs to be Federal mandates
which prevent us from being so dumb and avoid doing what we know is
profoundly bad for us ... but there's folks who bitch it "takes away our
freedoms": one can't have your cake & eat it too.
[/quote]

Well?

Prediction: a very brave "(snipped, unread)" is immanent!

-hh

Diego Garcia wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> a Rolls-Royce Ghost would be great for cruising,
>
>Why you wanna cruise? You wanna pick up bitches?
>
>Ain't no bitch gonna want to get on with your sorry ass.

I'd bet if I rolled-up in a Rolls Royce, some bitches and hos would
pile in. 8)

On 1/9/25 10:43 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 10:20, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's)
>>>>>>> desire to
>>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>>> knows. The
>>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look
>>>>> better than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>>
>>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>>
>>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant
>>> so there is already similarity there. The United States has also been
>>> a melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural
>>> society like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that
>>> there is similarity.
>>>
>>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>>
>>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>>
>>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>>> everywhere else.
>>
>>
>>    The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>>    Used to have more during the Cold War.
>>
>>    Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>>    a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>>    found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>>    imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>>    apart.
>>
>>    Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>>    that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>>    out the side of the ice.
>>
>>    There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>>    the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>>    or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>>
>>    My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>>    see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>>    Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>>    by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>>    drive on top of.
>
> My favourite depiction of Greenland is the one in the TV show Vikings
> where Kjetill Flatnose and others get there and immediately create
> borders for each family. They quickly get to starving and fight over the
> carcass of some whale that washed up ashore. In the end, Flatnose is all
> that's left and he's overjoyed that he's the king of this vast,
> uninhabited wasteland.

Heh heh ... the one and only king :-)

Yea, Greenland is pretty dismal. The Inuit can 'get by'
but they sure as hell ain't gettin' rich. A 'city' is
like 150 people and the weather is nasty.

Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
ice will have melted back some more and there might be
a more useful exposed rim. It'll still suck though.
'Minerals' look to be Greenland's main ticket to any
kind of future beyond the village level and drinking
themselves to death.

IMHO, just negotiate for a few more mil base locations
and that's that. Vastly easier and cheaper than trying
to literally assume ownership - or starting a war.

I think Trump, by sounding like an imperialist asshole,
is gonna get most of what he REALLY wants in Greenland -
more bases and more Danish/EU investment in such. Vlad
DOES want to 'own the arctic' and everything everywhere
in it ... so a certain amount of push-back is required.

Some bits of Canada are very very close to the NW tip
of Greenland. Might be a good alt for mil bases. But,
for 'defense', more is gonna be needed along the east
coast of Greenland. Guys caught with the generals'
daughter will be assigned there .....

In any case, Earth the place. Sometimes have to zoom in
pretty close before place names and/or clear signs of
human activity can be seen.

On 1/9/25 10:55 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>>> knows. The
>>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>>
>>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>>
>>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
>>> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
>>> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
>>> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
>>> similarity.
>>>
>>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>>
>>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>>
>>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>>> everywhere else.
>>
>>
>> The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>> Used to have more during the Cold War.
>>
>> Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>> a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>> found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>> imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>> apart.
>>
>> Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>> that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>> out the side of the ice.
>>
>> There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>> the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>> or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>>
>> My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>> see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>> Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>> by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>> drive on top of.
>
> Not to mention they're a mile or two deep!

Hey, the "high road" fer sure ! :-)

Alas while an aerial photo might make the glacial
tops LOOK kinda flat and solid, they ain't. Big
cracks constantly form, heal, and re-appear in
new locations. It's not even suitable for hovercraft.

So ... it's either aircraft or taking the little boat
from fjord to fjord. It's not a people-friendly place
and not 'modern'-people friendly either.

If the USA wants to invest in far-northern defense
installations, they might do better in Longyearbyen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyearbyen
There are a number of islands, only one with any
number of people.

> Been reading an interesting book "Climate Crash"; it starts out discussing
> exploration etc. of Greenland in the first 4 chapters. It's a little
> out-of-date (2005).

Seems that 'cooling events' happen for various reasons
maybe every 4-500 years. Most common reason is some
huge volcano near Indonesia blasting megatons of dust
into the upper stratosphere. As such I don't see Greenland
melting anytime soon - just "cycling" between slightly
warmer and slightly cooler global climates.

Alas the whole 'global warming' thing is no longer
any sort of 'science' but politicized to the extreme.
There's objective truth and then there's "political
truth" - and the two rarely cross paths. Any
supposed 'science' becomes totally contaminated
with politically/ideologically biased results.

Look into how long archeological/geological/
biological science went to great lengths to
include the phony "world flood" into the equation.
That there were many big LOCAL floods as the
glacial sheet melted and seas slowly rose - didn't
fit the popular religions. If they'd had "AI"s in
the 18th century they'd have 'politically corrected'
its answers to fit the current sure-nuf truths
and religious assertions.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical
> and behavioral traits.

To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in general.

On 1/9/25 9:17 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:58:07 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>>
>
> Jesus F. Christ! This idiot shows his idiocy yet again!
>
> Ever hear of Thule AFB? Dumb question.
>
> The US built Thule as a major SAC AFB during the beginning of
> the Cold War.
>
> Thule was also the site of a famous Broken Arrow incident
> when a B-52 crashed and the conventional explosives in the
> H-Bombs went off.
>
> Camp Century is also nearby but is long defunct.
>
> I hate idiots, and this idiot is at the top of my list.
>
>

The guy hasn't lived. That's why.

I was almost sent to one of the bases there in 1980s by the us air
force! Hehe :) I said the story in detail in one of my blogs in
sci.physics.

On 1/9/25 5:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 17:14, chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>>
>> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing.  Today, they
>> want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
>> "public health emergency" such as covid.  Or you've hit your "carbon
>> limit".
>
> I've read the same thing. Of course, these are things that are never
> admitted in the highly discredited mainstream publications Hugh
> Huntzinger relies on to make an ass of himself.

Leftists particularly seek to limit travel. Surprised
Euros or even USAians don't have to get "travel permits"
yet to visit the next town. Propaganda needs mean it's
best if people are TRAPPED in their own immediate area
and can't personally compare notes with people elsewhere.

On 1/9/25 11:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 11:34, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>>
>>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>>> simply feels good.  One need not lose "manhood" over it.  That's in
>>>> the mind.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>>> irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>>> wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>>> happened to you too in youth.
>>>
>>> Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>>> good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>>> I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>>> still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>>> wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>>> thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>>> don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>>> I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.
>>
>>
>> I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
>> if so.  I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
>> not anal rape.
>
> In the same way that people who were victims of a car crash often
> suppress the memory as a defence mechanism, it is quite possible that
> you did the same with the molestation. There is no way a man becomes a
> proponent of anal sex being performed on him without there being some
> sort of assault.

Just a note ... in the longer view, most "repressed/suppressed
memories" pretty much NEVER HAPPENED - at least not remotely
as 'remembered'. Humans are not HDDs.

On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>   ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>   a more useful exposed rim.

Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow the
sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .

The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
technically. We are in an interstadial.

But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 2025-01-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 03:40, RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:59:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nah, we're not thinking in terms of race with that accusation, we're
>>>> thinking in terms of *bigotry* as expressed by denigration of a whole
>>>> group of people based on race.
>>>
>>> But race doesn't exist. Or does it? The liberals are fine with giving a
>>> group of people special privileges based on race.
>>
>> The Woke seem confused on that issue. Of course the Woke aren't having a
>> very good time right now, so they may a little constipated. Ford, McDonald's
>> and Walmart are the latest to drop (or curtail) the DEI BS.
>
> I was just talking about Ford with my wife yesterday. If I remember
> correctly, they were the _only_ American automotive company strong
> enough in 2008 not to require a bailout from the government. Since then,
> they have jumped on the electric vehicle train which has cost them a
> fortune since nobody wants those cars, at least not from them. Even
> worse, their F-150 has just gotten a recall affecting several hundred
> thousand vehicle, exacerbating the damage. I imagine that they'll be
> requiring government assistance very soon.

They *were* the strongest... until they bought into the EV crap. Hopefully
they'll back out of that stupidity. How big is the "carbon footprint" that
is required to provide the electricity that these "climate conscience" cars
require? And what kid of "carbon footprint" cost is there in the batteries?
— (and they wear out in a few years and are too expensive to replace so the
car usually ends up in the junk yard). This "green products" push is just
another scam. Not to mention that most of the EV vehicles are about
worthless if you need to drive more than 120 miles.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>
> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow the
> sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .

As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
Iceland may sometimes play a role.

I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
more ice again.

> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
> technically. We are in an interstadial.

Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.

> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.

Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.

The bullshit "world flood" then happened
as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
quantities of water down river tracts in
the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
many people imagined the entire world was
flooded.

Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.

All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
able to take advantage.

On 2025-01-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:32:01 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time,
>> often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of
>> individuals based on perceived traits. Modern scientists consider
>> such biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage
>> racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical
>> and behavioral traits.
>
>
> To be perfectly clear -- fuck modern scientists and modernity in general.

Science and scientists need to be put in quotes. Almost all so-called
"science" these days is pure politics.

Apparently L.A. is burning because they quit making fire breaks on the hills
overlooking the city because "they interfered" with the migration of some
breed of mouse. And the water shortage is partly caused by the removal of
dams in north California. (That and they sent their "extra" fire equipment
to Ukraine.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>
>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
>> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow
>> the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .
>
>   As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>   anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>   roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>   Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>   Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>
>   I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>   it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>   may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>   more ice again.
>
>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>
>   Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>   end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>   Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>   co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>   low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>   deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>
>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>
>   Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>
While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric climate
change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling
- it did not immediately melt all of the ice.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
6000* years.

And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.

Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a
millennium

>   The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>   as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>   quantities of water down river tracts in
>   the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>   many people imagined the entire world was
>   flooded.
>
>   Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>   quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>   hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>
IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.

>   All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>   pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>   we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>   able to take advantage.

The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.

You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>>>>    ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>>>>    a more useful exposed rim.
>>>
>>> Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
>>> melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow
>>> the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .
>>
>>    As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
>>    anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
>>    roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
>>    Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
>>    Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>>
>>    I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
>>    it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
>>    may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
>>    more ice again.
>>
>>> The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
>>> technically. We are in an interstadial.
>>
>>    Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
>>    end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
>>    Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
>>    co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
>>    low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
>>    deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>>
>>> But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.
>>
>>    Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>>
> While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric  climate
> change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling
> - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>
> https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
there's always a long 'shadow'.

Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
Freeze.

> Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over
> 6000* years.
>
> And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>
> Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a
> millennium
>
>
>>    The bullshit "world flood" then happened
>>    as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
>>    quantities of water down river tracts in
>>    the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
>>    many people imagined the entire world was
>>    flooded.
>>
>>    Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
>>    quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
>>    hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>>
> IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>
>>    All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
>>    pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
>>    we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
>>    able to take advantage.
>
> The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere,
> miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.
>
> You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
have always researched this kind of stuff.

As said, 'curves'. The 90% is kinda volatile
but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.

It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
drift back and forth along a rough center line.
MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.