On 2025-01-07 19:30, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>> erected
>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>
>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>
>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>> you, Chris?
>>
>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>
> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
> because of its unfavourable conditions. The climate _might_ be warming
> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
> at life. Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
> have not yet been exploited. And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>
> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
> back then. Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
> purchased tell you. We already know that the "global cooling," "global
> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
rightwing propaganda.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>> erected
>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>
>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>
>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>> you, Chris?
>>
>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>
> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
> because of its unfavourable conditions.

Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?

> The climate _might_ be warming
> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?

Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.

> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
> at life.

Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
lands were to magically be opened up.

> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
> have not yet been exploited.

"Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).

> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.

Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...

....and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:

<https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>

> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
> back then.

Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...

> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
> purchased tell you.

One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
wasn't sea level rise.

> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>> erected
>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>>> you, Chris?
>>>
>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>
>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>> because of its unfavourable conditions.
>
> Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
> warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?
>
>> The climate _might_ be warming
>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
>
> Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
> a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
> is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
> without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.
>
>
>> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
>> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
>> at life.
>
> Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
> lands were to magically be opened up.
>
>> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
>> have not yet been exploited.
>
> "Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
> were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).
>
>> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
>> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
>> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>
> Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...
>
> ...and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
> trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
> that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
> that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:
>
> <https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>
>
>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>> back then.
>
> Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
> consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
> seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...
>
>> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>> purchased tell you.
>
> One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
> essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
> dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
> wasn't sea level rise.
>
>> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
>> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
>> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
>> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
>> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.
>
> Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
> rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
> the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
> over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).

On 2025-01-07 14:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 19:30, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape,
>>>>>>> in particular the
>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings
>>>>>>> across the region.
>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground,
>>>>>>> and in the process
>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>> erected
>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or
>>>> two. Do
>>>> you, Chris?
>>>
>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>
>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>> because of its unfavourable conditions. The climate _might_ be warming
>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a
>> shit? Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people
>> looking to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and
>> another shot at life. Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of
>> resources which have not yet been exploited. And here _you_ are,
>> Chris, concerned that living there might increase the temperature in
>> one hundred years by another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by
>> a millimetre.
>>
>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>> back then. Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>> purchased tell you. We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to
>> enrich the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot
>> of the floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were
>> manufactured not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the
>> water out of certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with
>> flooding.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
> rightwing propaganda.

No, Carlos, telling the world that we will all be under water unless we
give lots of money to some cabal of elites is what's propaganda and
complete bullshit.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 2025-01-07 16:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse
>>>>>>>>>> code:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn the
>>>>>>>>>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first time in
>>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never
>>>>>>>>>>>> really being
>>>>>>>>>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and
>>>>>>>>>>> Siberian
>>>>>>>>>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely
>>>>>>>>>>> worse than
>>>>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting
>>>>>>>>>> tundra :-D
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-
>>>>>>>> sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in
>>>>>>>> particular the
>>>>>>>>        permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across
>>>>>>>> the region.
>>>>>>>>        Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and
>>>>>>>> in the process
>>>>>>>>        it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built
>>>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been
>>>>>>> erected
>>>>>>> decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
>>>>>>> north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
>>>>>>> minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which
>>>>>>>> maintains
>>>>>>>>        facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason
>>>>>>>> Hicks embarked on
>>>>>>>>        a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways —
>>>>>>>> on permafrost
>>>>>>>>        presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are
>>>>>>>> growing with the
>>>>>>>>        effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post
>>>>>>>> on Monday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be
>>>>>>> eradicated too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that doesn't include methane release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
>>>>> you, Chris?
>>>>
>>>> Cut the patronizing crap.
>>>
>>> I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country,
>>> bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment
>>> because of its unfavourable conditions.
>>
>> Its uninhabited for a reason. Do you really think that if it was +10F
>> warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?
>>
>>> The climate _might_ be warming
>>> with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming
>>> viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has
>>> might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the
>>> West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?
>>
>> Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at
>> a positive feedback loop. The observation on infrastructure is that it
>> is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo
>> without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.
>>
>>
>>> Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking
>>> to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot
>>> at life.
>>
>> Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new
>> lands were to magically be opened up.
>>
>>> Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which
>>> have not yet been exploited.
>>
>> "Suddenly"? Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you
>> were born. And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).
>>
>>> And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that
>>> living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by
>>> another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.
>>
>> Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...
>>
>> ...and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing: the
>> trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows
>> that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030. Note too
>> that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:
>>
>> <https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>
>>
>>> Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago
>>> that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were
>>> back then.
>>
>> Which are waterfront on an *ocean*? Likewise, eliminate from
>> consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised
>> seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...
>>
>>> Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they
>>> purchased tell you.
>>
>> One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo
>> essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock: it used to stand clear &
>> dry at high tide, but its now awash. Convince me on what's changed that
>> wasn't sea level rise.
>>
>>> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
>>> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
>>> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
>>> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
>>> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.
>>
>> Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the
>> rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical. For Valenia City, Spain,
>> the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's
>> over 7 inches. Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).
>
> This Andrzej guy is what I call a "frog in water set to boil" troll.
> He's done this before. Start out reasonable, and slowly ramp up the
> bullshit, to prolong the engagement.
>
> Another climate-change rationalizer?
>
> He's also done some racist posts; I should have plonked his smarmy ass
> days ago.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Adios. You've been down this road before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU

Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
minutes of quality information.

I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.

On 2025-01-07 17:35, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>
> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
> minutes of quality information.
>
> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.

He won't because he doesn't believe in consuming information as much as
accept whatever narrative the homosexuals on CNN and MSNBC feed him
daily. There's a reason both networks get record low ratings now: even
devout Democrats have noticed that most of what they say is a lie.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:44:34 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
wrote in <vljsmi$2b457$1@dont-email.me>:

> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>
>>
> Adios. You've been down this road before.

This is what happens when you discuss climate issues with
an ESL instructor.

And it has fsck-all to do with Linux.

ObLinux:

Bought a 4TB external USB/NVME device for my workstation.
Installed Samba and configured it to use the "fruit"
module to offer up a Time Machine share for the
Mac Studio. (Also using it with Timeshift on the
workstation itself, but that part was easier.)

(Backups are good; automated versioned backups are better.)

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.8 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Down with categorical imperative!"

On 1/7/25 5:35 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>
> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
> minutes of quality information.

Where its so-called "quality" is that its already been debunked:

<https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html>

> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.

Why waste 80 minutes watching something when a 3 minute Google search
affords one the salient insight on its lack of veracity?

-hh

On 2025-01-07 19:30, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> We already know that the "global cooling," "global
>> warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich
>> the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the
>> floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured
>> not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of
>> certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

If you are talking about levees along the Mississippi, its about
shifting where the flooding occurs. In the old days, when the river
rose, it spread out and flooded lots of lowlying areas. Then we built
levees, and when the river starts to rise, it rises A LOT in a narrower
channel, and on a bad day it overtops the levees and floods a city.

In California, we may remove some levees and flood some fields, which
will recharge some of the groundwater basins that the agri-corporations
have depleted.

Some benefit, some suffer either way.

On 1/7/2025 2:07 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 13:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>
> You've just demonstrated the general idiocy of the woke: agree with
> whatever retarded thing I have to say or I will block you.
>
> Just once in your life, be a man.

"You've been down this road before"

He wants you to cuddle him and croon in his ear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnlngZQqSuQ

On 1/5/2025 9:18 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:20:53 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> SUV : Infiniti QX80 car : Porsche Panamera
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY

You gotta love that voice!

> I'd go for a Cayman. The base flat four is around $75k. I came close to a
> Porsche once. I went in to buy a 914, didn't like it, and bought an Audi
> instead.

I'd like the Cayman for short local trips on winding roads, but it's way
too small for an out-of-state trip.

> It was summed up years later when I went in to kick the tires on
> the Pontiac Fiero. The salesman who had sold me a Firebird a couple of
> years earlier yelled across the showroom floor "They don't make that in
> your size".

Fiero was for hobbit-sized people.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 22:11:07 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 1/5/2025 9:18 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:20:53 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> SUV : Infiniti QX80 car : Porsche Panamera
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY
>
> You gotta love that voice!

I'm a little vague on dates in that era but I saw her in a roadhouse on
the Albany-Schenectady road. It must have been fairly early in her career
since the stage was only a raised platform about 4' high, with people
walking up to give her pints of Southern Comfort.

>> I'd go for a Cayman. The base flat four is around $75k. I came close to
>> a Porsche once. I went in to buy a 914, didn't like it, and bought an
>> Audi instead.
>
> I'd like the Cayman for short local trips on winding roads, but it's way
> too small for an out-of-state trip.

That is a problem. Depending on the season I tend to have camping gear,
snowshoes, bows, axes, coveralls, trekking poles, a bicycle, and sometimes
even an Advanced Elements inflatable kayay stuffed in the back of the
Yaris.

>> It was summed up years later when I went in to kick the tires on the
>> Pontiac Fiero. The salesman who had sold me a Firebird a couple of
>> years earlier yelled across the showroom floor "They don't make that in
>> your size".
>
> Fiero was for hobbit-sized people.

I kept the Firebird. That's a case in point. I had a '73 Mustang and when
a friend and I went grocery shopping and came out with a groaning cart, I
popped the trunk. She looked at it and said "I don't think this is the
sort of car a guy interested in a woman with kids drives." She was right.
After '73 Ford came out with the Mustang II kiddie car. I switched to
Camaros. Comfortable, but the same ridiculous trunk. Then in '82 my
fondest dreams came true, the Camaro/Firebird line became hatchbacks. The
Firebird had retractible headlights aand I thought it was better looking.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2025-01-07 13:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>
> You've just demonstrated the general idiocy of the woke: agree with whatever
> retarded thing I have to say or I will block you.
>
> Just once in your life, be a man.

Please Andrzej, note that Chris is an indoctrinated, 100% pure bred
socialist. He will never stray from the woke narrative. I've blocked him a
long time ago, and so should you for your peace of mind.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

>> What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
>> rightwing propaganda.
>
> No, Carlos, telling the world that we will all be under water unless we give
> lots of money to some cabal of elites is what's propaganda and complete
> bullshit.

That was an easy win for Andrzej. Carlos lost.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2025-01-07 17:35, chrisv wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>>
>> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
>> minutes of quality information.
>>
>> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.
>
> He won't because he doesn't believe in consuming information as much as
> accept whatever narrative the homosexuals on CNN and MSNBC feed him daily.
> There's a reason both networks get record low ratings now: even devout
> Democrats have noticed that most of what they say is a lie.

Thank you for the recommendation. This is added to the TV computer. Two
recommendations that are similar:

The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020027/

and

Cool it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It_(film)

Both available at a torrent site close to you, or on youtube with yt-dlp I
assume.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, -hh wrote:

> On 1/7/25 5:35 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>>
>> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change. An hour and 20
>> minutes of quality information.
>
> Where its so-called "quality" is that its already been debunked:
>
> <https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html>
>
>
>> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.
>
> Why waste 80 minutes watching something when a 3 minute Google search affords
> one the salient insight on its lack of veracity?
>
>
> -hh

Actually, that is the best proof you can find that the movie is on to
something. If it would be mainstream, no one would bother writing a line,
or if it would be made by the climate royalty, it would be hyped by CNN &
Co.

Thank you, now I will definitely watch it! =)

On 07/01/2025 22:03, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> What the fuck are you talking about? What structures? That's bullshit,
>> rightwing propaganda.
>
> No, Carlos, telling the world that we will all be under water unless we
> give lots of money to some cabal of elites is what's propaganda and
> complete bullshit.

Yes.
The impact of a putative net zero campaign will massively outweigh a 1
°C rise and a sea level rise of four inches.

In both cost and environmental destruction

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> He's also done some racist posts;

So what?
So have you.
--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 08/01/2025 10:16, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/25 5:35 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
>>>
>>> Here's an excellant documentary on climate change.  An hour and 20
>>> minutes of quality information.
>>
>> Where its so-called "quality" is that its already been debunked:
>>
>> <https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html>
>>
>>
>>> I'd bet money that Chris A won't watch it.
>>
>> Why waste 80 minutes watching something when a 3 minute Google search
>> affords one the salient insight on its lack of veracity?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> Actually, that is the best proof you can find that the movie is on to
> something. If it would be mainstream, no one would bother writing a
> line, or if it would be made by the climate royalty, it would be hyped
> by CNN & Co.
>
> Thank you, now I will definitely watch it! =)

If anyone is in a position to debunk skeptical science it is me.

The very first post I made using a different than usual nom de guerre,
criticising not climate change, but renewable energy, Skepticalscience
informed me and the public, to my surprise that I was a 'well known
climate denier ' whose ideas had 'already been debunked by skeptical
science'.

Skepticalscience.com is a well known climate denial site pushing fake
information to support a false climate narrative. It isn't skeptical and
it certainly isn't sciencee. It is pure AgitProp left wing propaganda

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> He's also done some racist posts;
>
> So what?
> So have you.

Show me such a post or stfu.

--
Is that really YOU that is reading this?

On 08/01/2025 12:19, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> He's also done some racist posts;
>>
>> So what?
>> So have you.
>
> Show me such a post or stfu.
>
Anyone who says someone is racist, is a racist.

That is someone who thinks in terms of race. And discriminates on the
grounds of 'race'

--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 08/01/2025 12:19, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2025 21:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> He's also done some racist posts;
>>>
>>> So what?
>>> So have you.
>>
>> Show me such a post or stfu.
>>
> Anyone who says someone is racist, is a racist.
>
> That is someone who thinks in terms of race.

Ahhhh, that old canard.

"You called that white man a racist, therefore you are racist."

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.

> And discriminates on the grounds of 'race'.

As is deeply etched in the history of America.

--
Chapter 1
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot
of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, HHGG #2, (The Restaurant at the End of the Universe).

On 2025-01-07 22:01, DFS wrote:
> On 1/7/2025 2:07 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-07 13:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>
>> You've just demonstrated the general idiocy of the woke: agree with
>> whatever retarded thing I have to say or I will block you.
>>
>> Just once in your life, be a man.
>
>
> "You've been down this road before"
>
> He wants you to cuddle him and croon in his ear
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnlngZQqSuQ

I should have expected the Chris Ahlstrom ladyboy to do what he did in
the end. I thought that maybe there was a chance that his balls finally
dropped and that he grew a few pubes, but it looks like I was wrong.

--
CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 2025-01-08 05:00, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2025-01-07 13:44, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adios. You've been down this road before.
>>
>> You've just demonstrated the general idiocy of the woke: agree with
>> whatever retarded thing I have to say or I will block you.
>>
>> Just once in your life, be a man.
>
> Please Andrzej, note that Chris is an indoctrinated, 100% pure bred
> socialist. He will never stray from the woke narrative. I've blocked him
> a long time ago, and so should you for your peace of mind.

Agreed. He will remain in my filter for as long as I am using this
distribution.

--
CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative