ClimateGate busts things wide open

[Udon Map]

Modern mobility, health, lifestyles, diet, education system, and culture are impossible without fossil fuels

No, actually. These things all require power, but not necessarily power from fossil fuels.

Renewables provide about 1%. Geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use. Fossil fuels the rest.

Yes, for now.

Fossil fuels provided over 90% of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800

Well, yes, since 1800. But things have changed. In 1850, for example, the leading causes of death were tuberculosis, dysentery and cholera. But now they have been replaced by things like heart disease, cancer and stroke. It's not 1800 any more.

And again - your point is what? That causes of death have changed. Or that people are living much longer since 1800?

My point is that you cite that 90%+ of the energy consumed since 1800 has been from fossil fuel as support for your position. I'm simply pointing out that such an analogy is inapposite because EVERYTHING has changed since 1800.

Currently geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use.

But, to continue your analogy of comparing to 1800, the use of these fuel sources is up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Well, sure, depending on how you look at it. If renewable sourced fuel use doubles, that's still much less, in absolute terms, than the increase in fossil fuel use. But the fact that it has doubled is significant. Statistics always work that way in the early stages of the adoption of new technology.

Renewable energy (wind, solar, and cultivated biomass) provide about 1% of world energy.

Again, compared to 1800, up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Yes, you said that. See above. My response is the same.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%.

That may well be true; but there are several significant factors holding the growth back. And, regardless, the quantity of fossil fuel is limited. We'll run out at some point. Not so with renewable sources of energy, of course, by definition.

What are those factors? Be specific. There are estimated to be hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves. Why rush into expensive solutions now?

Lots of reasons. Thinking like yours, for one. Increasing regulatory oversight which did not exist in 1800, which makes it increasingly difficult for any new technology of change to be adopted. The NIMBY factor, resulting in no one wanting to see wind turbines out their windows (but the smog and odor from fossil fuel burning is apparently OK with them). Why deal with it now? Probably a better idea than waiting until we're nearly out of fossil fuel. And the estimated reserves depend on assumptions about usage volumes and their rate of change. What if those assumptions are too low? And does this mean that you agree that we're going to need to find alternate sources of fuel, you just don't see the need to do it right now?

The eco-loony call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 is as stupid as it gets, because it is only possible to do if we are happy to see large populations die from starvation, destitution or violence without enough low-carbon energy to sustain modern society and civilisation.

Well, apart from your unnecessary and counterproductive condescending comments about people who disagree with you, I've always believed that it's good to set ambitious goals, even if you don't ultimately attain them.

Pity you don't apply the same rules to those who use the term deniers and similar. Setting achievable goals is common sense, setting aspirational goals with others money is theft by other means.

And it's better to wait until it's an emergency? Note that we haven't even mentioned health issues from the byproducts of burning fossil fuels.

And by the way - are you acting as a moderator or a contributor?

Contributor. When I'm acting as a Moderator, I use blue color to distinguish.

[papafarang]

as I said before, luddite mentality , or as I truly see them . intellectual morons

LUDDITE
1. One who fears technology (or new technology, as they seem pleased with how things currently are...why can't everything just be the same?)

2. A group led by Mr. Luddite durring the industrial revolution who beleived machines would cause workers wages to be decreased and ended up burning a number of factories in protest

A luddite generally claims things were "just fine" back in the day, and refuses to replace/update failing equipment/software/computers on the basis that they were just fine 10 years ago.

[ronan01]

as I said before, luddite mentality , or as I truly see them . intellectual morons

LUDDITE
1. One who fears technology (or new technology, as they seem pleased with how things currently are...why can't everything just be the same?)

2. A group led by Mr. Luddite durring the industrial revolution who beleived machines would cause workers wages to be decreased and ended up burning a number of factories in protest

A luddite generally claims things were "just fine" back in the day, and refuses to replace/update failing equipment/software/computers on the basis that they were just fine 10 years ago.

Copy pasting ...... spam!

[GT93]

You boys have been having a lot of fun today. Ronan01 has been since the third page of this thread.

[ronan01]

Modern mobility, health, lifestyles, diet, education system, and culture are impossible without fossil fuels

No, actually. These things all require power, but not necessarily power from fossil fuels.

Renewables provide about 1%. Geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use. Fossil fuels the rest.

Yes, for now.

The point is aiming for 80% decarbonising by 2050 is, as Sir Humphrey would say, heroic. Not to mention costly and damaging to society.

Fossil fuels provided over 90% of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800

Well, yes, since 1800. But things have changed. In 1850, for example, the leading causes of death were tuberculosis, dysentery and cholera. But now they have been replaced by things like heart disease, cancer and stroke. It's not 1800 any more.

And again - your point is what? That causes of death have changed. Or that people are living much longer since 1800?

My point is that you cite that 90%+ of the energy consumed since 1800 has been from fossil fuel as support for your position. I'm simply pointing out that such an analogy is inapposite because EVERYTHING has changed since 1800.

The simple point is fossil fuels allowed the development of society and that is why everything changed.

Currently geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use.

But, to continue your analogy of comparing to 1800, the use of these fuel sources is up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Well, sure, depending on how you look at it. If renewable sourced fuel use doubles, that's still much less, in absolute terms, than the increase in fossil fuel use. But the fact that it has doubled is significant. Statistics always work that way in the early stages of the adoption of new technology.

Renewables doubled because of massive subsidies. And cannot work without standby power provided by fossils or nuclear. To get renewables to around 80% by 2050 is ..... heroic. And costly for no real gain.

Renewable energy (wind, solar, and cultivated biomass) provide about 1% of world energy.

Again, compared to 1800, up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Yes, you said that. See above. My response is the same.

Renewables doubled because of massive subsidies. And cannot work without standby power provided by fossils or nuclear. To get renewables to around 80% by 2050 is ..... heroic. And costly for no real gain.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%.

That may well be true; but there are several significant factors holding the growth back. And, regardless, the quantity of fossil fuel is limited. We'll run out at some point. Not so with renewable sources of energy, of course, by definition.

What are those factors? Be specific. There are estimated to be hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves. Why rush into expensive solutions now?

Lots of reasons. Thinking like yours, for one. Increasing regulatory oversight which did not exist in 1800, which makes it increasingly difficult for any new technology of change to be adopted. The NIMBY factor, resulting in no one wanting to see wind turbines out their windows (but the smog and odor from fossil fuel burning is apparently OK with them). Why deal with it now? Probably a better idea than waiting until we're nearly out of fossil fuel. And the estimated reserves depend on assumptions about usage volumes and their rate of change. What if those assumptions are too low? And does this mean that you agree that we're going to need to find alternate sources of fuel, you just don't see the need to do it right now?

New technologies today are supported by subsidies. Smog and odour was dealt (in London) using smokeless fuels a long time ago. Estimated reserves are still in the hundreds of years by any usage forecast. What if your assumptions are too high and countless trillions are wasted for no effect? There will be alternative sources and I suspect they will be easier harnessed in the future than now. Why do it right now? That sort of thinking is designed to stop progress - a bit like 19th century innovators worrying about what might happen in in the 23rd century. The biggest worry in the 19th century was that horse ---- would grow to be 2 metres high in the street - fossil fuels put an end to that sort of alarmist thinking.

The eco-loony call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 is as stupid as it gets, because it is only possible to do if we are happy to see large populations die from starvation, destitution or violence without enough low-carbon energy to sustain modern society and civilisation.

Well, apart from your unnecessary and counterproductive condescending comments about people who disagree with you, I've always believed that it's good to set ambitious goals, even if you don't ultimately attain them.

Pity you don't apply the same rules to those who use the term deniers and similar. Setting achievable goals is common sense, setting aspirational goals with others money is theft by other means.

And it's better to wait until it's an emergency? Note that we haven't even mentioned health issues from the byproducts of burning fossil fuels.

What emergency? And what about applying the same rules to those you terms like denier and similar?

And by the way - are you acting as a moderator or a contributor?

Contributor. When I'm acting as a Moderator, I use blue color to distinguish.

[ronan01]

Modern mobility, health, lifestyles, diet, education system, and culture are impossible without fossil fuels

No, actually. These things all require power, but not necessarily power from fossil fuels.

Renewables provide about 1%. Geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use. Fossil fuels the rest.

Yes, for now.

The point is aiming for 80% decarbonising by 2050 is, as Sir Humphrey would say, heroic. Not to mention costly and damaging to society.

Fossil fuels provided over 90% of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800

Well, yes, since 1800. But things have changed. In 1850, for example, the leading causes of death were tuberculosis, dysentery and cholera. But now they have been replaced by things like heart disease, cancer and stroke. It's not 1800 any more.

And again - your point is what? That causes of death have changed. Or that people are living much longer since 1800?

My point is that you cite that 90%+ of the energy consumed since 1800 has been from fossil fuel as support for your position. I'm simply pointing out that such an analogy is inapposite because EVERYTHING has changed since 1800.

The simple point is fossil fuels allowed the development of society and that is why everything changed.

Currently geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use.

But, to continue your analogy of comparing to 1800, the use of these fuel sources is up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Well, sure, depending on how you look at it. If renewable sourced fuel use doubles, that's still much less, in absolute terms, than the increase in fossil fuel use. But the fact that it has doubled is significant. Statistics always work that way in the early stages of the adoption of new technology.

Renewables doubled because of massive subsidies. And cannot work without standby power provided by fossils or nuclear. To get renewables to around 80% by 2050 is ..... heroic. And costly for no real gain.

Renewable energy (wind, solar, and cultivated biomass) provide about 1% of world energy.

Again, compared to 1800, up dramatically and growing.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%

Yes, you said that. See above. My response is the same.

Renewables doubled because of massive subsidies. And cannot work without standby power provided by fossils or nuclear. To get renewables to around 80% by 2050 is ..... heroic. And costly for no real gain.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%.

That may well be true; but there are several significant factors holding the growth back. And, regardless, the quantity of fossil fuel is limited. We'll run out at some point. Not so with renewable sources of energy, of course, by definition.

What are those factors? Be specific. There are estimated to be hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves. Why rush into expensive solutions now?

Lots of reasons. Thinking like yours, for one. Increasing regulatory oversight which did not exist in 1800, which makes it increasingly difficult for any new technology of change to be adopted. The NIMBY factor, resulting in no one wanting to see wind turbines out their windows (but the smog and odor from fossil fuel burning is apparently OK with them). Why deal with it now? Probably a better idea than waiting until we're nearly out of fossil fuel. And the estimated reserves depend on assumptions about usage volumes and their rate of change. What if those assumptions are too low? And does this mean that you agree that we're going to need to find alternate sources of fuel, you just don't see the need to do it right now?

New technologies today are supported by subsidies. Smog and odour was dealt (in London) using smokeless fuels a long time ago. Estimated reserves are still in the hundreds of years by any usage forecast. What if your assumptions are too high and countless trillions are wasted for no effect? There will be alternative sources and I suspect they will be easier harnessed in the future than now. Why do it right now? That sort of thinking is designed to stop progress - a bit like 19th century innovators worrying about what might happen in in the 23rd century. The biggest worry in the 19th century was that horse ---- would grow to be 2 metres high in the street - fossil fuels put an end to that sort of alarmist thinking.

The eco-loony call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 is as stupid as it gets, because it is only possible to do if we are happy to see large populations die from starvation, destitution or violence without enough low-carbon energy to sustain modern society and civilisation.

Well, apart from your unnecessary and counterproductive condescending comments about people who disagree with you, I've always believed that it's good to set ambitious goals, even if you don't ultimately attain them.

Pity you don't apply the same rules to those who use the term deniers and similar. Setting achievable goals is common sense, setting aspirational goals with others money is theft by other means.

And it's better to wait until it's an emergency? Note that we haven't even mentioned health issues from the byproducts of burning fossil fuels.

What emergency? And what about applying the same rules to those you terms like denier and similar?

And by the way - are you acting as a moderator or a contributor?

Contributor. When I'm acting as a Moderator, I use blue color to distinguish.

[ronan01]

You boys have been having a lot of fun today. Ronan01 has been since the third page of this thread.

After your disgraceful comments on ANZAC Day I am surprised you have the gall to raise your head.

[Udon Map]

Ronan01, there's really no point in continuing. You don't allow that some people disagree with your perspective and view the situation differently (in the absence of objective information which might prove either way which view is correct); and you simply shout them down until they give up in frustration. OK, you win.

[ronan01]

Ronan01, there's really no point in continuing. You don't allow that some people disagree with your perspective and view the situation differently (in the absence of objective information which might prove either way which view is correct); and you simply shout them down until they give up in frustration. OK, you win.

You have not been shouted down - nothing of the sort.

I addressed each of your points in a rational manner.

You have taken your ball and bat and gone off in a huff because you cant make your case.

This is the second time you have thrown a hissy-fit because your points have been refuted.

Says a lot about your character.

You simply believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and that decarbonising is the solution, but you cant explain why.

One question - did you read the paper at the the link?

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... b8427fc72d

[Udon Map]

One question - did you read the paper at the the link?

Yes, of course I did. I wouldn't have been qualified to respond if I hadn't. I can find at least as many academic papers on the other side; but that won't solve anything here.

The key difference between us is that I acknowledge that I may be wrong. Naturally, you'll say that I don't acknowledge it at all. OK, you're right.

[rick]

I wasn't able to view Ronan's source, but i do have issues with it's accuracy in the % quoted.

What, no rapid retort or comment on the fact that:

Modern civilization begun with the first industrial revolution which was enabled by fossil fuels.

A vague concept. 'Modern', 'Civilisation' and 'first industrial revolution' not defined. I would actually say water was the main 'fuel' at the start of the industrial revolution.

Modern mobility, health, lifestyles, diet, education system, and culture are impossible without fossil fuels

Fossil fuels provided over 90% of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800

Wasn't able to get this figure, but the first graph in the quote below shows that coal didn't overtake biofuels until the 20th century. And even this graph has issues as it doesn't include wind power, water power or muscle power which were also important in the 19th century.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-produ ... y-sources/

and another source is also interesting as it estimates these resources in the USA. draft animals (mainly horses) peaked just after 1900. Also at one time there were 1 million windmills (mainly used for pumping water) and of course sailing ships used wind ..... there was also estimated to be 71,000 water mills in 1840. These sources are ignored in many energy use claims.

Currently geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use.

Around 19% according to wikipedia in 2013.

Renewable energy (wind, solar, and cultivated biomass) provide about 1% of world energy.

Wrong. 'Renewable' is over 13%. the 1% figure is for solar, wind and geothermal.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%.

Not unchanged. depends on what you count as low carbon energy. 19% in 2013, and has been growing the last few years. Fossil fuel use grows at about 2% a year, renewable energy by around 10% a year. Also IF fossil fuel use was growing 7 times faster than low carbon, why has the % of total use stayed the same (according to you).

The eco-loony call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 is as stupid as it gets, because it is only possible to do if we are happy to see large populations die from starvation, destitution or violence without enough low-carbon energy to sustain modern society and civilisation.

80% is probably to high for the world, but for electricity the world already is over 20%. 3 countries already achieve over 80% electricity from renewables - Iceland, Norway and Brazil. Denmark aims to achieve 100% of total energy from renewable sources by 2050

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... b8427fc72d

[papafarang]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

[ronan01]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

A magnificent display of intelligence. Keep up the good work.

[ronan01]

I wasn't able to view Ronan's source, but i do have issues with it's accuracy in the % quoted.

What, no rapid retort or comment on the fact that:

Modern civilization begun with the first industrial revolution which was enabled by fossil fuels.

A vague concept. 'Modern', 'Civilisation' and 'first industrial revolution' not defined. I would actually say water was the main 'fuel' at the start of the industrial revolution.

Modern mobility, health, lifestyles, diet, education system, and culture are impossible without fossil fuels

Fossil fuels provided over 90% of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800

Wasn't able to get this figure, but the first graph in the quote below shows that coal didn't overtake biofuels until the 20th century. And even this graph has issues as it doesn't include wind power, water power or muscle power which were also important in the 19th century.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-produ ... y-sources/

and another source is also interesting as it estimates these resources in the USA. draft animals (mainly horses) peaked just after 1900. Also at one time there were 1 million windmills (mainly used for pumping water) and of course sailing ships used wind ..... there was also estimated to be 71,000 water mills in 1840. These sources are ignored in many energy use claims.

Currently geothermal, hydro and nuclear power, and biofuels like wood and straw, account for about 15% of energy use.

Around 19% according to wikipedia in 2013.

Renewable energy (wind, solar, and cultivated biomass) provide about 1% of world energy.

Wrong. 'Renewable' is over 13%. the 1% figure is for solar, wind and geothermal.

Fossil fuels growth is seven times that of low carbon energies and the ratio of fossil fuel energy used to total energy used has remained unchanged since 1990 at 85%.

Not unchanged. depends on what you count as low carbon energy. 19% in 2013, and has been growing the last few years. Fossil fuel use grows at about 2% a year, renewable energy by around 10% a year. Also IF fossil fuel use was growing 7 times faster than low carbon, why has the % of total use stayed the same (according to you).

The eco-loony call to decarbonize the global economy by 80% by 2050 is as stupid as it gets, because it is only possible to do if we are happy to see large populations die from starvation, destitution or violence without enough low-carbon energy to sustain modern society and civilisation.

80% is probably to high for the world, but for electricity the world already is over 20%. 3 countries already achieve over 80% electricity from renewables - Iceland, Norway and Brazil. Denmark aims to achieve 100% of total energy from renewable sources by 2050

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... b8427fc72d

The source:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... b8427fc72d

Refer Fig 1, Page 3.

Most of Norway's renewables come from hydro, Icelands from geothermal. Unique in the world and not representative - the rest of the world cant do this, particyualrly in Australia where the eco-loons prevent the development of dams.

[papafarang]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

A magnificent display of intelligence. Keep up the good work.

ok Rowland luddite

[ronan01]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

A magnificent display of intelligence. Keep up the good work.

ok Rowland luddite

Another brilliant riposte - your wit is amazing. Keep it up.

[papafarang]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

A magnificent display of intelligence. Keep up the good work.

ok Rowland luddite

Another brilliant riposte - your wit is amazing. Keep it up.

ok woland luddite, if you say so I will, because your always correct. I think you'll find i'm as persistent as a dose of herpes simplex. and have decided that this thread is a comedy thread, well apart from the posters that have some interesting info. its a monty python thread. in fact i'm quite amazed that someone has a personality based on a monty python character
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(The ronan does not respond.)

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

ronan: What do you mean "miss"?

Mr. Praline: (pause)I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

ronan: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

ronan: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

ronan: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

: No nronano he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

ronan: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...

(ronan hits the cage)
ronan: There, he moved!

Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

ronan: I never!!

Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

ronan: I never, never did anything...

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

ronan: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

ronan: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

ronan: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

ronan: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

ronan: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

ronan: No no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

(pause)

ronan: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.

Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.

ronan: (pause) I got a slug.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, does it talk?

ronan: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

ronan: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

ronan: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

[GT93]

Nice.

[ronan01]

simple they want to tare down windmills to keep coal miners in work, loony luddites .

A magnificent display of intelligence. Keep up the good work.

ok Rowland luddite

Another brilliant riposte - your wit is amazing. Keep it up.

ok woland luddite, if you say so I will, because your always correct. I think you'll find i'm as persistent as a dose of herpes simplex.

A herpes simplex virus would be smarter than you and write better comedy.

2/10 (but only for managing to hit the keyboard).

The say if you give enough monkeys a typewriter and enough time one of them would write some Shakespeare.

I would put my money on the monkey's over you any day.

[GT93]

9 out of 10 papa. Oh Lordie, this thread, the map's leading thread, needs some humour. One reason I read this thread is to work out where farang in Udon are at.