Global Collapse

Phil is not being punished.  The statement I added to our new registration agreement has nothing to do with you or Phil.  The banter between you 2 triggered it, but it is a good thing to have in our registration agreement because trolls love to lie and accuse people of being 'opposite' from their professed sympathies.  They know it pisses you off.  I am a veteran of Clusterfuck Nation.  I have seen you post there.  I know about trolls.

Quote from: K-Dog on April 02, 2023, 12:55:26 pm

'Members shall not accuse each other of backpedaling on previous statements without showing a quote documenting the previous statement.   ?

I don't feel it is necessary to punish Phil for just misinterpreting something I said related to when the basics of collapse came into view, if I were going to offer up a date when you could begin to see the basics arriving in public. I stand by the quotes he came up with, his interpretation was just off.

Quote from: Phil Potts on April 01, 2023, 02:05:22 pm

The point is you appeared to forget saying this:

 "And the coming collapse is a given, and has been since folks began realizing what growth and consumption and capitalism and pollution will do, call it Earth Day 1970 if you want me to pick a date when the basics of collapse were coming into view reasonably widely."

when saying this about three days later:

That is a claim that has been around 1970 Earth Day when the collapse was supposed to arrive via overpopulation and pollution.

Oh, I don't forget this at all, I forget the government goon part.

if he wasn't from county, state or fed govt,  was it just a metre reader from the electric company?


I picked a date when the basics of collapse were coming into view, Earth Day 1970. Pollution, climate, lack of oil, I completely agree with both statemenets. The second statement is nothing but mentioning that pollution and overpopulation were part of what was claimed during Earth Day 1970. I like that as a marker for when scientists and credible people claimed a doom that then didn't arrive.

It literally states 1970 as when the collapse arrives ('That is a claim that has been around 1970 Earth Day when the collapse was supposed to arrive..').  If you meant a prediction was made in 1970 for a future date, you needed to give the date of the predicted collapse, with who said what would happen.

Quote from: Phil Potts

Backpedaling on that could be believable, but not when you have more claims of a rough peak date being complete collapse, than remaining barrels of oil on earth.  [/b]

I didn't back pedal on anything. Coming collapse was noticed and the particulars laid down, if I had to pick a date, on Earth Day 1970. Turns out, the timing sure was nonsense though.

I did not say you HAD (past tense) backpeddled on that. Clearly at that point you HAD said nothing further in explanation of it. I said that going forward, backpeddling on it would not be credible. Not credible when you have made innumerable accusations on claims of "collapsing yesterday, collapsing today, collapsing tomorrow" re only claiming a lower energy future, and
"Sure...but how many years do you need to see it and claim it before everyone else figures out you pulled the trigger on claiming it WAY early?" re being in "pre collapse".

Whatever the scope of the movement protesting the problem was in 1970 is probably more than matched today by people against the solution; managed depopulation. The pollution and population problems could only be postponed under the growth based paradigm.