One of the text reponses near the top was
“She needs to fix her stupid fence”
I’m not sure why I found this so funny, but it certainly made my day. As for the lady, sure she’s clearly got issues but I don’t think she’s anywhere near timecube territory.
Wow that’s deep man, but what exactly do you mean by it?
Sorry, that was not meant as snark, I really am not sure what you meant by it. Please cure me of my ignorance.
Oh, and incidentally, it takes a remarkable amount of chutzpah to sneer at a wiki cite, when evidence for your own argument is “a class I took eight years ago that I don’t remember the name of.”
Have you watched her other videos? Not many people can match Timecube for sheer crazy, but she’s really far out there.
Well, instead of quoting posts in full, maybe you should try reading something that doesn’t come from wikipedia or answers.com, you’re two favorite sources of information, it seems.
Try Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists. Just for giggles. I have to warn you; it includes big person words such as environmentalism, conservationism, and preservationism, that you may not have encountered in your wik-orgy.
You and Giraffe et. al. can still pretend those aren’t separate words I guess. After this, I’m going to go jack off, because it’s a better use of my time.
I mean that levdrakon is not interested in being educated on this matter. He doesn’t care that his precious distinctions between “conservationist”, “preservationist”, and “environmentalist” are meaningless, trite, and small-minded, or that virtually no one outside the class he took cares, acknowledges, or even wastes time thinking about such meaningless pap. Not when there’s so damn much about the environment left to learn. He only wants to vent and call people “incredible morons”, and express his vaguely directed anger at those who don’t think like him.
Catharsis and anonymity.
I also hypothesize that at least 99% of all internet arguments share these characteristics.
But dad, the self-described environmentalists called me names first!
Oh, wait. That’s how it works around here, isn’t it?
This is funny from an deliberately ignorant poster that seized on two quick and easy word defintion look ups and has ignored the questions I actually asked you.
You said, “It was pretty clear environmentalists are the extreme weirdoes who go beyond tree hugging, and would prefer most humans kill themselves so the rest can go back to living in loin-clothes and subsisting on fairy blossoms.”
You cannot support this statement with your links and posts.
Thank you for the explanation. I was trying to make a stoner joke of asking and I saw how badly it translated and looked like snark instead. What you say makes sense. I fear it is all too true. Especially in this case.
Ahh, did I hurt your *wittle * feelings by pointing out how ignorant you were on this subject. Don’t take such offense, we all have things we are ignorant about. Being a smart adult, some of us can admit to this ignorance and learn about a subject and be better for it.
Just did, and you’re right, she’s pretty close. It’s sad.
Oh blow me, you fucking crybaby. I’m not misrepresenting anything you’ve said, I’m posting my opinion about what I believe many people would infer both from what you said and how and where you chose to say it. Hardly frothing, and hardly part of a mindless Greek chorus lining up against you.
But it’s not simply about how you choose to classify her, it’s the fact that you felt compelled to post the link, with a subject addressing environmentalists as a whole, when you yourself have a history of being critical of the environmental movement.
Were a poster with a history of criticizing fiscal conservatism to post a link to my aforementioned crazy “no taxes for the Jews!” crazy guy on a board with a large population of fiscal conservatives with a similar OP to yours, it would hard to view it as anything other than attempting to associate the two, regardless of what disclaimers and adjectives you use.
That’s just my take on it. I’ll look forward to more boo-hoo that your intentions were nothing but pure and all the mean irrational liberals are ganging up on you for no reason.
Well, since you’re an avowed environmentalist working on an environmentalist festival I can only imagine how the spice is going to flow. I wish I had access to your environmentalist stash. It’d make these threads easier to follow.
As I said, a joke. I don’t smoke anything and I don’t use illegal drugs, though there was a time in my past when I did recreationally.
Can you at least answer, do you consider member of Greenpeace and Sierra club to fit your definition?
Oh, the day you could hurt my little feewings, is the day I French kiss my grandmother. Or your grandmother.
levdrakon, next car you buy, make sure it has a reverse gear. You badly need one.
Miller, you think the wikipedia thing is sad, yesterday on another board I got called a disingenuous twit because I cited a philosophy website’s definition of a fallacy instead of citing wikipedia. Which fallacy? Appeal to authority.
The mind boggles.
Daniel
Well, Ogre’s post seems to be pretty throughly validated, doesn’t it?
Hey, you leave us out of this mess, this has absolutely nothing to do with us. We’re still after Ian Paisley.
Thanks,
Cluricaun, resident SDMB representative of the wee folk.
Well, since you seem rational, unless I’m misreading some dry sarcasm, on what point am I supposed to employ the reverse gear? There are at least several categories of people who are concerned about the environment and I happen to hold the view that environmentalists are the extreme. Had several someones not insulted me in their response I might be willing to listen. But, this is the pit, and people like to act like children and engage in ad hominems and ignorantly cite wiki and answers.com.
No sweat.
Considering the fact that the only person you responded to was the only person who insulted you, I’m somewhat skeptical of this claim.