40 Replies to “Weird How That Works”

  1. heeeyyyyyyy there yawellsmartmouth, yet ANOTHER example of the trick l suggested when reading images.
    here it is again smartmouth, give us your cocky lip at any point:
    -rt click, ‘open image in new tab’
    -go to that tab, its enlarged to about half the screen, with an inviting + sign on it.
    -soooooo tap the + and my my my, the lettering is about oh, 5 times the original posting.
    -its the difference between looking at this image in its original link and location as opposed to the ‘thumbnail’ in the posting.
    -this courtesy the guy with a BSc computer science and experience going back to 1970.

    -mouth mouth mouth. also feel free to f off.

    1. What exactly is your point anyway? Are you rebutting 11 peer-reviewed studies?

      Anyway…
      I’m pretty sure I can speak for the majority of SDA readers when I say that we can do without the condescension explaining to the rest of us on how to manipulate a web browser.
      We’re not exactly children here.

      (Oh… is that you, GYM? I didn’t recognize you for a moment.)

      3. is that so? well guess what, l seriously resent the condescending sarcasm in the ORIGINAL posting ‘way back when’ when l merely suggested a means of making images with words more legible.
        and got a faceful of lip. well guess whut, do tell us all the ‘trick’ to creating acii characters that are NOT on the keyboard. how does it work? or perhaps in an emergency you get a malfunctioning key, how does one cough up that letter ANYWAY??
        in my experience, most people are unawares how its done.
        but apparently the consensus at SDA (see above) is stfu with the technical tips.

        that does seem to be the case seeing as NO ONE else made objection to yawell’s snarkiness at the time. is that a ‘character'(pun intended)istic of the hard core right?

        and where in H-E-hockey sticks do you get the notion lm rebutting ANYTHING when in fact lm merely facilitating the process of reading the information?

        2. I think that’s spelled “ASCII”, pv… but that’s ok… You’re allowed one typo per thread.
          And yes, I do know how to do that, but I don’t think it’s necessary to explain it to you, because I got the feeling you know how to do it too.

          So one suggestion: If your post is directed to someone specifically in particular, it’s usually customary to inject a prefix “@” before the target.

          And to your final question, I had no idea what you were rambling about in your original post, but you sounded quite irate, so one would reasonably assume that you were not in agreement with the post, which is why I asked the question in my first response.

        3. I have another suggestion: Don’t post when you’re angry. Take it all in stride. Have fun with it, like I’m having a blast with GYM and his histrionics.
          Because a) you’ll be a happier person, and b) you will make fewer mistakes.
          and c) you won’t piss people off unnecisarily.
          (ooops… a typo! Well, none of us are perfect.)

          It’s all in the attitude.
          …Until next time.

  2. As the indigenous elder proclaimed at an energy conference in Calgary a couple of years ago, energy security is food security.

  3. The summary included the Kool aid consumption of “sustainability” through reduced CO2 presumably brought on by the carbon pricing of a relatively non-substitutionary input. IOW, yes it starves the poor but it leads to the nirvana of electric tractors or something?

  5. I read through the page. Someone pulled garbage out of his rectum and produced a “report”. His buddy proof read it and declared it peer reviewed.

    1. Well, that is what “peer review” is. Actually, when it comes to climate change, etc., it’s more like “pal review”. Anybody who says “peer review” is the “gold standard” doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. If you want to get to the truth, you need to implement a “tenth man” process.

  6. If a government wants more of something, subsidize it.

    If a government wants less of something, tax it.

    Seems to me Canada and other Western government want more starvation. They are taxing food production, the inputs to food production, and the transport of food to consumers. That’s a sure way to get less food.

    The basics of taxation are:

    a) If it moves, tax it.

    2) If you have to move it, tax it.

    iii) If it’s too big to move, tax it.

    D) If it stops moving, is 6 feet under and pushing up daisies, tax the heirs.

    2. Governments all over throw giant piles of money into farm subsidies. We have no shortages of food.

        2. Disappearance of the knowledge to grow, preserve and cook food? Too much processed foods in ones diet? Being so ill educated one couldn’t figure out how to take a Vitamin C supplement? Not disagreeing with you premise that govt taxation is a problem

      2. While it is somewhat accurate that we have no shortages of food, we have a situation where many can’t afford it and many places where it cannot reasonably be distributed.

  7. Is Sunday a slow news day at SDA?

    No thoughts or comments on the bum’s rush given to the Assad clan, Hezbollah, the Iranians and the Russians in Syria?

    Just askin’.

    1. Considering how this is a thread on how a carbon tax affects food prices, I’d say odds are slim that you’ll find many comments about Syria and Assad here.

      Try the tips thread, JJM. There’s some commentary about Syria there, and some links.

      Just answerin’.

      1. P.S. to JJM: I forgot to mention you’ll also find lots of bickering, name calling, and insults on the topic there, too.

  9. Liberal racist voters want a government that will persecute people they don’t like, they are happy to pay that government high taxes.

  10. Well, the researchers who produce government funded papers that conclude CO2 taxes (input costs) don’t increase the price of food are the same type of government funded researchers who say:

    -Biological males can become women, including breastfeeding infants
    -That there is no such thing as natural immunity
    – That removing firearms from rural hunters, farmers and ranchers will reduce urban handgun crime committed by repeat violent criminal gangs
    – That giving hard drugs to kids is harm reduction

    Government funded research that 100% conforms to a government agenda should not be taken as serious, unbiased research. I’m sure this obvious to everyone but activists and journalists. Canadian researchers, activists and legacy journalists are all government funded (aka. taxpayer’s money) to produce government propaganda.

  11. Canadians are retards who think that removing handguns from the law-abiding will reduce “gun crime” ( a word that is just as much of a red herring/canard/bald-faced lie as “islamophobia”).
    It should be no harder to buy a gun than a shovel.

    1. True.

      But consider the weight and expense of propaganda that was expended to make it so, starting with the Sullivan Act in 1911. That’s how long it has been to create what we see now. The Sullivan Act was passed in New York to keep firearms from blacks, immigrant Europeans and the Irish.

      Turned out to be such a great scam that they kept at it for 113 years, all the way up until now. Think of how many layers of government and police would go “poof!” if it was as easy to by a gun as a shovel. Think of all those iron rice bowls, broken and lying in the gutter, their former owners made to seek honest work.

      They did the same for weed, over the same time period. The weed scam seems to have unraveled of late, maybe the gun scam will too.

  12. I know that whenever I’m in a Home Depot, True-Value, Rona or whatever, that all the folk in line with me are evil criminals, and if they were sold a freakin’ gun they would no doubt go on a shooting spree against black, trans and gay folk. <<<This is how Canadians think.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation