What do people think of this statement?

[CARREG]

Beaufort
Are you some kind of cretin, you were told exactly what A A meant, are you having trouble reading his posts............Carreg

 

[chestnut cob]

Ummm... total and utter bollox!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

To be honest I posted it originally just to get a debate going. It's meant to be a contraversial statement and open to misrepresentation. (Even a bit of a troll)

I think most people got what I really meant pretty quickly...

However Beufort insists on misunderstanding it.

Typical anti I'm afraid, they misrepresent your argument, argainst the misrepresentation and then refuse to listen to what you are actually saying.

 

[flying_change]

So I read.

 

[flying_change]

I thought it to be a reasonable extrapolation from "the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened"

 

[Ereiam_jh]

That ios quoting a part of a sentence from part of what someone said to deliberately misrepresent what they are saying.

If you can't understand what I meant then you must be extremely stupid.

If you're deliberately misunderstanding it then you are simply dishonest.

 

[Beaufort]

No, YOU'RE the one being dishonest. Let me quote in full what you said:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise.

It's rubbish that nuclear is bad for the environment.

It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

You now claim that you're referring in the final sentence just to safely harnessed nuclear power, not nuclear pollution. If that were the case why concede that it "may be bad for people"? It doesn't make sense.

It's even more clear from your contributions later in the thread that you're referring to nuclear pollution:

"I'm not sayinmg that Chernobyl was a good thing, it was a complete tragedy.

However the fact remains that as far as nature is concerned it's in a much healthier state in and arond the town of Chernobyl than it was before the accident.

The whole town has been greened over.

If there are birds and animals with birth defects due to radiation they will die very quickly after birth so it really isn't so much of a problem for the ecology. [...] the fact remains that the wildlife around the chernobyl site has massively benefited from it."

What you were clearly saying in this bizarre and eccentric outburst was that nuclear pollution, though bad for people, is a "god send" for the environment.

If you now disagree with what you originally wrote, fine - just say so. We all say silly things from time to time. But to resort to dishonesty - and incompetent dishonesty at that - to try to cover up your embarrassment does you no favours.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No that's not what I meant, I can see that you might read it like that, indeed it was meant to be interpretable in different ways, bit that isn't what I meant. I'm not being dishonest.

I do beleive that the accident has had a beneficial effect on nature conservation around Chernobyl, and I stand by that statement.

Nuclear pollution has positive and negative effects.


Lovelock says Nuclear Waste should be stored in the rainforest in open containers.

What do you think of that.

It might lead to a few mutant minkeys but it would keep the loggers out.

Good or bad, what do you think?

 

[Beaufort]

I don't accept your view that there are beneficial effects of nuclear pollution. I don't accept that Chernobyl was an environmental "god send". I think that's a kind of blasphemy.

 

[flying_change]

You're not being very consistent are you ? You also have said.....
"To be honest I posted it originally just to get a debate going. It's meant to be a contraversial statement and open to misrepresentation."

Emphasis there on the word 'meant', I think.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

As think you probably know; I don't think Chernobyl was an environmental god send either.

Nuclear power might be though.

What do you think about the idea of storing nuclear waste in the open in rainforests, is that a runner?

 

[Beaufort]

You said:

"It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

How is nuclear power - as opposed to what you were clearly talking about i.e. nuclear pollution - "bad for people"?

 

[flying_change]

I think you should bale out now before you spin in even tighter circles.....

 

[Ereiam_jh]

It's bad for people when it blows up and kills them.

It's good for people when it powers their homes and reduces global warming.

The pollution is bad, the reduction in global warming is good.

(sorry that was an answer to Mr Wind Scale

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"I think you should bale out now before you spin in even tighter circles..... "

Why I'm enjoying myself.

Do nyou feel like a huntsman?

 

[Beaufort]

So when you said "It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send" you were referring to nuclear pollution.

Personally, I don't regard nuclear pollution as a "god send".

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No I was referring to Nuclear power as I think I keep saying.

The nuclear pollution produced by nuclear power is bad for people, the carbon free(ish) energy is a god send.

 

[Beaufort]

Since you said "It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send" and you equally say nuclear pollution is "bad for people", you're quite evidently referring to nuclear pollution in that sentence. Let's now replace "it" with "nuclear pollution" in your declaration and we can appreciate how completely perverse it is:

"Nuclear pollution may be bad for people, but environmentally, nuclear pollution is a god send."

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Nothing in the original statement even mentions nuclear pollution. If you substitute words into my statement you can make it mean different things. What does that prove?

Here's the statement, where does it mention pollution:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise.

It's rubbish that nuclear is bad for the environment.

It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send.""

 

[Sooty]

Obviously nuclear accidents are highly undesirable, but isn't it heartening that at least something positive can be said about such a tragic event? There are those who will see a silver lining in even the blackest of clouds, nuclear or otherwise. Bless.

 

[Beaufort]

You have stated today that "it", in the context of nuclear power, is only bad for people when "it" is nuclear pollution. Safely harnessed nuclear power, by definition, isn't "bad for people". You can only be referring to nuclear pollution in your final sentence when you say "it may be bad for people". You therefore must be stating that nuclear pollution is a "god send" for the environment as well.

You have also stated today that you were referring to the beneficial effects on the environment in terms of the absence of carbon emissions. But, again quite evidently, this wasn't on your mind when you made this weird statement. You drew a direct correlation between the greatest incidence of nuclear pollution the world has ever witnessed and its beneficial impact (supposedly) on the environment:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT CHERNOBYL was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise." [my caps]

This has nothing to do with low carbon emissions. It is absolutely 100% clear that you were referring to nuclear pollution and its "wholesome" impact on wildlife.

I don't agree that nuclear pollution is a "god send" to the environment, but perhaps your cronies Hercules and Carreg do.

 

[Hercules]

Beaufort,

You are a dullard and this is a forum on Hunting - is there any chance of you taking your boring and worthless opinions about Chernobyl to a more suitable arena? Thankyou.

 

[Beaufort]

How relieved you must be, AA, that when you're on the canvas wondering if you can get up to receive yet another blow, one of your cronies jumps into the ring to help you out; but how disappointed you must be that your "saviour" turns out to be the puny and spectacularly stupid Hercules.

 

[Hercules]

Hunting?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

They always resort to insults Herc.

I can't help laughing that he's named after a windscale.

Boom boom!

first of all beafort claimed I said nuclear accidents and weapons were a blah blah. Now he's claimin g I'm talking about nuclear pollution. Would you like to try again beaufort?

The chernobyl accident has created a wildlife paradise around the site. Nuclear power is a god send to the environment although it has hurt and killed people.

 

[Beaufort]

Embrace nuclear pollution if you want. In fact take your cronies Hercules and Carreg and make it a group hug.

 

[Paul T]

"If you now disagree with what you originally wrote, fine - just say so. We all say silly things from time to time. But to resort to dishonesty - and incompetent dishonesty at that - to try to cover up your embarrassment does you no favours. "

Exactly, Beaufort. A_A is equally dishonest in his differing accounts of his 'flushing out'. Each is 'open to misrepresentation' (something he admits he does in posts, above) so that he can have an argument about his 'real' activities. He loves arguing, and in doing so more often than not completely loses the plot.

He doesn't seem to have all that many mates on Liam's site. I think most of them are utterly fed up with him.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I don't have any mates on any sites.

Hi Karl, was it you who doesn't think floushing is against the Hunting Act, I get you confused with RS sometimes. Did you say that it was legal for me to let my dogs loose on deer, I can't remeber any more.

They chased a hare across the field the other day, I just let them to it. They didn't catch it though.



Maybe you have a problem dealing with me cos I'm neither pro nor anti..

 

[Paul T]

No, I have doubts that what you do is against the law. In big part these doubts arise because of your dishonest posts. Above you admit to posting comments which are deliberately 'open to misrepresentation', so why should we treat any of your posts seriously?

The only problem I have with you is that you're dishonest. I don't like cheats, never have done.

 

[flying_change]

Beaufort was an admiral in the Royal Navy, actually. He commanded the ship that explored (among other places) the Galapagos, and Darwin was one of the scientits on board.