(09-19-2016, 10:14 AM)Scrapper Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 08:02 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 06:21 AM)Juniper Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 08:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 08:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote: My last post was supposed to appear after Tia's but you (Wonky) posted just before me by seconds.

Whatever: Tia got her snipply little comment in there. Three hard nights at Howies Tia? 

I'm not sure what point you scored with that little dig, Wonk, or what you think it proves or implies about me.  Me thinks you are over stretching much.

Stretching just enough to get by the "Autocrat" thing. Now THAT was a dig!

Oh Bullshit!  Put your big girl panties on!  Calling someone an "Autocrat" is absolutely nothing like inferring that a woman spends too much time in a Tavern.  Good gawd, man.

(09-19-2016, 10:51 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 10:14 AM)Scrapper Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 08:02 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 06:21 AM)Juniper Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 08:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Whatever: Tia got her snipply little comment in there. Three hard nights at Howies Tia? 

I'm not sure what point you scored with that little dig, Wonk, or what you think it proves or implies about me.  Me thinks you are over stretching much.

Stretching just enough to get by the "Autocrat" thing. Now THAT was a dig!

Oh Bullshit!  Put your big girl panties on!  Calling someone an "Autocrat" is absolutely nothing like inferring that a woman spends too much time in a Tavern.  Good gawd, man.

Your'e probably right. But Autocrat is a pretty intense word! So, I reacted. 
PS: While I reconize the need to "suck it up", damned if I'm going to put on big girl panties. 

(09-19-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 10:51 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 10:14 AM)Scrapper Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 08:02 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 06:21 AM)Juniper Wrote: I'm not sure what point you scored with that little dig, Wonk, or what you think it proves or implies about me.  Me thinks you are over stretching much.

Stretching just enough to get by the "Autocrat" thing. Now THAT was a dig!

Oh Bullshit!  Put your big girl panties on!  Calling someone an "Autocrat" is absolutely nothing like inferring that a woman spends too much time in a Tavern.  Good gawd, man.

Your'e probably right. But Autocrat is a pretty intense word! So, I reacted. 
PS: While I reconize the need to "suck it up", damned if I'm going to put on big girl panties. 

I hear you there. Go with the little girl panties because they don't get stuck in your butt crack.

(09-19-2016, 08:02 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-19-2016, 06:21 AM)Juniper Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 08:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 08:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote: My last post was supposed to appear after Tia's but you (Wonky) posted just before me by seconds.

Whatever: Tia got her snipply little comment in there. Three hard nights at Howies Tia? 

I'm not sure what point you scored with that little dig, Wonk, or what you think it proves or implies about me.  Me thinks you are over stretching much.

Stretching just enough to get by the "Autocrat" thing. Now THAT was a dig!

Quote:Iowa expects more rain, braces for record flooding

(09-25-2016, 10:43 AM)chuck white Wrote:

Quote:Iowa expects more rain, braces for record flooding

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/09/24/Iowa-expects-more-rain-braces-for-record-flooding/5581474747066/

Quote:A sudden and dramatic change in Antarctic sea ice extent, with record lows being observed only two years after a record high, is creating dangers for researchers and concern for key species.

(09-25-2016, 04:34 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(09-25-2016, 10:43 AM)chuck white Wrote:

Quote:Iowa expects more rain, braces for record flooding

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/09/24/Iowa-expects-more-rain-braces-for-record-flooding/5581474747066/

So, this is not a good time to visit Iowa? Or, if one is a weather geek, this is a good time to visit Iowa? Or, is one just bought a new inflatable boat this would be a good time to test it out? Good fishing? 

Maybe we just are fascinated by Iowa. I know I am.

I have much personal direct experience with Iowa. I am not fascinated.

(10-01-2016, 11:56 AM)chuck white Wrote: I have found the problem, as Pogo used to say.

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

(10-02-2016, 01:14 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

One of the reasons Britain was so anxious to colonize North America was for it's resources. England used to be thickly forested but is no longer simply because it's people over exploited it's resources. We don't think of England as a land of thick forests.  They looked to America as a land of limitless resources.  As are the South American Rainforest.  My point is about natural resources, not politics.  All resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight.

(10-02-2016, 01:14 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

One of the reasons Britain was so anxious to colonize North America was for it's resources. England used to be thickly forested but is no longer simply because it's people over exploited it's resources. We don't think of England as a land of thick forests.  They looked to America as a land of limitless resources.  As are the South American Rainforest.  My point is about natural resources, not politics.  All resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight.

(10-02-2016, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 01:14 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

One of the reasons Britain was so anxious to colonize North America was for it's resources. England used to be thickly forested but is no longer simply because it's people over exploited it's resources. We don't think of England as a land of thick forests.  They looked to America as a land of limitless resources.  As are the South American Rainforest.  My point is about natural resources, not politics.  All resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight.

I hear you and I agree that all resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight. That sometimes clear cutting which is very often used as an example of bad forestry methods can be a proper way to manage a forest.

As far as England and parts of Europe being stripped of it's trees I read somewhere that most of it was done for firewood.

(10-02-2016, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 01:14 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

One of the reasons Britain was so anxious to colonize North America was for it's resources. England used to be thickly forested but is no longer simply because it's people over exploited it's resources. We don't think of England as a land of thick forests.  They looked to America as a land of limitless resources.  As are the South American Rainforest.  My point is about natural resources, not politics.  All resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight.

I hear you and I agree that all resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight. That sometimes clear cutting which is very often used as an example of bad forestry methods can be a proper way to manage a forest.

As far as England and parts of Europe being stripped of it's trees I read somewhere that most of it was done for firewood.

(10-02-2016, 03:46 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 01:14 PM)Juniper Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 09:31 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Why is it hard for people to realize, we can damage the environment.

The problem with CO2, is we can't see it.

 
Actually clear cuts are not always such a bad thing. The coastal pacific northwest clear cuts grow back extremely fast.

One of the reasons Britain was so anxious to colonize North America was for it's resources. England used to be thickly forested but is no longer simply because it's people over exploited it's resources. We don't think of England as a land of thick forests.  They looked to America as a land of limitless resources.  As are the South American Rainforest.  My point is about natural resources, not politics.  All resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight.

I hear you and I agree that all resources need to be managed wisely and with foresight. That sometimes clear cutting which is very often used as an example of bad forestry methods can be a proper way to manage a forest.

As far as England and parts of Europe being stripped of it's trees I read somewhere that most of it was done for firewood.

Does it matter? I think it was done for more than just burning.  Scotland too.