h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

and the introduction of cattle to Africa by "the west" is cited to be resposible for at least 1/3 of the desertation in Africa. . . . since cattle are not "native" to Africa they mess up the ecology by pulling african grasses (that have ver shallow roots) out of the soil completely, leaving nothing to regrow.

Speaking of cows - does anyone know what happened with the MacDonalds debarcle? Last i heard they'd bought up whole sections of the Amazon to raize to the grougn and create grasing-land. With the Amazon being respinsible for so much of the earths oxidization, it was a frightening "green issue" at the time. I've never been near a MacDonalds as a result . . . but cant find an update to what happened to that issue anywhere these days . . . does anyone know?

SA Tv and Radio was all abuzz yesterday with Bush's most recent faux pas - i must have heard it four times on different stations. For anyone who missed it - he was giving one of his anti-terrorism justification whines - He was talking about "not giving up" it went something like this . .
"blah blah - They (the "terrorists") never stop thinking of innovative ways to wage this war" - pause for dramatic effect - "and neither do we,
" they never stop thinking up new ways to harm us" pause for dramatic effect - " and neither do we"
Tv presenters, radio dj's and much of the population giggled MUCh yesterday!

Keep passing open windows

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/3...000/rm/_39927960_bush15_bush_vi.ram


az

Trin, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to present all the FACTS on global warming completely objectively. They have been stated.

Anything beyond that is a projection or a prediction, based on logical environmental s. I would like to examine each of these predictions, if everyone is willing.

the problem with environmental mo. dels is that they are not always accurate.
I beleive Jimmy Carter once predicted that based on environmental s we would run out of crude oil by the year 2000. Makes me glad I invested in roller blades, not a car, but still.

Also, according to predictions from the '60s, we should all have personal jetpacks, and according to Y2K predictions, we should all be living in caves eating raw rabbbit for breakfast.

I wonder... just wonder, were there any predictions that ever came true?

er... that should be environmental mo .dels.

i hate invironmentalists.... sorry if i offend everone but we are a county of ranchers and minors and if and environmentalist ever took over we would be royaly screwed!
cheers
ford

er... is that minor or miners? In this case, your spelling makes a difference, Ford.

Hmmm - it's starting to look as though this thread might have run its course. The question 'What are you trying to prove' was really directed at the thread drifting off into some sort of discussion of global warming ... 'just because'. Leo, I suspect this is what Azahar was getting at when she reminded you that this is "a public debate forum" - it's not a space in which you hold court and barge it in whichever direction you feel like. You've got your journal for that.

Not sure what you're saying. i'm not holding court. I'm making a point. If anyone is holding court, its HOwl.
But i think he has a good reason for that. Anyone can *say* things about global warming, and bring an internet source. There are internet sources for *everything*. He's pointing out that while most of those statements are *based* on fact, they are not actually *fact* themselves.

With that stated, I dont care where this thread goes now. How about South America? China? Communism? One child rules? Or maybe Russia? What's happening there anyway?

...or desertification in AFrica? Actually, that interests me. HOld forth, azahar.

Very sorry if I bored or offended anyone. I just thought a topic like global warming deserved more then just a "he said" "she said" "you-have-no-source-and-I-know-better" brawl.

Pardon me for thinking that the point of this discussion was to become more knowledgable and informed, instead of a forum for airing "sources".

>>Not sure what you're saying. i'm not holding court. I'm making a point. If anyone is holding court, its HOwl.
But I think he has a good reason for that.<<

Oh, I'm sure he has, Leo. His reasons, as with the other four threads he's posted to since appearing on H2G2 five days ago and rushing straight to your defence past the welcoming message from his ACE, seem pretty obvious.

I wondered, then, if you'd seen this:

A2888616

It's a very entertaining article entitled 'How To Create An Online Sock Puppet And Get Away With It' from this week's Post. Perhaps you and 'Howl' might like to read it together some time.

P.S. Incidentally, the need for a sock puppet can't help but undermine any claim to be taken seriously. Something to think about, in view of some sincere and informative responses here.

P.P.S. The final giveaway was 'beleive' [sic]. I stress the word 'final'.

wow...offcourse one is innocent until proven guilty but leo...."je hebt de schijn tegen" (rough translate; the odds are against you)

That said...It's still a good discussion and I'm still very interested in your opinion. I just want to learn!

I think, now things are running down a bit, that I shall post my initial reaction to the question "So what IS going on in the rest of the world that I (as an American ) dont know about?".

This was, i believe, originated by the stereotype of Americans (by which I mean USAians) as not having a clue about the rest of the world.
Now my understanding of that stereotype is that it is applied 'in general' , meaning that there are exceptions.
Now presumably, since LeoAlpha posted this question on a non-US based board, they do not fall within the scope of stereotype.
Yet they quite explicitly associate themselves with it in the question and equate themselves to a typical American by inference (the as an american bit).

So the premise of the question, as I see it, is that 1 person has set themselves up as a representative of their entire country, then asked a direct question relating to a specific stereotype of their countryman in an attempt to disprove said stereotype.

Now I don;t know that many Americans, and in a country of 270million people I doubt you could find a 'typical' American. Indeed in a group of 5 people they will all hold some different views and interests.
until a majority of Americans have been quizzed and found to be lacking in interest (not necessarily knowledge, but the interest in acquiring that knowledge) about the rest of the world the stereotype can be neither proven nor disproved.

Now LeoAlpha seems to have a reasonable knowledge of what is out there, obviously, like the rest of us, tinged by their personal interests and opinions (and nowt wrong with that).

But to say that means that all americans are payed up members of the global society is a leap one cannot justify.


I'm sure someone can put this much better than I can, but it seems to me that the question is actually arguing from a reverse point of view, e.g.
Statement 1: Americans know nothing about the rest of the world
Statement 2: X is an american,
Conclusion 1: Therefore X knows nowt about the world

BUT, X has shown that he does know something about the world
Therefore conclusion 1 is not true
Since conclusion 1 is not true,
therefore either statement 1 or statement 2 is not true.
Statement 2 is obviously true (to him anyway and we must trust on that) so
therefore Statement 1 is not true.
Therefore Americans are not ignorant of world affairs

This strikes me as false logic and inaccurate debating.

Which is not to say that the conclusion is not true Just the means of getting there are not the best.

Of course, i may well have misread the intentions behind the post, but reading the reactions and so forth it doesn;t strike me as conversation where one party is asking for and accepting information, but rather using the conversation and peoples answers as a jumping off point to further their view point.

And none of this is meant to be an attack BTW, just how the conversation came across to me.

Something else Americans do not know - Fast Food burgers do not digest, they simply travel to one's butt and stay there as a big burger shaped lump of fat. This is fact, because the last time I was in LA I asked (for a dare) for a "Big Ar*e and Fries please"

Said burger was delivered without a single raised eyebrow - also witness a large amount of spandex cladUS rear ends for proof.

I rest my mischevious case, M'lud.........

Now, now, distressing as it may be most of us average americans watch and learn and remain silent when it's none of our concern. It is not a need of mine to be understood or to prove myself, ah yes, that "arrogence" all to often refered to shines through. Arrogence and ignorance, well dears, they stand quite seperated from each other. It's hard to live in a country this culturally diverse and not notice the differances. It also hard to live in a country this tecnologicly advanced and actually be able to block out the rest of the world. Asumption of ignorance seems kinda arrogent to me.

I don't realy wana debate, I prefer to lurk, nothing personal. My pride just got the best of me, besides, I got the impression you were hopeing to find a average american to try to stand up for average america.

Were actually quite personalable and get along just fine with each other. (African-anericans / asian-americans / indian-americans / american-indians / mexican-americans /latino-americans.................................................).

Equality. It's the law.

It's not a bad place to be.

"Were actually quite personalable and get along just fine with each other. (African-anericans / asian-americans / indian-americans / american-indians / mexican-americans /latino-americans.................................................). "

The fact that they're americans proves that discrimination is still present in usa...

this post is not a reply to the previous post, I just used some text from it...

Accutally we use those to describe what race ppl are... there really is no sutch thing as an american race
cheers
ford

that i know..but i'm not talking about Dutch...Wasn't the term African-American introduced at about the same time "the N-word so commonly used in gangster rap" was considerd inapropriate?

no idea. wondering myself. Why is in politically incorrect to call someone "black", (assuming its meant only to identify and not to discriminate,) and why is it even worse to call them "negro" which is the same thing, only in a different language? For that matter, quite a few "African-Americans" are not from Africa at all, but trace themselves waaaay back in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and other places in the Western Hemisphere.
I don't either get why we have to call all Koreans "Asian American" and so on, but I dont have to call myself "Caucasian American"!

I think it's supposed to be a show of pride in the culture one came from, really. Like: "I'm proud of my Japanese roots, so call me "Japanese American"". or something like that. The reason Negro is "bad" is because it hails back to slavery, I suppose, and the same with "colored" which is from the years before the civil rights movement, when "african-Americans" werre generally hired help in some "Caucasian American's" house.