Environmentalist wakos quote

Nice post, but you didn't bother to justify your previous remark about the quote being out of context and changing the essential meaning of the quote as he used it.

Whether or not he is an environmental wacko is a matter of opinion and has little to do with context.

Context is not everything when the meaning of the quote is clear even in a stand alone form.

You should apologize to Revmitchell for your implication that he was misusing the quote.

 

Did God want us to pollute and destroy His creation. Biblical support please.

 

Most of the book of Joshua. The Israelites were commanded by God to enter the land east of the Jordan and destroy every man, woman, child and animal. Might have been a spot of pollution with that.

 

This is NOT TRUE, and you know it.

I am a self-described LIBERAL who not only confirmed that this quote was valid, I even pointed out to my friend Terry that these particular quotes were indeed valid. It's right here in this discussion.

Now, please dispense with this FOOLISHNESS. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, then by all means share it with us. However, your same-old-song-and-dance "liberals" rants are simultaneously predictable and juvenile........

BiR

 

Hey, poison the well, carpro. It hasn't been proven by a few out of context quotes that these people are wackos or knowledgeable professionals in their fields.

Oh carpro! That's your tactic, way too familiar, and you're using it here to attack posters who are, mostly, questioning the value of the quotes, not the value of the quoter.

The length of time a story or quote has been around is no testament to its truthfulness - remember, "Father, I cannot tell a lie; it was I who chopped down your cherry tree"?

She's well-known as a former Canadian Minister of the Environment; I don't know that she's wacky.

I don't question that she said it but the context, well, where is the context?

The person who provides the quote should provide the cite. The Calgary-Herald doesn't have that article from 1998.

I hear it from you, trying to discredit people for questioning the quotes from the OP - ad hom, anyone?

Wow, what stunning irony!

Citation?

 

Left out on purpose to encourage lazy liberals to do their own research.:smilewinkgrin:

 

1. First of all how exactly did he use it? He started thread with two quotes and titled it environmentalist wacko quotes

2. Context is everything in determining what the quotes mean in the first place. Let me restate:The context focussed on the consequences of global climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions rather than waiting for a scientific consensus on the cause/effect of global climate change. IOW, the quotes were about the Kyoto.

3. since President Bush is on record stating that the US supports the goals of the Kyoto, but does not agree with the implementation, does that make him an environmentalist whacko? Afterall it is the same treaty Benedict was referring to in his quote, Ms. Stewart, also.

 

When all else fails blame it on the "lazy liberal"

Daisy,

The quote was a paraphrase of Stewart's response to common opposition of the Kyoto protocal.

 

It is clear to me that, in Revmitchell's opinion, Stewart and Benedict are environmental wackos. He used quotes about the failed Kyoto Protocol to prove it. They said it. Their meaning was clear.

The fact that you point out that they were referring to Kyoto only serves to lend credence to his opinion and the proper use of the quotes.

The context issue was a red herring to avoid having to deal with the real subject. You and others attacked the poster rather than responding to his proper use of the quotes.

You should apologize.

 

Carpo,

I never attacked RevM. I have no reason to attack him. If he wants to call these people whackos then so be it. Why do you care that the context was even questioned? As far as I can see it was a fair question.

FTR, the Kyoto protocal did not fail, it covers 160 countries, and over half of the greenhouse gas emissions (60% if my memory serves me). The US has not ratified the treaty because neither Clinton, nor Bush submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. To my knowledge we have not withdrawn, but neither will it be submitted for ratification until the implementation process is changed.

BTW, what is the real subject none of us have dealt with?

 

Early in the thread, you wrote:

You went after Revmitchell with a pointed insult. The implication of your insult is that he is not qualified for the ministry. Your sole reason being that you believe he quoted something out of context.

That's a low blow and uncalled for.

You owe him an apology.

 

That's stupid: they would't be doing their research, they'd be doing yours which is not their responsibility. Nice derailing, though.

 

Filmproducer, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh, then it failed.....
:laugh:

Regards,
BiR

 

Carpo,

How absurd! My quote was not meant to imply that RevM is not qualified to be in the ministry. I said nothing of his ministry one way or another. You have seriously never heard the phrase before? I find that very hard to believe, it's a pretty common phrase. In short, it means he would make a good politician...

RevM.,

I'm truly sorry if you believed I was saying you are unqualified for the ministry, that was not my intent.

 

silly me, I forgot :smilewinkgrin:

 

I may have misinterpreted what you said. If I did, I apologize.

It speaks well of you that you apologized, as well. :saint:

 

what I've browsed through so far makes me feel like everybody's in the wrong so the best answer is to

SHUT UP

 

That was really an adult post.

 

The context I was referring to is the rest of what they said. You say, "it is obvious" but it is not - it is missing. Perhaps it is what you say - but how would you know? I take it you haven't read the missing context either or you would provide the link. It seems to me that all this was taken from a secondary, tertiary or even further removed source.

Well, that's not true. Although the statements were pulled from their original context and plopped into a "wacko" one by persons unknown (not you), the title of this thread is your doing, I believe, and that provides a particular context right there..

Oh what nonsense. Carpro has tried to make you out the victim because we questioned the content of your cut & paste job. This isn't about you (ego much?), this is about your post and quotes out of their original context.

It also means supporting your contention with evidence and being able to show that your evidence hasn't been altered by taking it out of its original context and thereby distorting the original meaning. Maybe the quotes would read exactly the same if their OC were known and maybe not. I'd like to be able to judge that for myself.

Well not if you cry "victim!" every time someone asks you for ordinary evidence of your contention.

Cry me a river.

Sigh. And this 'poor victim me' rant has what to do with the OP?

Um, do you have anything of substance to say about the actual topic of this thread?

Do you have anything to say about Richard Benedict and the Kyoto agreement?

Is it from that one statement only that you consider Christine Stewart a "wako" or do you have other supporting evidence?