[onlooker]

Maybe Ennui, we just want the truth and reality to prevail. Nobody is desperate for calamity. We just want to analyze dispassionately all that is occurring to better understand and yes in the maybe misguided hope that others may tune in here and discover for themselves and pass the word along. So what is your suggestion we all just shut up!

[MonteQuest]

Good/bad is ultimately a state of mind, Monte.

And I think you have a bad state of mind. If you could ever contain yourself to debating the merits, rather than attacking the character or motivations of others, your views and opinions would be better received.

[ennui2]

Good/bad is ultimately a state of mind, Monte.

And I think you have a bad state of mind. If you could ever contain yourself to debating the merits, rather than attacking the character or motivations of others, your views and opinions would be better received.

Yeah. I'll have to follow your model, and talk about jacking off on other posters.

[ennui2]

Take my words out of your f3cking signature. Please.

You made a statement. I saved it for posterity. Deal with it.

[Tanada]

Take my words out of your f3cking signature. Please.

You made a statement. I saved it for posterity. Deal with it.

In the interest of peace and the fact that he even publicly said please I would appreciate it if you change your signature. This is a request, not a requirement, but one thing we could use a lot more of between the two of you is a more peaceful relationship.

[ennui2]

Good/bad is ultimately a state of mind, Monte.

And I think you have a bad state of mind. If you could ever contain yourself to debating the merits, rather than attacking the character or motivations of others, your views and opinions would be better received.

Whether someone has a bad state of mind is subjective too.

You developed a reputation of wishing/wanting a die-off in order to bring nature back into balance. And you loved to talk about die-off with a creepy level of detachment. Back in the day I used to really get on your case over that. The whole Moonraker misanthrope archetype who deals only with numbers and doesn't seem to care about individual human suffering.

I've learned not to bug you about that, but if you are going to get on a moral high-horse now, I'm going to call you on it.

[ennui2]

Take my words out of your f3cking signature. Please.

You made a statement. I saved it for posterity. Deal with it.

In the interest of peace and the fact that he even publicly said please I would appreciate it if you change your signature. This is a request, not a requirement, but one thing we could use a lot more of between the two of you is a more peaceful relationship.

If you really wanted to disarm these flamewars you should respond to the post-flagging that I've been doing each time I get a flagrant FUCK OFF. Other forums draw the line at much milder behavior, but this has been allowed to fester because the flagging is always ignored.

I tolerate ad homs up to a point, but once it devolves into something like a FUCK OFF or Monte telling me he's going to jack off on me, it's way way over the line. The only time I ever told another poster to Fuck Off was when I quit back in the day, to Planty, and my tongue was partly in cheek.

[MonteQuest]

I tolerate ad homs up to a point, but once it devolves into something like a FUCK OFF or Monte telling me he's going to jack off on me, it's way way over the line.

Well, let's put that in proper context. I thought it was quite apropos.

At what point does following down every possible alternate history become mental-masturbation?

So, responses to a valid point made by another poster is now mental masturbation?

Maybe you should try making a valid point so I can jack off on you?

[MonteQuest]

You developed a reputation of wishing/wanting a die-off in order to bring nature back into balance. And you loved to talk about die-off with a creepy level of detachment. Back in the day I used to really get on your case over that. The whole Moonraker misanthrope archetype who deals only with numbers and doesn't seem to care about individual human suffering.

Wishing for a die-off? No one that paid attention to my posts can say that. Overshoot die-off is a natural ecological process. You didn't like my matter-of-fact analysis, that's fine, but to assert I don't care about human suffering, well, you can just kiss my ass, you asshole.

[ralfy]

Related:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/5 ... d_08102011

That is, only a few weeks' worth of food, fuel, medicine, etc., for each town and city, large distances to cover to deliver necessities, most hardly trained for self-sustainability (most survivalists are not even aware of the extensive energy and resource needed to make their "survivalist gear" available), a fraction dependent on drugs, many armed, several not very healthy and likely driven by narcissism, a large prison system coupled with military and police forces that are more likely interested in maintaining their own operations and maintaining "law and order" by controlling civilian populations (same for governments and the rich), etc.

Meanwhile, for most of the world's population, poverty and difficulty in accessing one or more basic needs, governments and security forces with similar disposition, a global rich that thinks that much of its wealth (consisting of numbers in hard drives) will still be important, and military forces that likely believe in maintaining "law and order" no matter what happens, while even the most "isolated" regions in the world are soon affected by combinations of environmental damage and fallout from global warming.

Thus, it's not so much peak oil but the same coupled with multiple crises that will take place across the world. Given the effects of lack of oil on industrialization, police and military too busy fending for themselves as human migration increases, climate change affecting the environment (especially food production), together with more polluted water, etc., there will be no safe refuge.

Finally, as peak oil is part of the threat of limitations in resources in general, then perhaps the better term is not "doomer" but, as pointed out earlier, "realist":

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

unless it can be shown that the trend for resource availability will suddenly reverse course soon.

[ennui2]

Wishing for a die-off? No one that paid attention to my posts can say that.

Sure they can. You write a certain way and people react. You can't police how they react. People's reactions are up to them. I'm not the only one who thought your viewpoints were, how shall we say it, a little callous, back in the day. Go read through the archives if you want a trip down through memory lane. Your presentation of overshoot and die off had about as much emotional sensitivity as the output of a computer. I guess the big improvement over the years is that you've learned to swear. Wonderful.

[ennui2]

I tolerate ad homs up to a point, but once it devolves into something like a FUCK OFF or Monte telling me he's going to jack off on me, it's way way over the line.

Well, let's put that in proper context. I thought it was quite apropos.

Not at all. The term I used is simply a figure of speech meant to question the emphasis you are placing on that one historical chart's metric. Your response was just a very crude ad hom.

Despite the fact I threw olive branches that we could agree to disagree, you insisted on restating your viewpoint. Like a madman, doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. You then said you were adding more data when you weren't, just restating your original thesis.

In other words, you've taken it upon yourself to change my mind, and if you fail, then you resort to an ad hom. "Someone is wrong on the internet"-itis. I'm sorry to tell you that nobody ever changes their mind on the internet. If you want to be the first to prove that wrong, you've got more free time on your hands than I do.

[MonteQuest]

Your presentation of overshoot and die off had about as much emotional sensitivity as the output of a computer.

I saw no need to mince words. To me, the only people who found fault were those that insisted mankind was not subject to the ecological reality of Overshoot and die-off. Carrying capacity trumps morals, ethics, and sensibilities.

[onlooker]

Maybe even here Monte, the dreaded die-off spoken about so directly is not comfortable to some. I admit I myself rather not think of the future sometimes. But you are just calling it as you see it from a knowledgeable perspective.

[MonteQuest]

Not at all. The term I used is simply a figure of speech meant to question the emphasis you are placing on that one historical chart's metric.

You questioned my response to a question to another poster who had a valid point to make about the demand destruction. You don't have valid points to make, just handwave dismissals.

And I certainly didn't posts the other charts to try and convince you. Your motivated reasoning prevents you from acknowledging facts that don't fit your narrative.

You didn't need to make that mental masturbation comment, but you did, just to be a dick.

[MonteQuest]

Maybe even here Monte, the dreaded die-off spoken about so directly is not comfortable to some. I admit I myself rather not think of the future sometimes. But you are just calling it as you see it from a knowledgeable perspective.

I've never seen my role as easing our way quietly into that good dark night. Just trying to explain why we will.

[MonteQuest]

All I expect from anyone on here is a civil discussion of the merits. Anything else is just annoying, muddies the thread and furthers nothing but angst.

[ennui2]

And I certainly didn't posts the other charts to try and convince you. Your motivated reasoning prevents you from acknowledging facts that don't fit your narrative.

Your arrogance prevents you from realizing that you also have "motivated reasoning".

A lot of your rhetoric is a monologue, like handing down tablets. A little humility goes a long way.

It's this air of self-assuredness and infallibility that damages doomers' credibility.

[MonteQuest]

Your arrogance prevents you from realizing that you also have "motivated reasoning".

When I start ignoring facts, refusing to debate the merits, and use hand wave dismissals as my rebuttal MO like you, then you might have a case.