Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #678487 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-27 07:50 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-03-29 19:41 +1100 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 73 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-27 07:50 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-03-27 08:15 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 18:32 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-03-27 23:40 +0100
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-27 23:28 +0000
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 20:07 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 18:17 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 21:43 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 20:15 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-28 04:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 00:19 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-28 07:53 +0000
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 05:41 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-28 04:46 +0000
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-28 07:23 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-28 09:55 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-28 12:52 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-28 12:57 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-29 06:19 +0000
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 08:36 -0500
Last 30 days, there were about 36 "people" (nyms) worth reading here. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 09:18 -0700
Re: Last 30 days, there were about 36 "people" (nyms) worth reading here. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:33 -0500
Just use the server, with no UserName/PassWord specified. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 10:03 -0700
Re: Just use the server, with no UserName/PassWord specified. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 14:21 -0400
Thunderbird is wonderful -if- you know how to configure it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Thunderbird is wonderful -if- you know how to configure it. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 14:33 -0700
Re: Last 30 days, there were about 36 "people" (nyms) worth reading here. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Seeing your stuff doesn't mean I care about it. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 17:57 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-29 07:37 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-29 10:04 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-29 08:11 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-03-30 09:04 +1100
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 19:30 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-03-30 16:51 +1100
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 07:07 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 18:36 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 16:40 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 19:39 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 17:46 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-28 10:53 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 11:38 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 11:58 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 11:38 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 16:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 17:47 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 17:00 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 18:07 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 17:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-27 18:40 -0600
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-03-27 22:12 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-27 09:38 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-27 13:25 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-27 20:20 -0500
Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-28 08:07 -0700
Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-28 09:20 -0600
Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-28 12:55 -0400
Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:00 -0700
Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Freedom. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 14:23 -0400
Re: Less Freedom. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 15:28 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-27 18:32 -0400
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-28 09:56 -0500
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-03-29 19:41 +1100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 08:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.28--8.07am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #678566 |
> Actuaries look at long term effects.
> They take no political stand.
>
> It's all about the numbers, profit and loss. The report says
> essentially: you ignore climate change, you better be prepared
> for heavy financial loses.
Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk;
truthy or not, insurance companies would gladly charge them more;
it's political, not scientific.
They're a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", like communism, saying:
Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations,
or die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best;
we decide for you, so you don't have to.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
"Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me".
"God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great".
"God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags".
God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
"What we chose" (consumption) has been programmed into us ( by nature ).
Ways to do it:
1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast.
2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume more later ).
3. Sacrifice yourself ( so the tribe can consume more ).
Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume.
We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options;
we don't even -know- our future, much less control it.
Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management.
Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't.
Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion.
Everyone has a theory, no one has a solution.
Cuba is wrong. North Korea is wrong.
Stop insisting that everyone "earns" the same income,
no matter his race, gender, age, competence, etc.
We _need_ losers, lots of them;
it's how we progress -- we select the best.
Stop pretending that we all need to drive Mercedes,
dropping off kids for soccer practice.
Stop punishing sex workers and heroin addicts.
Stop saying:
This ( my heavy hand ) is what you get, you degenerate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 08:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <b5d0qh.nf6.17.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #678700 |
On 2018-03-28 8:07 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> Actuaries look at long term effects. >> They take no political stand. >> >> It's all about the numbers, profit and loss. The report says >> essentially: you ignore climate change, you better be prepared >> for heavy financial loses. > > Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk; > truthy or not, insurance companies would gladly charge them more; > it's political, not scientific. > > They're a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", like communism, saying: > > Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations, > or die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best; > we decide for you, so you don't have to. > > "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) > make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). > > "Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me". > "God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great". > "God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags". > > God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). > > "What we chose" (consumption) has been programmed into us ( by nature ). > Ways to do it: > > 1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast. > 2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume more later ). > 3. Sacrifice yourself ( so the tribe can consume more ). > > Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume. > We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options; > we don't even -know- our future, much less control it. > > Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management. > Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't. > Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion. > > Everyone has a theory, no one has a solution. > > Cuba is wrong. North Korea is wrong. > Stop insisting that everyone "earns" the same income, > no matter his race, gender, age, competence, etc. > > We _need_ losers, lots of them; > it's how we progress -- we select the best. > > Stop pretending that we all need to drive Mercedes, > dropping off kids for soccer practice. > > Stop punishing sex workers and heroin addicts. > Stop saying: > This ( my heavy hand ) is what you get, you degenerate. > suppose everyone didn't believe that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 09:20 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <6mcnbdpnipdhtev4cgc6d0sd117i8oa0gr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #678702 |
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:10:30 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2018-03-28 8:07 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> Actuaries look at long term effects. >>> They take no political stand. >>> >>> It's all about the numbers, profit and loss. The report says >>> essentially: you ignore climate change, you better be prepared >>> for heavy financial loses. >> >> Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk; >> truthy or not, insurance companies would gladly charge them more; >> it's political, not scientific. >> >> They're a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", like communism, saying: >> >> Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations, >> or die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best; >> we decide for you, so you don't have to. >> >> "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) >> make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). >> >> "Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me". >> "God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great". >> "God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags". >> >> God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). >> >> "What we chose" (consumption) has been programmed into us ( by nature ). >> Ways to do it: >> >> 1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast. >> 2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume more later ). >> 3. Sacrifice yourself ( so the tribe can consume more ). >> >> Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume. >> We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options; >> we don't even -know- our future, much less control it. >> >> Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management. >> Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't. >> Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion. >> >> Everyone has a theory, no one has a solution. >> >> Cuba is wrong. North Korea is wrong. >> Stop insisting that everyone "earns" the same income, >> no matter his race, gender, age, competence, etc. >> >> We _need_ losers, lots of them; >> it's how we progress -- we select the best. >> >> Stop pretending that we all need to drive Mercedes, >> dropping off kids for soccer practice. >> >> Stop punishing sex workers and heroin addicts. >> Stop saying: >> This ( my heavy hand ) is what you get, you degenerate. >> > >suppose everyone didn't believe that That was quite the load wasn't it? -- MAUKGA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 12:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <p9gheq$1b2s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678707 |
On 3/28/2018 11:20 AM, Skeeter wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:10:30 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-03-28 8:07 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > That was quite the load wasn't it? Yeah, sometimes Relf gets diarrhea and instead of a mere Relf dropping you get a torrent of stuff like that. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 10:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <b5d79m.c69.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #678736 |
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:10:30 -0700, % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-03-28 8:07 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> That was quite the load wasn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 10:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk. |
| Message-ID | <b6761b59-a043-43e7-8acb-ea3e3036c104@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678700 |
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:07:08 AM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Actuaries look at long term effects. > > They take no political stand. > > > > It's all about the numbers, profit and loss. The report says > > essentially: you ignore climate change, you better be prepared > > for heavy financial loses. > > Suppose everyone believed transgender blacks were an insurance risk; > truthy or not, insurance companies would gladly charge them more; > it's political, not scientific. they would and have done so. > > They're a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", like communism, saying: > > Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations, > or die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best; > we decide for you, so you don't have to. > > "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) > make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). > > "Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me". > "God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great". > "God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags". > > God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). > > "What we chose" (consumption) has been programmed into us ( by nature ). > Ways to do it: > > 1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast. > 2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume more later ). > 3. Sacrifice yourself ( so the tribe can consume more ). > > Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume. > We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options; > we don't even -know- our future, much less control it. > > Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management. > Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't. > Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion. > > Everyone has a theory, no one has a solution. > > Cuba is wrong. North Korea is wrong. > Stop insisting that everyone "earns" the same income, > no matter his race, gender, age, competence, etc. > > We _need_ losers, lots of them; > it's how we progress -- we select the best. > > Stop pretending that we all need to drive Mercedes, > dropping off kids for soccer practice. > > Stop punishing sex workers and heroin addicts. > Stop saying: > This ( my heavy hand ) is what you get, you degenerate. Did the rest of that slop have a point? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 14:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Less Freedom. |
| Message-ID | <OaavC.98369$vs1.28281@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #678937 |
On 3/29/2018 1:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> > Insurance companies are a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", >> > like communism, saying: >> > >> > Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations, >> > or die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best; >> > we decide for you, so you don't have to. >> > >> > "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) >> > make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). >> > >> > China is winning the game (imperialism) because >> > they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west. >> > With them, it's just business, not intrusion. >> >> Pointless crap. > > It's useful ( and truthy ) to me. > (Biased) Premises only need be useful, not truthy. > > A WellArmed drunk man, in a Las Vegas hotel, upset about blowing > his (substantial) life savings, blowing away concert goers, is not > the "Well Regulated Militia" that our founding fathers envisioned. > > So guns will be regulated, by the courts, like it or not. > And schools will have better security ( not drunk red necks ). > Less Freedom. > > Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management. > Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't. > Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion. > > Never been to Denmark, eh, Rolf? Nads/"kensi" will explain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 15:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Less Freedom. |
| Message-ID | <p9ji9v$fbg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678970 |
On 3/29/2018 1:23 PM, benj wrote: > On 3/29/2018 1:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> > Insurance companies are a dangerous "cult/religion/opiate", >>> > like communism, saying: >>> > > Pay more (taxes), conform to our (onerous) regulations, > or >>> die in our "ReEducation" camps. We're the elite, the best; >>> > we decide for you, so you don't have to. >>> > > "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) >>> > make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", >>> style ). >>> > > China is winning the game (imperialism) because >>> > they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west. >>> > With them, it's just business, not intrusion. >>> Pointless crap. >> >> It's useful ( and truthy ) to me. >> (Biased) Premises only need be useful, not truthy. >> >> A WellArmed drunk man, in a Las Vegas hotel, upset about blowing >> his (substantial) life savings, blowing away concert goers, is not >> the "Well Regulated Militia" that our founding fathers envisioned. >> >> So guns will be regulated, by the courts, like it or not. >> And schools will have better security ( not drunk red necks ). >> Less Freedom. >> >> Suicides, homicides, homelessness and war are bad PTSD/pain management. >> Heroin and OxyContin were sold as safe opiates -- they aren't. >> Likewise, communism is not a safe opiate/religion. >> >> > Never been to Denmark, eh, Rolf? Nads/"kensi" will explain. The geography of Denmark A field, a tree, a field, a forest, a field, a farm, a cow, a field… That pretty much sums up the Danish landscape, especially seen from a car. No mountains, no cliffs, not even a lot of hills. Really boring and monotonous. Denmark is flat as a pancake, Winter Sure, the first day of snow is beautiful, but after a short while it turns into annoying brown muck. If there isn’t any snow then it’s raining, and it’s pitch dark when you go to school/work in the morning and pitch dark when you go home again. Last winter,I felt like I was permanently freezing cold from November to April. Janteloven/the Law of Jante There’s many positive sides to the Danish mentality, but one that bothers me is ‘Janteloven’, the Law of Jante. Humility is a good thing, at least in moderate doses, but in Denmark it’s seen as outright appalling for a person to have succes and – god forbid – acknowledge it. Influence from the US has improved the view on being successful, but talking about it, bragging, is still a cardinal sin. Denmark’s “failed” multiculturalism Plain-spoken politics, participatory civic culture and generous social security are advantages that come with drawbackshe generosity of the country’s social-security net has made people quicker to accuse immigrants of exploiting it. Meanwhile, a highly cohesive and demanding civic culture, which was the basis of Denmark’s liberal social-welfare policies, has alienated anyone who finds it hard to conform. This has made the country fertile ground for Islamist recruitment. Over 100 Danish jihadists have gone to Syria and Iraq, one of the highest rates per person in Europe. more here on how Denmark sucks bigtime; http://www.city-data.com/forum/europe/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 18:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0EzuC.79378$q15.42657@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #678487 |
On 3/27/2018 7:50 AM, kensi wrote: > Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/ > Sci-Am = Journalist Pseudo-science. No real science at Sci-Am for years! "Kensi" and "journalists" are still playing the fraud that increased storm damage is due to more severe weather rather than increased population in denser urban development. A total disingenuous misrepresentation. "kensi", you need to understand the in science lies and deceptions unlike politics (especially leftist politics) are considered unethical behavior and reason to be kicked out of science. Please post your actual name and address so we can inform your employer of your unacceptable internet behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f9abb55-f9ba-4504-9c9a-f67a20a5a466@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678568 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 3/27/2018 7:50 AM, kensi wrote: > > Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/ > > > > Sci-Am = Journalist Pseudo-science. No real science at Sci-Am for years! > > "Kensi" and "journalists" are still playing the fraud that increased > storm damage is due to more severe weather rather than increased > population in denser urban development. A total disingenuous > misrepresentation. Rather than a misrepresentation, that emphasizes the double wammy of the problem: more people/property at risk. greater chance of severe weather. total--> Oh boy! ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9gag6$utl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678682 |
On 3/28/2018 8:14 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 3/27/2018 7:50 AM, kensi wrote: >>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: >>> >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/ >>> >> >> Sci-Am = Journalist Pseudo-science. No real science at Sci-Am for years! >> >> "Kensi" and "journalists" are still playing the fraud that increased >> storm damage is due to more severe weather rather than increased >> population in denser urban development. A total disingenuous >> misrepresentation. > > Rather than a misrepresentation, that emphasizes the double wammy > of the problem: > more people/property at risk. > greater chance of severe weather. > total--> Oh boy! > > ed > over what time frame ? 100's of years....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e851f755-28ab-4182-baaa-6375c0aad817@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678697 |
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:57:15 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 3/28/2018 8:14 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 3/27/2018 7:50 AM, kensi wrote: > >>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: > >>> > >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/ > >>> > >> > >> Sci-Am = Journalist Pseudo-science. No real science at Sci-Am for years! > >> > >> "Kensi" and "journalists" are still playing the fraud that increased > >> storm damage is due to more severe weather rather than increased > >> population in denser urban development. A total disingenuous > >> misrepresentation. > > > > Rather than a misrepresentation, that emphasizes the double wammy > > of the problem: > > more people/property at risk. > > greater chance of severe weather. > > total--> Oh boy! > > > > ed > > > > over what time frame ? 100's of years.... I think the actuaries are looking over the next few decades, but I did not read the report that was the source for the article. Certainly the MBA don't look centuries ahead. 6 months seems a long timeframe to them. These insurance companies want to know what to do now, in the next quarter or two. It may be a little late, but it may be a good sign that businesses are considering the effects on their own bottom line. that's all I'm saying. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 19:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fi3n5vFkrjfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #678568 |
On 28/03/2018 9:32 AM, benj wrote: > On 3/27/2018 7:50 AM, kensi wrote: >> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers: >> >> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/ >> > > Sci-Am = Journalist Pseudo-science. No real science at Sci-Am for years! **Really? You sure about that? Post your proof of your claim. While you are at it, tell us about these scientific journals. Are they also pseudo-science? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01333 http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/even-without-el-ni-o-2017-temperatures-still-soared https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023162 http://www.pnas.org/content/114/19/4881 http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367 > > "Kensi" and "journalists" are still playing the fraud that increased > storm damage is due to more severe weather rather than increased > population in denser urban development. A total disingenuous > misrepresentation. **"Fraud"? OK, I'll ask once more: Please submit your own scientific credentials as they relate to climate science, so that we may take your claims seriously. > > "kensi", you need to understand the in science lies and deceptions > unlike politics (especially leftist politics) are considered unethical > behavior and reason to be kicked out of science. > > Please post your actual name and address so we can inform your employer > of your unacceptable internet behavior. **How about you respond to my previous questions, you lying sack of shit? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web