Stratovarius Community

Danish Prostitutes Offer Free Sex to Climate Conference Delegates
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579350,00.html

No, they won't be getting the Goracle this time, given that fact that he's currently hiding under a rock. (Which I'd be willing to bet is not anywhere in his 'home' state of Tennessee!).

Still, it does seem that at least some things in life are still free, at least for the duration of the conference. Not that there's a big difference between these girls and Gore to begin with. (At least their names rhyme also!)

There are plenty of other places where free sex is the norm. Not even sure why they call it free sex, since time is money, one has to spend time and therefore the sex was not free.

As for the business of prostitution, it should be a normal business and it should be up to people to persuade each other for or against it. I would rather see good quality control than have it be black market.

It has been said throughout the ages that marriage is legalized prostitution. When ya look at it in a cynical, realistic way that is quite true!

But, in all areas of life ya have to give alittle to get alittle. And I am not referring just to sex. Its like: you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. One hand watches over the other.

icecab21 wrote:There are plenty of other places where free sex is the norm. Not even sure why they call it free sex, since time is money, one has to spend time and therefore the sex was not free.

Does that mean the stratoforum is not free either then!? I hope you guys aren't gonna start billing me for posting here...

JensJohansson wrote:

icecab21 wrote:There are plenty of other places where free sex is the norm. Not even sure why they call it free sex, since time is money, one has to spend time and therefore the sex was not free.

Does that mean the stratoforum is not free either then!? I hope you guys aren't gonna start billing me for posting here...

Well, the only politically correct way to even begin calculating the aforementioned bill would be with one of these:

Ha ha

Does that mean the stratoforum is not free either then!? I hope you guys aren't gonna start billing me for posting here...

The bill is time and the opportunity cost. Such as for me, posting here has lead to me writing a lot of music that I find value in it, and hopefully can turn into something more than just personal music.

icecab21 wrote:There are plenty of other places where free sex is the norm. Not even sure why they call it free sex, since time is money, one has to spend time and therefore the sex was not free.

No such thing as a free ride, indeed!

As for the business of prostitution, it should be a normal business and it should be up to people to persuade each other for or against it. I would rather see good quality control than have it be black market.

That's why it's legal in some places. It also makes a case for legalisation of certain drugs as well. Better to have something legal and regulated+taxed, than outlawed.

miditek wrote: Well, the only politically correct way to even begin calculating the aforementioned bill would be with one of these:

..goreculator..

Well, that thing looks like it has better exception handling than the decades old fortran programs at the CRU ..

icecab21 wrote:The bill is time and the opportunity cost. Such as for me, posting here has lead to me writing a lot of music that I find value in it, and hopefully can turn into something more than just personal music.

I think you will learn more about the pitfalls of the music industry and of being in a band here, than you would between the legs of a free Danish prostitute.

On the other hand, a free Danish prostitute could keep a person from enacting potentially devastating global warming regulations based on math in buggy fortran programs.

Economy is complicated..

WAIT!!! Are we talking about the Olympics?

JensJohansson wrote: Well, that thing looks like it has better exception handling than the decades old fortran programs at the CRU ..

Hahaha- it's a scary thought that the Gore-branded Abacus GreenPDA(tm) is somehow less archaic than Fortan!

JensJohansson wrote:I think you will learn more about the pitfalls of the music industry and of being in a band here, than you would between the legs of a free Danish prostitute. ..

As far as music/bands go- there is no substitute for first hand experience in the entertainment business.

JensJohansson wrote:On the other hand, a free Danish prostitute..

NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen?

JensJohansson wrote:could keep a person from enacting potentially devastating global warming regulations based on math in buggy fortran programs.
Economy is complicated..

Fortran- it's not just for carpet mill accouting and manufacturing ERP systems anymore!

I think you will learn more about the pitfalls of the music industry and of being in a band here, than you would between the legs of a free Danish prostitute.

I think it’s more of both at once kind of thing.

I like how miditek thinks using less energy and being more efficient is a bad thing. Just like anything else Democrats say!

JensJohansson wrote:

icecab21 wrote:There are plenty of other places where free sex is the norm. Not even sure why they call it free sex, since time is money, one has to spend time and therefore the sex was not free.

Does that mean the stratoforum is not free either then!? I hope you guys aren't gonna start billing me for posting here...

Well, minimum wage HAS went up...

NeonVomit wrote:I like how miditek thinks using less energy and being more efficient is a bad thing. Just like anything else Democrats say!

Well, I'm sure that you:

- Use lights in your home
- Hot water heaters
- Some sort of HVAC/heating and Air conditioning
- television, radio, computers, etc.
- Have to wash, dry, and iron your clothes somehow.
- Use electricity for your instruments, etc.

Do you part and unplug everything for a while if you're so worried, or move to Commiefornia and live like fragrant Marxist hillbillies in a commune that was set up for for Manson's & Squeaky's grandkids- with no electricity or running water!

P.S.- Global warming has been proven to be bullshit, in fact, it's cold here in Tennessee tonight, and Texas had one hell of a snowstorm last night!

P.P.S. I bet the Goracle started jerking in an epileptic fit when he heard about that Texas snowstorm!



Rare winter storm dumps several inches of snow across the South, leaving thousands of homes and businesses without power and causing multiple car wrecks

Right now on: http://www.foxnews.com/

i saw a whole documentary of global warming causing global cooling. ill look it up sometime. a little change in the current systems can fuck a lot though.

miditek wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:I like how miditek thinks using less energy and being more efficient is a bad thing. Just like anything else Democrats say!

Well, I'm sure that you:

- Use lights in your home
- Hot water heaters
- Some sort of HVAC/heating and Air conditioning
- television, radio, computers, etc.
- Have to wash, dry, and iron your clothes somehow.
- Use electricity for your instruments, etc.

Do you part and unplug everything for a while if you're so worried, or move to Commiefornia and live like fragrant Marxist hillbillies in a commune that was set up for for Manson's & Squeaky's grandkids- with no electricity or running water!

Ok.


Let's analyse what I wrote.

It's not difficult.

I didn't write much.

So give it a try.


No one is saying 'Don't use any electricity! Go back to the stone age!'


I said 'use less energy and be more efficient'.

Not 'do not use any energy'.


Less energy, more efficient.


Not use no energy.


Less energy, more efficient.


Not use no energy.


Alright, we okay so far?


Good.


I did not mention global warming.

In my post.

Nor did I write anything.

About Communism.

Or Marxism.

Or indeed any other political system.


It might help.

To re-read it again.

At this point.

In case you have forgotten.

What I wrote.


Alright, have we done that?


Yes?


Good.


Let's move on then.


Now, if you actually pay attention.

To what is being said.

The aim is to find cleaner.

Renewable energy sources.

And find ways.

To be more efficient.

With energy usage.

Perhaps through altering practices.

Or methods used.

In industry.

And other such things.

NOT.

'Stop using electricity'.


Fossil fuels will run out.

Therefore we will need.

Other sources of energy.

So we have to figure those out.

If we want to have energy.

In the future.


Also as a bonus.

There will be less pollution.

Less acid rain.

Less poisoned water.

Less dangerous chemicals.

In the air.

And sea.

And land.

And consequentially our food.


Many people would say.

This Is A Good Thing.


I remind you again.

All this has nothing to do.

With Communism.

Or Marxism.

Or any other political system.

That you dislike.


FYI, I use low energy lightbulbs and I recycle, put the heating on when it's needed, and boil as much water in the kettle as I'm going to use.


Consequently my electricity bill.

Is lower than.

What it was.

The result of this.

Is that I save money.


Less money on bills = more money for beer/equipment/whatever.


Many people would agree.

This Is Also A Good Thing.


So, we've gotten this far, please explain why all this is a bad thing?

NeonVomit wrote: Lots of stuff

So, we've gotten this far, please explain why all this is a bad thing?

Because Al Gore and all other democrats are evil communists who want to take over the World HURR DURR!

miditek believes the Armageddon's near, so in a way it's logical for him not to care.

I said 'use less energy and be more efficient'.

Miditeks point is that every significant environmental campaign involves bullying consumers into spending extra money on more expensive eco-friendly junk, but no one wants to make legitimate lifestyle changes. The amount of energy we expend on heating our houses far outweighs that of inefficient lightbulbs, yet no one turns off their heating and wears a winter coat instead!

:ola: :laff: :laff: :laff: :laff:

You see, trying to be eco-friendly has actually saved me money. That's the thing... perhaps these lifestyle changes aren't as awful as people think they will be. I'm hardly militant about it, they're just habits I've adopted and it was pretty easy.

Making greater use of heat-efficient building techniques and cleaner sources of energy will also save money in the long run. How is this bullying consumers? Could you not say regulation of medicines, foodstuffs and automobiles for reasons of public safety therefore is also bullying consumers into only buying what the government says is right?

The issue isn't going to be solved overnight, but the whole idea is to make a united move towards it instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem.

Making greater use of heat-efficient building techniques and cleaner sources of energy will also save money in the long run. How is this bullying consumers? Could you not say regulation of medicines, foodstuffs and automobiles for reasons of public safety therefore is also bullying consumers into only buying what the government says is right?

Well, I say "bullying" because environmental issues are not built on facts or reasoning, they are built on fear and guilt. I don't have a problem with safety regulations because I assume they are reasonable.

I DO have a problem with shampoo. Why do they make it smell so good if you're not supposed to eat it!? But that's another story!

The issue isn't going to be solved overnight, but the whole idea is to make a united move towards it instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem.

Before we take measures against "the issue", we need to determine:
1) How big of a problem is it?
2) How much it will affect us and how?
3) When it will become a problem?
4) How will changing our lifestyles prevent the problem, defined in mathematical (not theoretical) terms?

These are questions no one wants to answer, and no one wants to ask.
I suppose it can't hurt to switch to more energy efficient products, but I personally don't want to take the risk But really, if it saves you money, that's reason enough.

In the meantime, Stinky will enjoy his biodegradable condoms!

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:

Making greater use of heat-efficient building techniques and cleaner sources of energy will also save money in the long run. How is this bullying consumers? Could you not say regulation of medicines, foodstuffs and automobiles for reasons of public safety therefore is also bullying consumers into only buying what the government says is right?

Well, I say "bullying" because environmental issues are not built on facts or reasoning, they are built on fear and guilt.

Really? All of them? No facts? Just like CFC ozone depletion wasn't based on facts and was only fear and guilt?

The issue isn't going to be solved overnight, but the whole idea is to make a united move towards it instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem.

Before we take measures against "the issue", we need to determine:
1) How big of a problem is it?
2) How much it will affect us and how?
3) When it will become a problem?
4) How will changing our lifestyles prevent the problem, defined in mathematical (not theoretical) terms?

1) Potentially, it could be huge.
2) The whole of the Mediterranean region is suffering some pretty bad droughts. Is that linked to it? Might it get worse? Maybe.
3) Some say it is already affecting us, by creating more unstable weather patterns, see above.
4) Tricky one to answer. But again, polluting less, using less energy and generally being cleaner surely isn't a bad thing is it? It can't cause any harm, and could potentially save us all a lot of trouble.

There are four possibilities.

1) We do nothing, just keep on the way we are, and there isn't a problem. Cool, so we're all great.

2) We take action, and it turns out there wasn't anything to worry about. We spend a lot of cash and get stressed over nothing. But at least the sea and air is cleaner. Heads will roll regardless.

3) We take action, and it turns out there WAS something to worry about. So, we did something and hopefully mitigated the problem as much as possible.

4) We do nothing, carry on the way we are, and end up with Kevin Costner sailing around looking for Dry Land. I think you will agree this is by far the worst possibility, and not just because of Kevin Costner.

I suppose it can't hurt to switch to more energy efficient products, but I personally don't want to take the risk But really, if it saves you money, that's reason enough.

Where's the risk? And yes, it does save a fair bit. Most businesses over here have adopted such measures and it helps trim down expenses in a quite noticeable way.

I mean, fossil fuels are finite. No one is arguing with that. Ergo, we will eventually have to figure out other forms of energy generation anyway, so the sooner the better, I think. Obviously, we'll have to invest in it but I think it's definitely an investment worth making. Perhaps nuclear energy can fill in some of the gaps but that opens a whole other can of worms.

I think the point in green is to make it the best economical choice. Transition costs are getting in the way of some of these changes that would otherwise be profitable for business. Id much rather see that as a bailout than what we have been having. Things like helping people buy trucks with better mileage to cut down of food costs can have a nice effect on the poor who have the worst economy of scale. I think democrats are more about community involvement, things like pooling money together to buy in bulk to feed the poor instead of having each poor person buy their own at small levels is one way for a community to work together. Buying the big bag can instead of the small can greatly reduced materials involved and cheapens costs greatly. I don’t even think we can put people into groups like democrats since there are so many different views that I would not consider myself a democrat, but ideally, I think humans work better in social groups than on their own. Living in a big city, that really makes things interdependent for us.

Carcass wrote:miditek believes the Armageddon's near, so in a way it's logical for him not to care.

Actually, the War of Gog and Magog has to happen before Armageddon can occur. And that is a very real possibilty for the not too distant future. Besides, this thread is really just about poking fun at and heckling Gore, more or less.

NeonVomit wrote: 1) Potentially, it could be huge.
2) The whole of the Mediterranean region is suffering some pretty bad droughts. Is that linked to it? Might it get worse? Maybe.
3) Some say it is already affecting us, by creating more unstable weather patterns, see above.
4) Tricky one to answer. But again, polluting less, using less energy and generally being cleaner surely isn't a bad thing is it? It can't cause any harm, and could potentially save us all a lot of trouble.

"Potentially", "Maybe", "It can't cause any harm".
That's just my point- the impending environmental cataclysm is highly exaggerated and based on speculation. Besides that, I have no problem with researching alternative energy, we just have to keep things in perspective. To be honest i'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about- I guess you want to be a little more proactive about conservation than me. No problems there.

Really? All of them? No facts? Just like CFC ozone depletion wasn't based on facts and was only fear and guilt?

I don't really know much about that. O-zone sounds like the name of a techno band, to me. In fact, aren't they the ones that made that annoying "numa-numa" song!? If so, then I'm glad they're being depleted

I don't really know much about that.

Way to show you have done your research before saying there is no evidence.

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:"Potentially", "Maybe", "It can't cause any harm".
That's just my point- the impending environmental cataclysm is highly exaggerated and based on speculation.

Yesterday I read about a study done by the journal Science that randomly sampled nearly 1000 peer-reviewed papers with the words "climate change". None of them denied that climate change is fueled by human activity.

Sorry if I take the scientists' word for it.

miditek wrote:

Carcass wrote:miditek believes the Armageddon's near, so in a way it's logical for him not to care.

Actually, the War of Gog and Magog has to happen before Armageddon can occur. And that is a very real possibilty for the not too distant future.

But, doesnt The Rapture supposedly happen before all that and take the true Christians away before that happens?