Begone - foul-smelling, tasting-of-GOP, Hasselhof-loving, roller-in-the-shite type of animal.

We are all now in great need of a double dose of Freedom.

That's #1... comin' down yer earhole.

Oh! Boom BOOM! Hold yer head or I'll slap ya agin'!

Faith, baby, Faith.

- Your Biggest Fans (Not at all safe for work. Or play.)

I got the FREEDOMS, buddy.

And I'm a world-class hater. Hate government? EASY. I'm into, through and done with that by breakfast.

You gonna REASON me out of hating?

So yeah, based on the 3 blogs where I've seen you, you really should STFU for a while and maybe try treating people with a little bit of respect.

You might even get some back.

You're outgunned, and you're flailing. Goodstein may be a great physicist, and a fine old gentleman, and have the end of oil thesis absolutely right. As I've said before, I'm not arguing the oil thesis, I'm agreeing with it - savvy?

But he is abysmally wrong about the new energy sources. I've gone to his site and wiki'ed him and hunted other places to find his more detailed views on wind, but what I keep finding are people complaining about his too-general statements on these technologies. I already went into some detail on this, in relation to wind, which he does not understand.

And look... he offers up a slide at the end of his "Out of Gas" roadshow which reads - "Prediction: Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century, when the energy runs out." Meanwhile, while he's producing such gems as this, Jacobson and hundreds of others are offering up thousands and thousands of pieces of data and large-scale calculations. I'd suggest you check them out. Or do you have some big emotional reason to cling to doom and despair?

As for getting an e-mail from Goodstein that says "I think I'm still right" - that's supposed to be persuasive????? Are you kidding? I work on this stuff Spider, and like I said, I got a great education and am privileged enough to speak to top minds at the leading edge of the field. I'll be sure to tell them all that Goodstein thinks he's still right. That outta convince them. Boy, that's just scientific as hell, that is.

And as for you, you should probably go shopping. Get some new knickers. Your old ones seem to be in a knot. You've been shown to know nothing on the topic, to be happy to smear innocent people, and now... you're popping your cork.

New knickers. Think about it.

As for wind and Goodstein, that's great - I hope you get a response. I would note that the wind resource is richest in the US down through the Central states, with areas of the NW, around the Great Lakes, enormous resources offshore New England, etc. The South (east of Texas), however, seems to have a weaker wind resource, and perhaps will need other means. See this month's cover story in SciAm for some interesting info. A neat Flyp presentation on it here.

The lead author, Jacobsen of Stanford, has some top-notch new academic articles up, on how to meet California, US and Global energy needs with the new renewables, looking at resource availability, cost, land take, distance, water use, etc. - and the implications for climate change and energy security, including appendices with all the figures you could ever want. Check out his Stanford site for all the links. There's a basic PDF here.

Because after all that, your link IN NO WAY comprises the sort of "database" you spoke of, no weighing out of various groups or sorting out motivations, etc.

What it does is list a whole series of groups which pose a risk - including white supremacists, militias, cyberterrorists, ecoterrorists, black separatists, those allied with foreign nations, and so on. It does NOT count them or weigh out the likelihood they will commit massacres, etc.

There is no "database" that allows quantitative analysis here.

You're just covering your ass now. Your babble about evidence and database and hypothesis and all that was just you blowing smoke Fred. You think the world is this way, and you chose your favourite language - science - to write it up as if it were so.

But it's not science, Fred. You're just faking it up to get what you want.

Retract your comment.

It was a genuinely gutless and shitty thing to say, you have no evidence for it, and I - for one - don't want to be painted by your bullshit.

After that, you should probably STFU for a while.

Plant some grass... straighten up them crooked lil tombstones they use... maybe we could even spring for a few hundred of those plastic buckets you can hang off the stone, for people to put flowers in.

You'll see. It'll be nice. Real nice.

It's a bit like hockey, where the other team's agitators aim to do nothing but distract attention and get people angry, so we pay no attention to the game. Bit like trolls too, I guess.

If I could quota the mention of Rush and the rest, I'd happily do so.

Now, why are you talking like this, when you have no evidence? Are you telling me you have a database of which massacres succeeded, which ones were averted? And someone went through the trouble of defining massacre and found a way to remove the ones with a revenge motive? How about religion and motivation? Someone knows who's a Muslim and which Muslims take their views seriously?

I'm just going to say you do not have access to such a magical mound of evidence. So your talk about hypothesis testing and data and evidence and statistical confirmation is just you making stuff up.

Which means you have now made the question one of - Why would Fred pretend he has such evidence on hand? Like to hazard a guess? Or would you prefer to go with the preferred hypothesis on this thread - that Fred is a racist, but just can't see his way clear to admitting it? After all, there's quite a bit of evidence which you've submitted yourself, in this very thread. No proof, just confirmation you know.

And maybe.... maybe we should have you watched? Or do you have friends and family who can speak up for you, and persuade us all that they'll keep tight watch on you and your behaviour?

Now, in pure process terms. What if I had a similar view about climate change... or global water shortages... or the Muslim threat... or whatever. How many posts would you want me mentioning it in before you felt I was a Johnny One Note Fanatic. And how many times within a thread? You say I'm arrogant. I'd point out that you are one of a million fanatics who feels justified in dragging their pet peeve into every other issue on Earth, and flogging it.

I would also point out that you know very very little about the issue at hand, but you chose to make lots of highly emotive statements about how others have unthinkingly bought into BS (that as how you led things off)... then how you don't trust them... then told us all about your firmly firmly firmly held views that the process will be brutal... and then came back to your unwillingness to take my word for anything.

And you don't think the above-mentioned statements, methods of arguing and gratuitous mean-spirited comment about someone (someone whom I have no time for, by the way) is arrogant?

For starters, it makes little/no sense because you only have a tiny number of cases to begin with. How many massacres you got in your data set? Errrrm, 1 - according to the media. So if that first massacre had been by a white supremacist, what would you be saying? How about a black woman? A theory doesn't get much confirmation from 1 (one) case.

More importantly, have you developed some master list that you're checking these massacres against? You know, male/female, age, religion, sexual preference, political views that sort of thing. 'Cause when I talk to my buddies in the security and spook industry, we talk about...

- My Baptist and Fundamentalist colleagues. Why you letting my brethren off so easy? Think we can't so some serious social damage? My people are hard, Fred. Death is of secondary import to some of these people. Fanatics, you might say. That little Muslim shrink had nothin' on these people.

- And the Nazis and Neo-Nazis that came out of the Eastern Bloc. You think there aren't worries there? My buddies in the spook services say there's more Nazis living in the Greater Toronto area than in some Eastern European countries. They watch them all the time.

- And those radical African American and Native groups. Come on Fred, give us the odds - what are the numbers here? Used to be more militant politicos, but now... a huge proportion are drawn into gangs. How bad would the insults have to be for one of these guys to pop, what with histories of abuse and drug use and racism and such?

- And those Central American Death Squad refugees? We got a bunch from the Honduras living in SW Ontario, the guys interviewed for the Baltimore Sun a few years ago. How're they gonna react if we support the wrong side?

- Checked out the Vietnamese refugees? Laotian? Cambodian? Even Chinese? Hell Fred, we just had a Chinese guy here, had a mental breakdown, chopped someone's head off in the bus outside of town and started eating him. On the bus. I put it down to the Chinese diet.

- And my Scots-Irish blood brothers? We're hot-headed, overly-proud, heavy-drinkers, greater prevalence of mental illness, racist as hell, a militaristic tradition, cultural acceptance of "berserker" states, and frankly... we look down on every other group out there. Especially guys with badges or stripes. So what're the odds that we're gonna do some nasty shit to our fellow citizens?

- And hell. After seeing the Bear Jew in Glourious Basterds, I'm keeping a much closer eye on those guys too.

So. When I hear of massacres and slaughters, what I do is I take out my list. Of all those like me - the inbred, the violent, the fanatical, the tormented, the hotheads, the drunks, the persecuted and the incorrigible.

And then I wonder which part of me's gonna be responsible for the latest outrage.

And why waste your time here flapping your gums about Israelis and Palestinians? Who cares?

As to your 2nd point... I'm into the trendy handshake? Sure bub. That's just me, to a T. By the way, for an example of your bright and shining moral light, perhaps I should note your gratuitous insult of Rosenberg on a thread which had nothing to do with him. This, after telling Zipper he should avoid personal insults. Riiiiight.