On Feb 12, 1:46*pm, "boozn" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...





On Feb 12, 10:50 am, "boozn" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

....
On Feb 11, 12:54 pm, "Chom Noamsky" wrote:

"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" wrote in
...

What better way for the more radical fringers to make their point?
Envirokooks have certainly shown a propensity for destruction in the
pass and they hate people, which makes their involvement in deadly
fires even more likely.

They must be very finely tuned with understanding of the natural world,
to
know the conditions are right to perp such a crime. Why would they be
so
attuned to environmental conditions which denialists say don't exist?
The
vast majority of arsonists get caught because they are trying to cover
up
crimes of passion, or trying for insurance payouts. So these dastardly
environmentalists must be incredibly intelligent to perp such a major
crime
and get away with it.

We had a similar episode in Western Canada a few years ago. The
"envirokook"
was a logger and his son trying to install a satellite dish on a stump
in
his back yard. He butted out his smoke out on the stump, and it just
happened to light up the 2,000 vertical feet of dry forest above the
dish,
which then turned into a regional concern. About the same time, a CN
train
worker flicked a butt and started another major fire. Just two
ordinairy
nicotine addicts to blame.. WHO THE HELL WOULD EVER BELIEVE THAT

Before the dust settled accusations of arson were tossed about, but the
evidence all traced back to butt smokers...

Actually, in previous bushfires in Australia we have had some
instances of arson, but none of these had any connection to
environmentalism.
************************************************** *************

Lying through your teeth again komrade???

I'm not your comrade, and you are the one lying.

Here's what you ran with to imply greenies are putative arsonists:

LAST year the Wilderness Society published a six-point action plan to
"reduce bushfire risks and help to protect people, property, wildlife
and their habitat". The society asserted that a "massive increase in
hazard reduction burning and firebreaks is destroying nature, pushing
wildlife closer to extinction and in many cases increasing the fire risk
to
people and properties by making areas more fire prone".

Self-evidently this has nothing to do with arson and the text suggests
the direct opposite of someone who'd want to set fires in bushland.

Whatever the merits of the Widlerness Society's claims, it is simple
slander to imply they are arsonists.

That you would slander them so recklessly shows the complete
indifference to reality you have when pushing your agenda is at
stake.

If the following quote isn't anti hazard reduction then tell me what is ....


It isn't, but I'm not answering your questions substantively until you
rescind your lie that the Wilderness Society are arsonists.

The society asserted that a "massive increase in hazard
reduction burning and firebreaks is destroying nature, pushing wildlife
closer to extinction and in many cases increasing the fire risk to people
and properties by making areas more fire prone".


It clearly has nothing to do with arson, so you were lying. You need
to withdraw your lie that the Wilderness Society are arsonists or
stand condemned as a lying troll.

Fran