Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[koshari]

This bloke living next to a national park and complaining that it’s caused his house to be burned down from bushfires is worse then people that move into inner city areas like Fitzroy/Collingwood/Richmondand etc and complain about pubs being noisy.

i think the point is more about the lack of transparency of the rules.

 

[the flying ham]

Ran out of Simpsons memes?

I have sorry Abe

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Val Keating]

People really complain about pub noise?

Seriously though, if you are living I’m right next to thick bush land, you are asking for it one day. Hopefully we can clean up clearing laws to help get some separation between the thick bushes and individual houses.

Yeah they do. Nothing ruins an area like gentrification. Fitzroy is like South Yarra these days and Collingwood isn’t far behind.

i think the point is more about the lack of transparency of the rules.

I’m not buying it. Something about his Twitter bio “Proud white straight nationalist male residing in Melbourne.” Makes me think he’s full of shit

 

[Val Keating]

Lol

 

[Val Keating]

Does this stack up?

 

[giantroo]

 

[Snake_Baker]

CFR President Says “The World Will be the Battlefield” After Iran Escalation

It's not going to be like Iraq 2003.

summit.news

No, you can't join me inside the bunker.

 

[Gasometer]

Stop the press

Stevanovic has spoken

 

[Val Keating]

Stop the press

Stevanovic has spoken

So has Bette Midler

 

[Val Keating]

her Tweet has the F word...

Spoiler

 

[Snake_Baker]

Oh look

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

So has Bette Midler

Has she moved to Canada yet?

 

[Val Keating]

Has she moved to Canada yet?

I’m not up to date with Bette’s going’s on so that went over my head

 

[Firestarter]

Lol

I'm just dropping in my usual smartarse style of commentary: Imagine being such a narcissist that you announce that Presidents should be exempt from impeachments.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I'm just dropping in my usual smartarse style of commentary: Imagine being such a narcissist that you announce that Presidents should be exempt from impeachments.

Awkward username for the current fire discussions.

 

[Firestarter]

Awkward username for the current fire discussions.

I have a fifth spare account here somewhere...

 

[Gorman2Geister]

Should probably be in the Grumpy Old Thread but the amount of absolute rubbish hysteria about the lack of controlled burning is diabolical. Sometimes the mindless zealot keyboard warriors from 'the school of hard knocks' need to accept that some natural events cannot be mitigated or prevented by people. It is like those people who live on a floodplain being full of indignation that the government didn't stop their house from flooding by building levees or keeping dams empty just in case. I've seen levees overtop making flooding worse than it would have been and huge dams fill from virtually empty in a day.

I live near a national park that burnt through virtually the same area 3 or 4 years apart and the latter fire was much worse because of the weather which is the main factor, not the red herring of the fuel load. The people I know who lost houses etc. in that event don't blame the fuel load at all and get upset at this rhetoric that it would have saved their property. The science also proves that it can only make a marginal difference, it's like building a levee to protect a town from a 1 in 10 year flood and being angry that the 1 in 100 year flood inundated the town. It leads to people and politicians denying the true risks of living in Australia and the belief that we can prevent catastrophic fires by slashing every roadside, sending in the cows and burning every forest every winter is the height of ignorant arrogance.

We've cleared a ridiculously high proportion of our native vegetation in the last 200 years, it's farcical to think that people want to turn the last parts of it into an English village green or something by lighting it up every winter or sending in cows/sheep. I see the cleared roadsides that get mowed/ploughed up and just grow dense masses of annual weedy grasses compared to the ones that still have trees etc. and there's not anywhere near the organic matter in them.

I've had 3 fires threaten my property in the last dozen years or so - two from out of control stubble burn offs and one from a lightning strike in the state park. The stubble fires were able to be controlled when they slowed down in the roadside vegetation. Should I put pictures of my neighbours on Facebook trying to incite rage and hatred from the social media lynch mob? No - because it was an accident on their behalf ('local knowledge' only gets you so far) - no one of any ideological persuasion wants to see the fires we are witnessing now. But please don't get sucked into the Kool Aide that is the controlled burning issue - swallowing what a lot of the 'experts' such as CFA members say is like going into our Game Day threads and believing every single comment verbatim. Being a CFA member myself, it's like a cross section of this board - a lot of sensible posters who contribute useful insights but then there's a few loudmouth morons who don't know what they are on about and they are seen by others as representative of the place.

Lighting up all our public land every other year and treating it like a public paddock will be a disaster for the remaining native flora and fauna - allowing weeds to spread which are more of a fire risk and removing cover for small marsupials, birds etc. so the foxes and cats will have a smorgasbord. I'm not against controlled burning at all but it needs to be planned appropriately and not a knee jerk response. There's no point burning half the Big Desert every year to meet the arbitrary target from the Black Saturday Royal Commission when the area around the Dandenongs cannot be managed well due to all the complaints from viticulturalists re. smoke taint in their grapes.

If the finger of blame needs to be pointed at anyone it's the people who allow so many houses to be in high risk areas with limited access/egress at the best of times let alone during a disaster whether it be flood or fire. We will all probably pay for the greedy developers who made a fortune from selling acreage at the edge of forests with higher premiums or maybe insurers will not insure these places at all in the future and we'll end up like the USA where the public/lobbyist pressure means that government insures places like beach front mansions that regularly flood or are impacted by storms and so our taxes go into this money pit instead of funding essential services like schools, transport, public land management and hospitals.

Anyway on a more positive note, it's nice a mild and overcast here in Western Vic so hopefully the mild weather (plus a lot of rain) makes its presence felt everywhere else soon.

TL : DR - We live in Australia, not Wiltshire - bushfires will always be a risk and controlled burning is not a silver bullet. Don't get sucked in by the hysteria about it.

 

[Val Keating]

I'm just dropping in my usual smartarse style of commentary: Imagine being such a narcissist that you announce that Presidents should be exempt from impeachments.

He was diagnosed with a type of narcissism by a bunch of psychologists. Can’t remember what type...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Should probably be in the Grumpy Old Thread but the amount of absolute rubbish hysteria about the lack of controlled burning is diabolical. Sometimes the mindless zealot keyboard warriors from 'the school of hard knocks' need to accept that some natural events cannot be mitigated or prevented by people. It is like those people who live on a floodplain being full of indignation that the government didn't stop their house from flooding by building levees or keeping dams empty just in case. I've seen levees overtop making flooding worse than it would have been and huge dams fill from virtually empty in a day.

I live near a national park that burnt through virtually the same area 3 or 4 years apart and the latter fire was much worse because of the weather which is the main factor, not the red herring of the fuel load. The people I know who lost houses etc. in that event don't blame the fuel load at all and get upset at this rhetoric that it would have saved their property. The science also proves that it can only make a marginal difference, it's like building a levee to protect a town from a 1 in 10 year flood and being angry that the 1 in 100 year flood inundated the town. It leads to people and politicians denying the true risks of living in Australia and the belief that we can prevent catastrophic fires by slashing every roadside, sending in the cows and burning every forest every winter is the height of ignorant arrogance.

We've cleared a ridiculously high proportion of our native vegetation in the last 200 years, it's farcical to think that people want to turn the last parts of it into an English village green or something by lighting it up every winter or sending in cows/sheep. I see the cleared roadsides that get mowed/ploughed up and just grow dense masses of annual weedy grasses compared to the ones that still have trees etc. and there's not anywhere near the organic matter in them.

I've had 3 fires threaten my property in the last dozen years or so - two from out of control stubble burn offs and one from a lightning strike in the state park. The stubble fires were able to be controlled when they slowed down in the roadside vegetation. Should I put pictures of my neighbours on Facebook trying to incite rage and hatred from the social media lynch mob? No - because it was an accident on their behalf ('local knowledge' only gets you so far) - no one of any ideological persuasion wants to see the fires we are witnessing now. But please don't get sucked into the Kool Aide that is the controlled burning issue - swallowing what a lot of the 'experts' such as CFA members say is like going into our Game Day threads and believing every single comment verbatim. Being a CFA member myself, it's like a cross section of this board - a lot of sensible posters who contribute useful insights but then there's a few loudmouth morons who don't know what they are on about and they are seen by others as representative of the place.

Lighting up all our public land every other year and treating it like a public paddock will be a disaster for the remaining native flora and fauna - allowing weeds to spread which are more of a fire risk and removing cover for small marsupials, birds etc. so the foxes and cats will have a smorgasbord. I'm not against controlled burning at all but it needs to be planned appropriately and not a knee jerk response. There's no point burning half the Big Desert every year to meet the arbitrary target from the Black Saturday Royal Commission when the area around the Dandenongs cannot be managed well due to all the complaints from viticulturalists re. smoke taint in their grapes.

If the finger of blame needs to be pointed at anyone it's the people who allow so many houses to be in high risk areas with limited access/egress at the best of times let alone during a disaster whether it be flood or fire. We will all probably pay for the greedy developers who made a fortune from selling acreage at the edge of forests with higher premiums or maybe insurers will not insure these places at all in the future and we'll end up like the USA where the public/lobbyist pressure means that government insures places like beach front mansions that regularly flood or are impacted by storms and so our taxes go into this money pit instead of funding essential services like schools, transport, public land management and hospitals.

Anyway on a more positive note, it's nice a mild and overcast here in Western Vic so hopefully the mild weather (plus a lot of rain) makes its presence felt everywhere else soon.

TL : DR - We live in Australia, not Wiltshire - bushfires will always be a risk and controlled burning is not a silver bullet. Don't get sucked in by the hysteria about it.

Great post G2G.

It appears many folks don't understand that fire is an evolutionary factor in this land.

 

[Val Keating]

Hmmm

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

We all become hypocrites in the end.

 

[koshari]

Should probably be in the Grumpy Old Thread but the amount of absolute rubbish hysteria about the lack of controlled burning is diabolical. Sometimes the mindless zealot keyboard warriors from 'the school of hard knocks' need to accept that some natural events cannot be mitigated or prevented by people. It is like those people who live on a floodplain being full of indignation that the government didn't stop their house from flooding by building levees or keeping dams empty just in case. I've seen levees overtop making flooding worse than it would have been and huge dams fill from virtually empty in a day.

I live near a national park that burnt through virtually the same area 3 or 4 years apart and the latter fire was much worse because of the weather which is the main factor, not the red herring of the fuel load. The people I know who lost houses etc. in that event don't blame the fuel load at all and get upset at this rhetoric that it would have saved their property. The science also proves that it can only make a marginal difference, it's like building a levee to protect a town from a 1 in 10 year flood and being angry that the 1 in 100 year flood inundated the town. It leads to people and politicians denying the true risks of living in Australia and the belief that we can prevent catastrophic fires by slashing every roadside, sending in the cows and burning every forest every winter is the height of ignorant arrogance.

We've cleared a ridiculously high proportion of our native vegetation in the last 200 years, it's farcical to think that people want to turn the last parts of it into an English village green or something by lighting it up every winter or sending in cows/sheep. I see the cleared roadsides that get mowed/ploughed up and just grow dense masses of annual weedy grasses compared to the ones that still have trees etc. and there's not anywhere near the organic matter in them.

I've had 3 fires threaten my property in the last dozen years or so - two from out of control stubble burn offs and one from a lightning strike in the state park. The stubble fires were able to be controlled when they slowed down in the roadside vegetation. Should I put pictures of my neighbours on Facebook trying to incite rage and hatred from the social media lynch mob? No - because it was an accident on their behalf ('local knowledge' only gets you so far) - no one of any ideological persuasion wants to see the fires we are witnessing now. But please don't get sucked into the Kool Aide that is the controlled burning issue - swallowing what a lot of the 'experts' such as CFA members say is like going into our Game Day threads and believing every single comment verbatim. Being a CFA member myself, it's like a cross section of this board - a lot of sensible posters who contribute useful insights but then there's a few loudmouth morons who don't know what they are on about and they are seen by others as representative of the place.

Lighting up all our public land every other year and treating it like a public paddock will be a disaster for the remaining native flora and fauna - allowing weeds to spread which are more of a fire risk and removing cover for small marsupials, birds etc. so the foxes and cats will have a smorgasbord. I'm not against controlled burning at all but it needs to be planned appropriately and not a knee jerk response. There's no point burning half the Big Desert every year to meet the arbitrary target from the Black Saturday Royal Commission when the area around the Dandenongs cannot be managed well due to all the complaints from viticulturalists re. smoke taint in their grapes.

If the finger of blame needs to be pointed at anyone it's the people who allow so many houses to be in high risk areas with limited access/egress at the best of times let alone during a disaster whether it be flood or fire. We will all probably pay for the greedy developers who made a fortune from selling acreage at the edge of forests with higher premiums or maybe insurers will not insure these places at all in the future and we'll end up like the USA where the public/lobbyist pressure means that government insures places like beach front mansions that regularly flood or are impacted by storms and so our taxes go into this money pit instead of funding essential services like schools, transport, public land management and hospitals.

Anyway on a more positive note, it's nice a mild and overcast here in Western Vic so hopefully the mild weather (plus a lot of rain) makes its presence felt everywhere else soon.

TL : DR - We live in Australia, not Wiltshire - bushfires will always be a risk and controlled burning is not a silver bullet. Don't get sucked in by the hysteria about it.

this is pretty much the anti-rant of the posters all over the place hysterically pushing their own agendas, and the audacity of you actually supplying rational material to support your points!

 

[Val Keating]

We all become hypocrites in the end.

Don’t think he’s being a hypocrite. It shows his motives for the attack. He wants to go to war with Iran for his political career.

 

[Val Keating]

Should probably be in the Grumpy Old Thread but the amount of absolute rubbish hysteria about the lack of controlled burning is diabolical. Sometimes the mindless zealot keyboard warriors from 'the school of hard knocks' need to accept that some natural events cannot be mitigated or prevented by people. It is like those people who live on a floodplain being full of indignation that the government didn't stop their house from flooding by building levees or keeping dams empty just in case. I've seen levees overtop making flooding worse than it would have been and huge dams fill from virtually empty in a day.

I live near a national park that burnt through virtually the same area 3 or 4 years apart and the latter fire was much worse because of the weather which is the main factor, not the red herring of the fuel load. The people I know who lost houses etc. in that event don't blame the fuel load at all and get upset at this rhetoric that it would have saved their property. The science also proves that it can only make a marginal difference, it's like building a levee to protect a town from a 1 in 10 year flood and being angry that the 1 in 100 year flood inundated the town. It leads to people and politicians denying the true risks of living in Australia and the belief that we can prevent catastrophic fires by slashing every roadside, sending in the cows and burning every forest every winter is the height of ignorant arrogance.

We've cleared a ridiculously high proportion of our native vegetation in the last 200 years, it's farcical to think that people want to turn the last parts of it into an English village green or something by lighting it up every winter or sending in cows/sheep. I see the cleared roadsides that get mowed/ploughed up and just grow dense masses of annual weedy grasses compared to the ones that still have trees etc. and there's not anywhere near the organic matter in them.

I've had 3 fires threaten my property in the last dozen years or so - two from out of control stubble burn offs and one from a lightning strike in the state park. The stubble fires were able to be controlled when they slowed down in the roadside vegetation. Should I put pictures of my neighbours on Facebook trying to incite rage and hatred from the social media lynch mob? No - because it was an accident on their behalf ('local knowledge' only gets you so far) - no one of any ideological persuasion wants to see the fires we are witnessing now. But please don't get sucked into the Kool Aide that is the controlled burning issue - swallowing what a lot of the 'experts' such as CFA members say is like going into our Game Day threads and believing every single comment verbatim. Being a CFA member myself, it's like a cross section of this board - a lot of sensible posters who contribute useful insights but then there's a few loudmouth morons who don't know what they are on about and they are seen by others as representative of the place.

Lighting up all our public land every other year and treating it like a public paddock will be a disaster for the remaining native flora and fauna - allowing weeds to spread which are more of a fire risk and removing cover for small marsupials, birds etc. so the foxes and cats will have a smorgasbord. I'm not against controlled burning at all but it needs to be planned appropriately and not a knee jerk response. There's no point burning half the Big Desert every year to meet the arbitrary target from the Black Saturday Royal Commission when the area around the Dandenongs cannot be managed well due to all the complaints from viticulturalists re. smoke taint in their grapes.

If the finger of blame needs to be pointed at anyone it's the people who allow so many houses to be in high risk areas with limited access/egress at the best of times let alone during a disaster whether it be flood or fire. We will all probably pay for the greedy developers who made a fortune from selling acreage at the edge of forests with higher premiums or maybe insurers will not insure these places at all in the future and we'll end up like the USA where the public/lobbyist pressure means that government insures places like beach front mansions that regularly flood or are impacted by storms and so our taxes go into this money pit instead of funding essential services like schools, transport, public land management and hospitals.

Anyway on a more positive note, it's nice a mild and overcast here in Western Vic so hopefully the mild weather (plus a lot of rain) makes its presence felt everywhere else soon.

TL : DR - We live in Australia, not Wiltshire - bushfires will always be a risk and controlled burning is not a silver bullet. Don't get sucked in by the hysteria about it.

You should send this to the crackpots that are blaming the greenies for the fires. Start with Miranda Devine

Green ideas must take blame for deaths

It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel, writes Miranda Devine.

t.co

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Don’t think he’s being a hypocrite. It shows his motives for the attack. He wants to go to war with Iran for his political career.

Why, impeachment isn’t politically hurting him and his previous military withdrawals from Syria were largely consistent with his original isolationist leanings. His dealings with NK also go against this warmonger ethos.

Bolton and a few others in his cabinet are better fits for the ‘warmonger’ personality, than orange man.

Most Americans are fairly ground-war-weary post-Iraq war (national debt), so it would be political suicide to initiate a wider confrontation.