On 8 Sep, 08:39, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:> On 8 Sep, 08:32, Tony Dragon
btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 Sep, 22:18, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Sep, 08:10, "Graculus"
hotmail.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>> At first sight the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup
>>>>>>> might think this thread is not transport related but consider this,
>>>>>>> a motorist who eats meat contributes about three times as much to
>>>>>>> global warming than someone who does neither.
>>>>>> That is SO weak. How on earth is it transport related when all you
>>>>>> do is say "someone who participates in activity A and the completely
>>>>>> unrelated acivity B" has such-and-such an effect?
>>>>>> Even at second sight, this is NOT transport related in any way at
>>>>>> all, and you are an extremely sad specimin to try to make it so.
>>>>> How do you imagine that meat is transported and what about the
>>>>> vehicles involved in rearing meat?
>>>> The commodity is immaterial, the same amount of goods will need to be
>>>> transported. In fact, given that veg provides less than meat a higher volume
>>>> of vehicle movements would be need to provide a veggie diet for the whole
>>>> country.
>
>>> But you and others here keep banging on about airfreighted food, which
>>> is but a small subset of food in general.
>
>>> BTW I counted at least five non-transport related threads posted by
>>> others, not me, on the first page alone. The word 'hypocrites' springs
>>> quickly to mind.
>
>
>> Would you list those threads please?
>
> Why? Do you have an eyesight problem?
>
> OT help with an infestation.
> Vote - Bollen's biggest lie
> I'm off to work now.
> Shock Discovery
> OT but fantastic news!
> Gollum on wikipedia - your help is required
Notice a common theme between five of those threads, Gollum?
