TALKING WITH YOUR HANDS.

@sozobe,

Hi Sozobe,
Thank you for that post.
I only ask this because I see politicians become very expressive when on the defensive, and preachers overly so when trying to deliver something that is important to them. I wondered if it had a universal, subliminal angle to it.
Have a lovely day, Sozobe.
Mark...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Hello Mark my good friend.

I like to use my hands while talking because it helps me to direct a conversation or shape a conversation. I am able to control my words with the motion of my hands. In addition it helps me keep a conversation flowing and I am able to express my feelings through hand gestures.

Much respect

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Good day Krumple

Upon reading your posts towards Mark Noble you do indeed criticize his work. Why don't you try and say something far more constructive like, "A cup of tea is a cup of tea"

Much respect

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
you recently criticised, Capitalisation (the most weird yet). You've even attempted to relate me to a"conpiracy theorist" with your recent video.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. I never called you or related you as being a conspiracy theorist. What are you talking about?

Hi Krumple,
This - ring a bell?
@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
According to your interpretation of catastrophic events now in irreversible motion (climate-change, deforestation, ozone depletion, resource-exhaustion, pollution, overpopulation, melting ice-caps, rising sea-levels, etc), How long do you think it will be before the societal integrity in your little part of the world falls apart?
And how long before the GLOBAL collapse of said?

Please give an approximate timeframe and reason for.

I see what kind of person you are now Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

Mark...

1 Reply

@The Joker006,

Thank you for that. Would you concur that hand movements do, indeed, generally award the user "control"?

Please ignore Krumple, he's on a quest.
Have a terrific day, my friend.

P.s - Bet Jordan's gutted!

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
you recently criticised, Capitalisation (the most weird yet). You've even attempted to relate me to a"conpiracy theorist" with your recent video.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. I never called you or related you as being a conspiracy theorist. What are you talking about?

Hi Krumple,
This - ring a bell?
@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
According to your interpretation of catastrophic events now in irreversible motion (climate-change, deforestation, ozone depletion, resource-exhaustion, pollution, overpopulation, melting ice-caps, rising sea-levels, etc), How long do you think it will be before the societal integrity in your little part of the world falls apart?
And how long before the GLOBAL collapse of said?

Please give an approximate timeframe and reason for.

I see what kind of person you are now Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

Mark...

So from that video, you got that I thought you were a conspiracy theorist? So you didn't even watch the video then, or if you did only a few minutes of it?

The point I was making is about the type of mentality you have. Like the argument I made about a child at night while in bed might believe there is a monster in their closet without having any foundation or basis to think there would be a monster. Believing in stuff without having a basis for believing in them is irrational. The video was to back up my assessment of it since your previous comments to that point. Drawing correlations where there really are not correlations. Sure there might be climate change but absolutely nothing says that climate change is due to human activity, yet there are people who believe that global climate change is caused by humans. That is a sensationalist and drawing unfounded correlations. It is no different than a child who believes there is a monster in it's closet.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Hello Mark.

No problems. Not to control but to shape. Using the world control seems slighty exagerated - hand gestures do not dominate a conversation but they keep the speakers mind constantly activated.

Jordan and myself tried to work out a deal but I refused. Yes he must be gutted and I am happy but at least he's in for a change to win his fiver back for fastest goal.

Krumple is much respected and intelligent individual.

Much respect
Rhys

1 Reply

@The Joker006,

The Joker006 wrote:

Krumple is much respected and intelligent individual.

Thanks, I want to apologize to everyone and Mark as well for derailing the topic.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
you recently criticised, Capitalisation (the most weird yet). You've even attempted to relate me to a"conpiracy theorist" with your recent video.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. I never called you or related you as being a conspiracy theorist. What are you talking about?

Hi Krumple,
This - ring a bell?
@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
According to your interpretation of catastrophic events now in irreversible motion (climate-change, deforestation, ozone depletion, resource-exhaustion, pollution, overpopulation, melting ice-caps, rising sea-levels, etc), How long do you think it will be before the societal integrity in your little part of the world falls apart?
And how long before the GLOBAL collapse of said?

Please give an approximate timeframe and reason for.

I see what kind of person you are now Mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o

Mark...

So from that video, you got that I thought you were a conspiracy theorist? So you didn't even watch the video then, or if you did only a few minutes of it?

The point I was making is about the type of mentality you have. Like the argument I made about a child at night while in bed might believe there is a monster in their closet without having any foundation or basis to think there would be a monster. Believing in stuff without having a basis for believing in them is irrational. The video was to back up my assessment of it since your previous comments to that point. Drawing correlations where there really are not correlations. Sure there might be climate change but absolutely nothing says that climate change is due to human activity, yet there are people who believe that global climate change is caused by humans. That is a sensationalist and drawing unfounded correlations. It is no different than a child who believes there is a monster in it's closet.

Hi Krumple,
I asked you to explain at the time, but you ignored that request. I watched the entire video, that ends with the conspiracy-mentality sum. What other correlation was I supposed to make?
I do not take anything for granted, and I never had monsters under my bed.
Are you trying to tell me-
1) The planet is not overpopulated? When resources and inhabitable landmass are far more exhausted than the populace?
2) The ice-caps and glacial regions are not melting at an increasingly unprecedented rate?
3) Pollution is not increasing because of mankind's industrial progression.
4) The sea-levels are not rising?
5) Deforestation isn't an issue? (take a look at satview of s.american rainforest).
6) The ozone-layer (have you seen the latest pics)?
7) The fishstocks are near critical in some parts of the world.
8) You are in the US, so I can forgive you on the climate-change issue.
I witness it through my own eyes, having a keen interest in weather, flora and fauna, I can hardly not notice.

I am a child with monsters under my bed, because I keep in touch with nature, the variables thereof, and the global changes that ARE taking place.

Thank you for your opinion Krumple. Do excuse me for disagreeing with them though.

Mark...

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Hi Krumple,
Just an addition... I never claimed, originally, in that thread post, that mankind was responsible for climate-change. I don't believe man is anymore than a contributor to it actually.
Thank you.
Mark...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

I asked you to explain at the time, but you ignored that request. I watched the entire video, that ends with the conspiracy-mentality sum. What other correlation was I supposed to make?

Once again drawing correlations that are unfounded.

mark noble wrote:

Are you trying to tell me-
1) The planet is not overpopulated? When resources and inhabitable landmass are far more exhausted than the populace?
2) The ice-caps and glacial regions are not melting at an increasingly unprecedented rate?
3) Pollution is not increasing because of mankind's industrial progression.
4) The sea-levels are not rising?
5) Deforestation isn't an issue? (take a look at satview of s.american rainforest).
6) The ozone-layer (have you seen the latest pics)?
7) The fishstocks are near critical in some parts of the world.
8) You are in the US, so I can forgive you on the climate-change issue.

I never said that any of that is not happening. Sure there is human impact on the environment but there is absolutely no correlation that human impact is actually causing climate change. The earth has a vast history of climate change and most of it, there were no humans around at all. I am saying even though humans are impacting the environment in many ways, it does not say that these impacts are causing climate change.

Are the ice caps melting, yes. I never would say they are not. There is clear evidence that glaciers are receding. There have been documented glaciers that have been receding for over two hundred years. But I can easily make the connection that perhaps the last edge of an ice age there is a critical rise in global temperatures. As the ice retreats less sun light is reflected, and that by itself would increase the temperatures in an area which would then cause further melting. But glaciers have been recorded as receding even before there was industrialization. So if glaciers have been receding long before humans were polluting the environment with heavy amounts of hydrocarbons then why were they receding?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
I asked you to explain at the time, but you ignored that request. I watched the entire video, that ends with the conspiracy-mentality sum. What other correlation was I supposed to make?

Once again drawing correlations that are unfounded.

mark noble wrote:
Are you trying to tell me-
1) The planet is not overpopulated? When resources and inhabitable landmass are far more exhausted than the populace?
2) The ice-caps and glacial regions are not melting at an increasingly unprecedented rate?
3) Pollution is not increasing because of mankind's industrial progression.
4) The sea-levels are not rising?
5) Deforestation isn't an issue? (take a look at satview of s.american rainforest).
6) The ozone-layer (have you seen the latest pics)?
7) The fishstocks are near critical in some parts of the world.
8) You are in the US, so I can forgive you on the climate-change issue.

I never said that any of that is not happening. Sure there is human impact on the environment but there is absolutely no correlation that human impact is actually causing climate change. The earth has a vast history of climate change and most of it, there were no humans around at all. I am saying even though humans are impacting the environment in many ways, it does not say that these impacts are causing climate change.

Are the ice caps melting, yes. I never would say they are not. There is clear evidence that glaciers are receding. There have been documented glaciers that have been receding for over two hundred years. But I can easily make the connection that perhaps the last edge of an ice age there is a critical rise in global temperatures. As the ice retreats less sun light is reflected, and that by itself would increase the temperatures in an area which would then cause further melting. But glaciers have been recorded as receding even before there was industrialization. So if glaciers have been receding long before humans were polluting the environment with heavy amounts of hydrocarbons then why were they receding?

Hi Again Krumple.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS! Quote me on it.....................please?

Don't judge my mentality on the basis of something I HAVE NEVER STATED.
I write in caps here because I don't think you get what I'm saying.
Maybe someone else stated it, and you saw my avatar nearby, I don't know Krumple?
Mark.

1 Reply

Hi All,
Do exscuse the tangent this thread has been drawn along. I have had no alternative but to answer this poster with regards to his repetitive misfounded judgements. I am sorry, indeed.

So "hands" and talking, eh?
Best wishes all (except the exempt)
Mark...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

I NEVER SAID IT WAS! Quote me on it.....................please?

I don't think it was in this thread where you said it. I'll have to check.

mark noble wrote:

Don't judge my mentality on the basis of something I HAVE NEVER STATED.

Sometimes it is not about what you say, but what you imply as well. But if you really want to analyze it, there is absolutely no way for humans to live without causing some sort of impact on the planet. Even if we lived in small tribal communities, where we lived in bush shelters, we would still impact the environment heavily. It is impossible to have humans living without impacting something. So if we were to switch gears, what would you suggest we do, if you don't like these global environmental impacts?

Should we quit cutting down all trees?
Should we get rid of all our power plants and tear down all our buildings?
Should we dig up all the roads, highways and streets?
Get rid of automobiles and combustion engines?
Stop flying planes?

What exactly are you arguing when you make the claims about over population? Should we kill off some people? Place reproduction caps on couples? Only allow elite people able to procreate? Enforce it by making all new born sterile unless the parents pay some kind of reproduction fee? What exactly are you saying if there is a population problem?

Why complain about these things unless you pose some solution?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

as a wise man once observed about humans

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
I NEVER SAID IT WAS! Quote me on it.....................please?

I don't think it was in this thread where you said it. I'll have to check.

mark noble wrote:

Don't judge my mentality on the basis of something I HAVE NEVER STATED.

Sometimes it is not about what you say, but what you imply as well. But if you really want to analyze it, there is absolutely no way for humans to live without causing some sort of impact on the planet. Even if we lived in small tribal communities, where we lived in bush shelters, we would still impact the environment heavily. It is impossible to have humans living without impacting something. So if we were to switch gears, what would you suggest we do, if you don't like these global environmental impacts?

Should we quit cutting down all trees?
Should we get rid of all our power plants and tear down all our buildings?
Should we dig up all the roads, highways and streets?
Get rid of automobiles and combustion engines?
Stop flying planes?

What exactly are you arguing when you make the claims about over population? Should we kill off some people? Place reproduction caps on couples? Only allow elite people able to procreate? Enforce it by making all new born sterile unless the parents pay some kind of reproduction fee? What exactly are you saying if there is a population problem?

Why complain about these things unless you pose some solution?

Hi Krumple,
Firstly - I have never stated that mankind is responsible for climate-change. Why would I, when I don't believe we are responsible for it? So good luck with finding that (NON) post of mine.

Secondly - To go directly to your final sentence (Why I am complaining about these things unless I pose some solution/) I'M NOT! WHEN HAVE I EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THESE FACTORS? I started a thread asking others for their opinions and conclusions on this issue. What the blue blazes thread are you reading Krumple?
You're accusing me of complaining, sensationalism, narcissism, child mindsetedness (New word) and a host of other things. And now you wan't me to casually answer your questions on what I would do in regards to your above listed dilemmas.......And I am suddenly meant to somehow care about what should be done......But I don't care!
I'll play your little game Krumple. Why? because I sympathise with you.

!) Should we quit cutting down all trees? No.
2) power-plants and buildings - pull down? No.
3) Roads, highways, streets - dig up? No.
4) Cars and engines - get rid of? No.
5) Planes - ground? No.
6) Population? not arguing
7) Kill off people? No.
8) Cap couple reproduction? No.
9) Elite procreation? No.
10) sterilise newborn? No.
11) What am I saying if there is a population problem? That the population far exceeds the available resources and habitable landmass.

May I just add, in case you missed it - that I haven't complained about any of these factors.
I do have views on most of them, but I don't think anything mankind does, even if we were all on the same ship, can prevent the onset of calamity.

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Krumple wrote:

mark noble wrote:
I NEVER SAID IT WAS! Quote me on it.....................please?

I don't think it was in this thread where you said it. I'll have to check.

mark noble wrote:

Don't judge my mentality on the basis of something I HAVE NEVER STATED.

Sometimes it is not about what you say, but what you imply as well. But if you really want to analyze it, there is absolutely no way for humans to live without causing some sort of impact on the planet. Even if we lived in small tribal communities, where we lived in bush shelters, we would still impact the environment heavily. It is impossible to have humans living without impacting something. So if we were to switch gears, what would you suggest we do, if you don't like these global environmental impacts?

Should we quit cutting down all trees?
Should we get rid of all our power plants and tear down all our buildings?
Should we dig up all the roads, highways and streets?
Get rid of automobiles and combustion engines?
Stop flying planes?

What exactly are you arguing when you make the claims about over population? Should we kill off some people? Place reproduction caps on couples? Only allow elite people able to procreate? Enforce it by making all new born sterile unless the parents pay some kind of reproduction fee? What exactly are you saying if there is a population problem?

Why complain about these things unless you pose some solution?

Hi Krumple,
Firstly - I have never stated that mankind is responsible for climate-change. Why would I, when I don't believe we are responsible for it? So good luck with finding that (NON) post of mine.

Secondly - To go directly to your final sentence (Why I am complaining about these things unless I pose some solution/) I'M NOT! WHEN HAVE I EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THESE FACTORS? I started a thread asking others for their opinions and conclusions on this issue. What the blue blazes thread are you reading Krumple?
You're accusing me of complaining, sensationalism, narcissism, child mindsetedness (New word) and a host of other things. And now you wan't me to casually answer your questions on what I would do in regards to your above listed dilemmas.......And I am suddenly meant to somehow care about what should be done......But I don't care!
I'll play your little game Krumple. Why? because I sympathise with you.

!) Should we quit cutting down all trees? No.
2) power-plants and buildings - pull down? No.
3) Roads, highways, streets - dig up? No.
4) Cars and engines - get rid of? No.
5) Planes - ground? No.
6) Population? not arguing
7) Kill off people? No.
8) Cap couple reproduction? No.
9) Elite procreation? No.
10) sterilise newborn? No.
11) What am I saying if there is a population problem? That the population far exceeds the available resources and habitable landmass.

May I just add, in case you missed it - that I haven't complained about any of these factors.
I do have views on most of them, but I don't think anything mankind does, even if we were all on the same ship, can prevent the onset of calamity.

Mark...

Okay mark fair enough, but whats the point of bringing it up? I don't think anyone is going to argue with you that humans cut down trees, or pollute the environment or that there might be an over population. What is the point? You are not really informing anyone of things that are not already know or out there. So my point was that you must be implying something for bringing it up. The common theme behind your questioning is humans and human activity. So my point is, sure humans are impacting the environment but just the very existence would impact these things regardless of the level. So if you are not in conflict with that then what is the point? You want our opinion on these activities? Why? I don't think you'll find very many people who support deforestation, there might be some tree haters out there that want every tree cut down but for the most part i bet no one is going to argue against human impact.

To switch gears again, i hate the idea that we are still using combustion engines when we have the technology to move on, but the government doesn't want us to move on because they love the control and taxation of oil.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Hi Krumple,
Thank you for your sincere and adult resolve. I was just asking (and adding well known destabilising factors) to provoke a response from others, so as to assess what time frame, if any, was the common thought, in their specific part of the world. If you lived as an innuit, eg, I have noticed that their towns are already being abandoned due to glacial melt. Islanders in the indian ocean and micronesia are almost below sea-level, Bangladesh - millions at imminent risk, Africa - desertification, etc.
I simply presumed that people had opinions they may like to share, that's all.

Oil, indeed, is the clove of the day. I know you are from the US, so don't take this the wrong way - But the recent disaster off your southern coast has opened a lot of eyes. It makes me wonder how great a disaster need be for the govts of the world to wake up and move on. There is a power-plant in Sweden (Think Sweden) that has plantations of Pine trees surrounding it - They burn the wood and pump all the co2 back into the forest - promoting growth, they replant and maintain a continuous cycle of clean energy. I believe it is 99% environmentally clean - I worry that the soil degredation will catch up on them though. I have some great designs for renewable energy. We'll have to chat about them sometime.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Does that mean that WASP culture in the US thinks it's unmanly to use your hands?

I have no idea what WASP culture thinks about talking with one's hands, regarding the feminine/masculine issue you refer to. I do think fewer WASP's do use their hands, to assist their verbal speech, than "ethnics from some backgrounds."

I also think that WASP women are less demonstrative with their hands than women of some ethnic backgrounds. In other words, I view WASP's as a group that values not being demonstrative while talking. Also, I believe that it is considered lower class, in WASP circles, to point to something, when outside, to identify something while talking.

So, many who aspire to WASPish ways (non-Protestant) tend to keep their hands down while talking, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

That's interesting.

I'm a wasp (though I ditched the P some decades ago) and use my hands a lot.

2 Replies

TALKING WITH YOUR HANDS.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know