1. The calculation in question is not limited in application to the quote above. You are misrepresenting its significance.

And yet Pablo's figures are from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which obtains its figures "all up". You simply can't use them to compare as Pablo -- cheered on by you -- has done. That's not what they're for. Look on their website to see how their emissions figures should be used.

2. You claim there are links that support your position, urge me to go find them. But you are unable to provide even one. There aren't any, are there? How could there be? Your position is not coherent enough.

Strawman. I claimed no such thing. Some remedial reading comprehension work for you? I claimed, simply, that any relevant web search would return a variety of answers -- calculated in different ways -- to the question that underlies Pablo's hypothetical. So to claim (as you have done) that his figures are "right" is simply ignorance. I can point you to the search engine, but you've got to perform the search (and understand the pages returned).

3. You do not have the necessary foundation in quantitative reasoning to understand how statistically derived rates can be used to generate valid hypothetical cases.

LOL! Thanks for this -- you win the trifecta! Not reading the sources + strawman + ad hom in the one post! Fantastic effort!

You loved faking when it allowed Italy to get past Australia last World Cup! Remember that fake "trip" that only you and the referee were fooled by that allowed Italy their penalty? I certainly do -- I wrote you a letter about it!

But now you're hating?! Is the only difference the fact that the team you were notionally supporting lost this time, instead of winning?

Almost all professional (men's) sports are soap operas for men. Like real soap operas, ones from other cultures seem "weird" (like "getting" heterosexual Southern European men holding hands, Americans will never "get" football).

Of course, the soap opera rituals of American sport likewise grate on other cultural nerves -- for me personally the most egregious example is baseball, which is essentially a game where it's only cheating if you get caught, and so everyone cheats as much as possible, all the time.

Yuck. _Great_ example for the kids...

If long-term monogamy is not your ultimate sexual fantasy...

...then you've got no business getting married.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

8 October 1917 - March, 1918

Wilfred Owen

For the Latin challenged, the last line well-translated reads "It is sweet and correct to die for one's country".

...a congregation in Arkansas whose pastor preaches that Obama is the anti-christ...

I'd love to see their "maths" where they make Barack Hussein Obama II "add up" to 666.

Unlike, say, Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 letters in each of his names! 666!!!)

Endless fun for the intellectually challenged.

From your last paragraph, Farhad, a simple edit that explains it all:

Google collects and filters our desires or, at least, those of our desires we try to fill on the internet.

All better.

In other news, hammers were used almost 1,000 times as often as other tools for driving nails...

Not mocking you, just mocking the lawyer's moronic argument (and the judge if he agrees).

"If people in New York City destroyed or severely damaged every car whose alarm went off for any time at all, except during a burglary or theft, I think people would disconnect their alarms," he says. "Then this whole thing would go away."

People might disconnect their alarms, sure. But not before insurance premiums go up for everyone.

Not before a whole lot of people got punched, pushed, slapped, permanently injured, and, yes, shot.

There are solutions to this issue. Violence, as ever, is not one of them.

If you absolutely must deface cars, then do it smart. Years ago when I worked in London, the building where I worked had trouble with people deliberately flaunting the parking regulations in the street, which made life difficult for people picking up and dropping off -- the very activity the posted parking rules were there to encourage.

So the building had paper-based super-adhesive stickers made. They took about 5 seconds to apply to a windshield or driver's side window -- and about an hour's hard work to remove. It cost about $300 for a box of a thousand of these diabolical little things. Printed on them were the words: "You are inconveniencing local businesses by flaunting the parking regulations -- so now you've been inconvenienced."

After a month, the stickers ran out, and were replaced with a sign affixed to our building that read: "Park here and you WILL be stickered!"

Problem solved.