On the up side, it’s never going to happen

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on July 2nd, 2017 at 08:01 am

Australia generates around 1.2 to 1.4 per cent of alleged global warmening gases. If Australia cuts its greenhouse emissions by 90 per cent, as the government’s chief climate change comedian has urged, emissions planet-wide will be reduced to between 98.73/98.92 per cent of current levels.

Futile and destructive; it’s a perfect green policy. You’d get more sense from a beedog.

Posted by Tim B. on 02/24/2008 at 05:42 AM
    1. Costumes for dogs are why dogs attack. Or at least, that’s my own personal theory.

      If the Greens are serious, I can’t wait for them to start protesting in China about Chinese greenhouse gas emissions.

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 02 24 at 05:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. The loonybats on Insiders this morning were saying that, even though Australia’s emission share is insignificant, we must cut ours by more than 60% to set an example for China and India to follow. Bolta was shaking his head in amazement at the stupidity of this concept.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2008 02 24 at 06:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. This has always been one of the more startling weaknesses of the left – numbers.

      They are happy to draw cause and effect diagrams but cannot measure or compare their conclusions to reality. No sense of scale.

      “CO2 makes things hotter. Using a light makes CO2. So when you turn on a light…ice melts and Polar Bears drown.”

      Of course, they are not too sharp with facts either.

      Posted by Toiling Mass on 2008 02 24 at 06:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yep. Global Warmening advocates in Australia surely are a bunch of cocks.

      Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 02 24 at 06:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. For pointless feel-good sanctimony and barking mad anti-capitalism, see also the latest from Clive Hamilton’s bizarre left-wing enviro “think tank”, the Australia Institute. It’s about – wait for it – the badness that is CLUTTER in our homes.

      The author was a man called Mr Fear:

      This study is about the extent to which Australian homes are cluttered with things that are rarely or never used. A nationally representative online survey of 1,002 respondents was carried out in December 2007, and was followed up with a series of telephone interviews with people who identified themselves as having problems with clutter.

      Our survey findings show that 88 per cent of homes have at least one cluttered room, and the average home has three or more cluttered rooms. The spare room is the most cluttered area in the home, followed by cupboards, the garage and bedrooms. Not surprisingly, people living in detached houses had more clutter than people living in townhouses or apartments, and people with kids in the home tend to have more clutter than those without. Victorian homes are the most cluttered, while New South Wales homes are the least cluttered.

      Four in ten Australians say they feel anxious, guilty or depressed about the clutter in their homes. Women are much more concerned about clutter than men: almost half of the women surveyed said they were anxious, depressed or worried about the clutter in their home, while a third said they were embarrassed by it. Indeed, fully 59 per cent of women said there was a room in the house that they don’t like visitors to see because of the clutter.

      Blair should keep an eye out for Mr Fear at his frequently stalked office.

      Posted by C.L. on 2008 02 24 at 06:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. A recent article in the Oz, I think, notes how those on the right have an advantage in debate over those on the left because we have to defend our position in the face of a more populous opposition.

      The down side is that the group thinkers of the left, now in total power, cannot understand the consequence of their stupid ideas, because they have never had to defend them.

      Doomed I say we’re all doomed.

      Posted by gubbaboy on 2008 02 24 at 06:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. David Marr and someone who looks like Dawn French were arguing for Australia to “take the lead” on emissions reduction (Insiders, ABC TV) in the earnest belief that this will show China the shining path to salvation, and save us all from eternal damnation.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 24 at 06:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beedogs, bee-n there, done that.

      They sell bee outfits for dogs and other such travesties here in HK. I bought one for the family staffy as a lark (for internal mocking only). I swear on my heart that as the family laughed and mocked the dog actually sulked. Not sure what happened to the outfit after that. Best not to annoy staffy’s too much.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 02 24 at 06:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oops. Yeah. What you said, Skeeter.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 24 at 06:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. or as this website suggests:

      http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

      a 60% decrease in Co2 will save the world from heating up by at most 0.000043 degrees per year

      Posted by Jonathan Lowe on 2008 02 24 at 06:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Note to Mr Fear:
      It’s when the bits of clutter are actually used and consume energy, thereby causing coal fired power stations to go on creating – no, not steam from the cooling towers, ABC – but some of that CO2 stuff that makes up some miniscule part of the atmosphere and does less greenhousing than the Sun does global warming …
      To cut a long story short, Mr Fear, those items in the room or attic are not doing anything as long as they just sit there. Unless used, or somehow evaporated, they are now, after the event of their creation, carbon neutral. Or are you worried about the leaching of elements and compounds from the manufactured goods. If so, then just get stuffed now.
      (/deactivate Castroboy didact module)

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 24 at 06:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #8- Staffies are world champion sulkers- just ragged on my two because they had a bit of a jolly-up on two beds and the lounge while I was out at KFC, leaving the place looking like it was inhabited by teenagers; chucked them out in the yard for a half-an-hour and they’re really giving me the stinkeye now, sulky little shits.  Our last two had a clown and a cheerleader suit, given by my sister-in-law; they never liked her much after that.

      Posted by Habib on 2008 02 24 at 06:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #1 “Costumes for dogs are why dogs attack.”

      I have it on good authority that shortly after this photo-shoot, this dog ripped his owner’s throat out.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 06:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. #12 PMSL

      Posted by Nic on 2008 02 24 at 07:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Four in ten Australians say they feel anxious, guilty or depressed about the clutter in their homes.

      C.L., if these lefties were correct, we’d be a horribly guilty and anxious lot. From today’s Sunday Telegraph:

      NINE out of 10 Australians are racked with guilt over their environmental impact, new research suggests.

      More than a quarter of households surveyed admitted they would be embarrassed, if people knew how non-green they were.

      The survey was of course conducted by no-nothing greenie, Tanya Ha in an unholy alliance with detergent company Omo.

      I guess it does explain why most moonbats are suicidal, depressed and angry most of the time.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 02 24 at 07:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #15 And yet if 9 out of 10 Aussies are that concerned, why do only one in 164 West Aussies take up so-called “Green” energy (and between one in 9 and one in 17 of other states)?

      Sounds like they just enjoy feeling worried – or are afraid to tell the pollsters the truth!

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 07:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. I was laughing my ass off when that plonker economist came out and said that a 90% reduction was in order. Why not take it all the way and go for 100%! Everyone stop breathing NOW! Job done!

      This kind of reminds me of what happened in communist China where every village was pledging higher and higher food production to the government until they got to the point where it was totally detached from reality. Outcome – total disaster and unexpected famine as the chickens came home to roost. Same chickens, different country.

      Posted by rbresca on 2008 02 24 at 07:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. The motto of the left seems to be ‘I love it when a plan doesent come together’.

      Posted by phillip on 2008 02 24 at 07:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #16, exactly right, these surveys never reflect reality. Canberra is filled with eco-fascists and yet only 8 in 100 people have put their money with their mouths are and signed up for ‘green’ energy.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2008 02 24 at 07:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. For every kilo of CO2 that a lefty doesn’t use, I’m doing my level best to use two. It’s a struggle,but I’m doing my bit to avert the coming Ice Age. And it IS coming. Trust me, I’ve got a graph to prove it.

      Posted by CB on 2008 02 24 at 07:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. #20 But is your data peer-reviewed?  Is there a consensus?  ‘Cause, those things seem to matter more than the actual science…

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 07:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. #21 I refer all enquiries to the efficacy of my extensive review into the status of the current climate to an esteemed research colleague, Dr I. Tiger of the Biteme Institute.

      Suck my/our nuts.

      Posted by CB on 2008 02 24 at 07:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ohio Polar Birds are doing okay as of yesterday so long as there’s edible snow, so there’s still time to act down there.

      We’re worried about the sun, though.  It’s creeping north.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2008 02 24 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #5, #15, One of my many crappy jobs was doing market research.  I can tell you this with 100% accuracy:

      If you ask the right question, you’ll get the results you want.

      I did a lot of work for “a major political party that starts with L” (we couldnt tell the folks on the phone any more, but we had a whole load hang up when the questions began getting biased).  They got elected late last year.  In my 3 federal elections there (the ones they lost 😀 ), many questions were along the lines of:

      ‘Would you prefer a government that cares about the environment/aboriginals/saving the whales or a government who wants to set fire to the sky/shoot all the darkies/kill all life on earth’.

      So they got nice pretty data saying they were a shoe-in.  Then came voting day.  Oh dear.

      #16, Spot, Its because we’re trying to burn all that gas before the yanks and dutch cap the wells as ‘uneconomical’ and we have to start burning coal like the Easterners.

      #20, CB, Perhaps you’d like to contribute to my 572 Chevy fund.  (Crap vid, but the sound makes up for it)

      Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2008 02 24 at 07:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. #22 I don’t know that I’d get away with saying that last bit at Bolta’s, which is where the “peer-review!” and “consensus!” cries drive me batty, but I may take the liberty of linking to you comment above…

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 07:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. #22
      The peer review thing is really annoying. They’ve got no idea how it works (or doesn’t work!). Even the ones who have been to Uni haven’t a clue.

      “The science is in.”

      All praise Science!

      Posted by kae on 2008 02 24 at 07:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Actually I had a War on Clutter this morning.  It went like this:

      “Alright, I am sick of this mess.  I want these toys cleaned up RIGHT NOW!  You have five minutes and buzz lightyear, Thunderbird Two and this dora doll are going in the trash, and this lego will be right after it.”

      On reflection, I remembered that the Thunderbird is now worth nearly as much as a second hand prius,so I left it alone.  No wonder my kids don’t take me seriously.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 07:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. #27 They were waiting for you to pick up 90% of the toys to “set a positive example” – then they would have taken you seriously.  At least, according to Garnaut & Friends?

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 07:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. #5: clive hamilton is a vile elitist who has a puritannical based scorn for the little lives of the little people and any enjoyment or pleasure they may derive from the benefits of capitalism; for a critique of sustained fury at hamilton see:
      http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-7.htm

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 02 24 at 07:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. Back on topic, a simple solution to the per capita problem would be to get all Australians to get busy doing what the animals do.  Before we knew it our per capita emissions would be halved (might have a few more in toto though).

      Or we could ship our aluminium refineries off to Indonesia.  That would be more effective and work even quicker (net global effect = zero – at best).

      I must say I am disappointed in Ross Garnaut.  He is stuck in his pure solution mode (like his trade solution: multilateral free trade or he will take his bat and go home).  Beats me why he stopped at ninety percent though (lost courage perhaps?). Why not go the whole hog? It wouldn’t make any difference to the economy.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 07:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. The left will see Australia slashing its greenhouse gas output to 90% as a selfless act in a selfish world. Martyrdom if you like, because the left likes the concept of martyrdom for a noble causes. Ever since Lenin the leadership of the left has selflessly martyred other people. Can’t think of any leaders of the left who have martyred themselves – except maybe that psychopath Che Guevara. Expect Labor’s leaders will make sure they have their escape capsules ready before launching Australia down the road to 90% reduction.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 02 24 at 07:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. #27 On further reflection, my War on Clutter could be a metaphor for the whole mess in the middle east.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 08:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #7; david marr has the most puncheable face of all the smug lefties currently pedalling their ego-endorsing crap; although I’m willing to countenance an argument supporting carlton.

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 02 24 at 08:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m actually surprised that the government is not more enthusiastic about the Garnaut report. Yes, it says that Australia has to cut its emissions by 90%, but it also says that Australia should only do this if everyone else takes an equivalent hit. Since that’s never going to happen, the government is free to posture on the subject to its heart’s content while always having a reason not to do anything that would be really damaging.

      In that respect, it would be a lot like the Apology, really.

      Posted by SteveGW on 2008 02 24 at 08:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. #30; Hell entropy, why not 110%; it’s good enough for our sporting teams.

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 02 24 at 08:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. #33 I assume you mean Mike Carlton.  The Richard problem has apparently been dealt with.  Actually that reminds me of something the greatly missed Professor Bunyip once said.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 08:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #31 “a selfless act in a selfish world”

      Like the school which is going to rip out its air conditioners and make the kids swelter through class for Gaia?  (via AB)

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 08:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #37 Oh good.  So if it cracks 35c the kids get sent home and the teachers get the day of.  Sweeet!

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 08:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. or off even.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 02 24 at 08:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. #38 No, I think they get to stay on really hot days, to build character.

      Students and staff have been told to be “resilient” and teachers will alter their lesson plans on extremely hot days.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 08:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Regarding #31, I wonder if the next step is to replace flush-toilets in schools with outhouses, to conserve water?  It’s so, so, progressive!

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 08:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. #40 Like holding classes outside under the trees in the shade, embracing Gaia?

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 02 24 at 08:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. Sorry, supposed to be “regarding #37.” Too hot to think straight here.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 08:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. #36; yes I do; and I’ll bite; what did the Prof say?

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 02 24 at 08:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. 37. emissions reduction eh?

      David Marr could shut his mouth. Problem solved.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 24 at 08:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oops, I mean #7.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 24 at 08:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. BTW, #25, don’t you find it interesting that a bunch of people who constantly bleat about consensus and consultation and other forms of doing what others do simultaneously really hate it when Australia supports its allies, friends militarily?

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 24 at 09:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. BTW, this is the kind of environmentalism i believe in.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 24 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #47 I don’t think they really like the idea of consultation, especially if it means interacting with someone who has different ideas, or (gasp) having to compromise to come to an agreement.

      I think the reason they like the “consensus” thing so much is because it’s the ultimate in group-think.  They find safety in numbers.  “Everyone” hates America, believes in AGW, etc.  Except those fringe-dwelling red-neck neo-con ultra-right-wing-loonies, whom they manage to summarily dismiss.

      With “peer review,” they only accept the peer review opinions that fit with the consensus – anyone who reviews, for instance, AGW materials and comes to a different conclusion, well they must be in the pay of Big Oil or something.

      Lefties make my head hurt.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 24 at 09:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Beedogs – more proof of how much our dogs love us to put up with this crap.

      Posted by Redd on 2008 02 24 at 09:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Four in ten Australians say they feel anxious, guilty or depressed about the clutter in their homes.

      I know, I know this. Antony said he’d sell them soon….

      Posted by We apologise for the inconvenience. on 2008 02 24 at 10:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gubbaboy/6

      those on the right have an advantage in debate over those on the left because we have to defend our position in the face of a more populous opposition.

      Isn’t that the same advantage Col. Travis had at San Antonio, and that Col. Custer had in southeastern Montana?

      Posted by formerly Huck Foley on 2008 02 24 at 10:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Isn’t that the same advantage Col. Travis had at San Antonio, and that Col. Custer had in southeastern Montana?

      True, fHF, true, except that while those battles were lost, the wars were won.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 11:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. As for envirotards and numbers, they go together like water and oil.  An very apt analogy, if I do say so myself……

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 11:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. And as for C.L.’s excellent post in #5, I can only agree with his assessment of lefties in their pursuit of The Socialist’s Utopia.

      I don’t consider my place as “cluttered”; I actually make a point of getting rid of excess stuff.  But I suppose that unless I live in a 10 ft x 10 ft hovel without any furniture, I’ll always be “cluttered”.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 11:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #55 Gaia doesn’t believe you, evil Jeff. As the smoke of sacrifice once pleased the nostrils of YWHW, so too Gaia will be propitiated – her fearsome wrath indeed assuaged – if you offer up your unused sporting goods, rusting fishing dinghy, collection of foreign label beer bottles, the broken garden bench and the ‘work in progress’ hulk of a 1967 Pontiac GTO.

      Offer them to the recycler and you will be reborn, no longer depressed and guilty! Just one thing: please don’t give your clutter to charity; after all, the “poor” are simply the determinedly clutterless.

      Posted by C.L. on 2008 02 24 at 12:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. I live a cluttered life, always have.  I like my clutter.  It’s taken a lifetime for me to accumulate it, and after I’m gone, my kids can worry about getting rid of it.  Payback for the gray hair they gave me.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 02 24 at 12:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. BUAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, C.L.!!!!!

      However, I’m not a car or fishing person…..you can review my some of my “clutter” here and here.

      None of these are working, AFAIK (they came from an estate, alas, and haven’t been used for a while), and I’m not up on the older technology…..but if I can’t get them working, they will certainly be “recycled.”

      THIS to Mr. Fear!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 01:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. Re #58, and to make things even worse, the proceeds won’t go into my pocket…..they will be given to a couple local ham radio clubs, at the request of the family whom donated the gear.

      So not only am I maintaining the global “clutter footprint”, I will enable even more people to clutter the planet up.

      BUAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 01:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. we must cut ours by more than 60% to set an example for China and India to follow.

      :Aieee! The gweilo sahibs have shown us the True Path!  We must change our ways!  Everyone out of the factories and back to the paddies to wait for the next typhoon…”

      It’s the ‘Sanders of the River’ school of environmentalism…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 02 24 at 02:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. #60:  Richard, I am flabbergasted.  Until just now I would have sworn I was one of the only two people living who knew about “Sanders of the River” … or at least the only two who were willing to admit it.

      So, it’s three now.  My goodness.

      Posted by Celaeno on 2008 02 24 at 05:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. The next big green issue will be bottled water. The greens want it banned because it burns too much carbon and have the support of the irritating head of Clean Up Australia Ian Kiernan, who says his yacht keeps hitting discarded bottles.

      I think every green advocating a ban on bottled water should be shouted a trip to Bangladesh or somewhere like that and be made to drink tap water. There are places in Australia where tap water isn’t drinkable but Bangladesh has the added bonus of dysentry and typhoid, not just e.coli.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 02 24 at 05:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. But what is more important than all the above, is that Tim spelled gases CORRECTLY. Yay Tim.

      Why do rightwing/conservative bloggers have no trouble with the plural of gas as gases, but leftoid blogs and warmening authors continually say gasses?

      Is there a semantic difference between gases (pre-warmening harmless stuff we all used to breathe and muck about with in chemistry classes without thinking), and gasses (the nasty warmening stuff we now mean) so we have to differentiate the spelling?

      Or do leftoids simply have a problem with spelling?
      Or with grammar (noun = gases, verb gassing/outgassing etc)?

      Posted by Ozwitch on 2008 02 24 at 05:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. I can’t chuck any of my junk clutter in a dumpster because the dumpster is reserved for Leunig.

      Posted by kae on 2008 02 24 at 05:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. #10 I see a t shirt:

      You and Me
      0.000043 degrees
      Do it for Gaia!

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2008 02 24 at 05:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. #57
      I have been told by a friend that I must not die because she doesn’t want to have to go through my “clutter”. (My mother has said the same.)#63
      Perhaps it’s because it’s going to gas us?

      #65 ripper
      Catchy Tee!

      Posted by kae on 2008 02 24 at 06:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Beedogs! I love the internet.

      Posted by Apple77 on 2008 02 24 at 06:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. 40 and 41. And what’s this about a computer for every child? Think of the emissions! Not just in using them but in their manufacture. What’s wrong with goose-feather quills and slates to write on?

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2008 02 24 at 06:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. #63 – Ozwitch – You have enlightened me and made my day!  Right now I am reviewing an appalling environmental report.  It is almost beyond belief with the number of language errors in it. And I used the term language errors because all types of errors are there: grammar, syntax, word meaning, spelling, and so the list goes on.  Gasses is just one spelling error.  Other delights include: mixed tenses in the subject of a sentence; verbs not matching the tense of the subject; incorrect past tense of a verb, e.g., ‘can be calculate’ instead of ‘can be calculated’; mixing tenses in a sentence; spelling errors; incorrect use of the apostrophe; and so on.  I won’t try to list them all.

      But now I understand and Gasses is the clue. This report is almost unreadable but if the author happens to be a warmening author, and he probably is, it all now makes sense.

      And now I see the light.. I think I should put aside any idea of trying to understand the words but try to get into what the author was feeling when he put it all together.

      Yes that must be it!  Funny thing though is that some idiots will be paying for it. (It’s for the Australian government – shh!).

      Thanks for the insight.

      Posted by Wand on 2008 02 24 at 06:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. …and chalk!

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2008 02 24 at 06:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. #2
      Insiders could set an example by only having a few dim bulbs on set …

      Posted by egg_ on 2008 02 24 at 08:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. All of Australia should move to the salubrious abodes of the originals. This will cut down on the abuse of the environment as the population of Australia declines.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 24 at 08:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. RMcE
      At the time, “Saunders of the River” wasn’t entirely fictional. The Telegraph (UK) recently had an obit for one of the last of the “Saunders” breed. And, no, I can’t find it.CHeers

      Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2008 02 24 at 10:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. JM, Celaeno—I knew the daughter of a fellow in the UK who made Sanders look like a girl guide.

      Forestry expert in Burma when the Japanese invaded, and wound up attached to Force 136 (Zed Force), sort of a British equivalent of the Aussie Coastwatchers in the Solomons.

      He ran the Japanese ragged, and single handedly took the surrender of the puppet Burmese National Army by walking into their headquarters and lecturing them sternly.

      16,000 POWs.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 02 25 at 11:50 AM • permalink

 

  1. spelink n grama r bits of a establicroolig klarse plot too keep we proals unda kontrole

    Posted by Rod C on 2008 02 25 at 08:42 PM • permalink