"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

Bill Baka writes:

It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9
billion should be the absolute limit before people start going
nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in
England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people
all competing for space and paving

Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info
from somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a
thing.

Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and damn
the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
back to that number or somewhere close to it.

The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural
resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita
demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
getting to people even now.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
population. Birth rate makes the difference.

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
Birth rate makes the difference.

That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
backward ones.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:
Bill Baka writes:


At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
back to that number or somewhere close to it.

The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural
resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita
demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Thank you Jobst. At least someone understands the situation.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
getting to people even now.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
population. Birth rate makes the difference.

Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to
limit the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be
sustained at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be
wars, either holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just
doesn't understand the human condition.

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
Birth rate makes the difference.

That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
backward ones.

Jobst Brandt

It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others
will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our
money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the
government puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for
things like, oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty
of starting things they can't control. I think that general fund is
pretty wiped right now since it has probably been supporting welfare and
'friendly' countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now.
We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.
'nuff from me.
Bill Baka

Bill Baka wrote

At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable,

Corse they arent reliable.

talking about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing.

Nothing like that ever is.

It is thought that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle back to that
number or somewhere close to it.

Nothing like a brick wall, thats what most of the first world has
done if you take out immigration and obviously immigrations is
irrelevant when you are talking about the world population.

Its arguable whether that will happen with the entire world, but
its certainly possible that it might, due to the same mechanism
that has seen that in virtually all modern first world countrys now.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is getting
to people even now.

Mindlessly silly. The real reason is that travel is much cheaper in real
terms than it used to be in the past when only the wealthy could afford it.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

No it isnt. It'll work out fine, just like it has done repeatedly in the past.

wrote
Bill Baka writes

It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9
billion should be the absolute limit before people start going
nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in
England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people
all competing for space and paving

Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info from
somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a thing.

Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and
damn the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable,
talking about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing.
It is thought that the population will briefly go past 9 billion
and then settle back to that number or somewhere close to it.

The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population,

Oh bull****.

natural resources and water being stressed as they are

Not unsustainably stretched. Water is trivially
fixed by using nuke powered desalination.

while the per capita demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Still readily sustainable using nukes.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
getting to people even now.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side
effects of population, not that we are overpopulated already.

Not a shred of evidence that we actually are.

Bugger all of us are living at HongKong population
densitys and that is obviously very viable.

Of course the first knee jerk response to
that is "Whom are you proposing to kill first?"

"Who are you proposing to kill first?" if they have a clue about english.

This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.

You havent established that there is any 'condition', just claimed that.

Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to
reduce population. Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.

No we dont in many modern first world countrys like Japan.

They have enough sense to not let immigrants pour into their country.

Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

That is true for developed countries as well
as the most economically backward ones.

No it isnt, virtually all of the developed countrys have adjusted
their birth rates without even trying to do that deliberately.

Bill Baka wrote:
wrote:
Bill Baka writes:


At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
back to that number or somewhere close to it.

The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population,
natural resources and water being stressed as they are while the per
capita demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Thank you Jobst. At least someone understands the situation.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
getting to people even now.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
population. Birth rate makes the difference.

Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to
limit the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be
sustained at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be
wars, either holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just
doesn't understand the human condition.

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
Birth rate makes the difference.

That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
backward ones.

It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others will be retiring within
the next decade and we should like some of our money returned to us.

Most of us have already got our money back out of the system fine.

What appears to have happened is that the government puts the SS money into a "General fund" and
dips into it for things like, oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of
starting things they can't control.

And that worked fine with the Vietnam war funding.

I think that general fund is pretty wiped right now

Pig ignorant fantasy.

since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' countries.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

That made sense during the communist days but not now.

We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

'nuff from me.

Too much mindless **** already.

no spam wrote:
Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs
so that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these
signs don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should
be notified.


Transportation engineer BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!! wiping tears
from my eyes Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.

As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
accidents (one time involving a state trooper).

The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
tractor, bike or cow..

Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
fixed.

Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
(several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
repainted the lines.
Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

Why don't you try to sue your state.

Not that stupid.

You'll find out that something controled by a bunch of power hungry lawyers has made itself fairly
lawyer proof.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

Have fun explaining those who have done just that and won.

no spam wrote:

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The
nature of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics
should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him
and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more.

They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys.

They have confession for a reason, stupid.

IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and to say you won't do it
again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something.

They dont in fact boot people out who keep confessing
and keep saying that they wont do it again.

They only boot out those who dont bother to confess their
sins and who dont even bother to say they wont do it again.

And they arent as mindlessly hard line about some of the
more trivial stuff like contraceptives and eating fish on fridays
or sending your brats to non church schools either.

Or even getting real radical and daring to marry
someone who isnt in that obscenity of a cult either.

Or booting those who marry someone in another cult outside the RC cult either.

As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time
with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.

Only rabid fanantics ever do that.

IOW, only the true Catholics.

You wouldnt know what a true catholic was if one bit you on your lard arse, fundy.

Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a
while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The
rest looked at them as guidelines not rules.

And that has always been one way of doing a religion.

IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic.

Or there might just be more than one way of doing a religion, fundy.

Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate like that too.

More faulty logic.

We'll see...

That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of other kids do it.

Nothing like with the more trivial rules that anyone
with a clue has noticed change over time, like
saying the mass in the local language or in latin etc.

Even with mindlessly silly **** like the selling of indulgences etc.

Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out.

Most roman catholics just carry on regardless and realise that
very little doesnt change over time with the relatively trivial crap
like what women can do in the cult, what the cult's positiion is
on what schools the cult member's brats can attend, what
has to happen with marraige with non cult members, what
cult members should do church attendance wise, etc etc etc.

There's a reason that particular cult has lasted as long
as it has and so many of the more rabid protestant
cults are lucky to even manage a single generation.

Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules.

Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now
am I a vegetarian or not?
It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays.

Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist?
Its following the rules.

Fantasy with that particular cult.

And plenty of protestant cults have no rules handed down by
bigwigs in the heirarchy, because they have no hierarchy at all.

I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them)
but I don't go to mass,

It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally ?

You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want.

Nope, I'm rubbing your stupid rabid fundy nose in the
fact that its nothing like as black and white as you claim.

I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,".

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you might of might not have said in spades.

have sex outside marriage, use birth control and
support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid.

So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living free
with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants
because I think the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid?

Nothing like ignoring the ban on birth control because you realise
its stupid and completely counter productive in the third world.

In spades with the ban on condoms in the parts of the world were HIV/AIDS is rife.

If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why
would you want to follow a church that preaches that?

Because they will likely come to their senses on that eventually just like
they did on that question about whether the sun revolves around the
earth and you can ignore that particular ban with complete impunity.

That obscenity of a cult doesnt even require you to prove that the
reason you only have 2 brats is because you dont **** anymore.

In the case of the women who think the bad on women clergy makes
no sense, presumably they consider that they prefer the rest of the
cult better than the alternative protestant cults that allow that etc.

To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO.

Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic.

That's funny.

We'll see...

You calling someone who believes that if you don't want
go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic".

Its that mindless **** of yours above that if you dont agree
with some detail of what the cult currently claims are the
rules then you must leave is what makes you a rabid fanatic.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular
cult has hardly ever operated like that, and the downsides that
have happened when it has actually been stupid enough to let
rabid fanatics like you operate like that in that particular cult.

What phrase do you call people who want to
pass laws forcing their view of religion on you?

They're rabid fanatics too. Fortunately there are **** all of
those in any decent democracy and I choose to live in one
of those myself and whatever they want, there isnt even the
remotest possibility of them ever being able to achieve that.

Even the wahabis arent into that either and
you cant get much more rabid than them.

You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church
anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead.

No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather
have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates
than having to sell some of their pretty buildings.

Have fun explaining how they delt with Luther.

Have fun explaining how they delt with jews too.

That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can
formally question some of the tenets of the church without
being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be
questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an
involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're
talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not
"officially" questioning the church.... :-)

My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked
them because they are world known and I know a little about their
religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on
actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group.

But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like you.

And what group is that

Those with such stupid ideas about following 'rules'

and what am I so rabidly fanatic about?

That if they dont abide by all the 'rules', they should leave.

That particular cult has never worked like that.

And thats why its lasted a hell of a lot longer that any protestant cult ever has.

no spam wrote:

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions. It is the
Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The
nature of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be kicked out. They
are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more.

But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply sins that should be
confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of
England that she isn't the rightful heir to the throne.

I see your point. But by confessing and not repenting are they not
saying that they think the church, and by extension the Pope, are wrong?

Nope, they're saying that they cant manage to be as good as is desirable,
particularly on stuff like not being as charitable as they should, polite etc etc etc.

And first world catholics dont confess that they sent
their brats to a state school and not one run by that cult.

Not sure what the cult expects them to do if they choose to marry someone
outside the cult today, doubt they are expected to confess and repent anymore.

In spades if they dont bother to eat fish every friday.

BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting.

No one ever said it was.

Repenting means you are doing penitence because you are sorry you did something NOT so you can be
forgiven this time and be ready for the next.

Its more complicated than that in that particular cult.

You could even buy indulgences, and presumably still can.

As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time
with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.

Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all things (and confess their
failures), or are actively lapsed and acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition
but no longer actively practice.

Most in fact are selective about the trivia they bother with, most obviously
with eating fish on friday, sending their brats to schools run by the cult,
birth control, etc etc etc and dont even bother to confess that stuff.

**** all consider that the cult is the source of all wisdom anymore.

Hordes of them have are very cynical about the sillier stuff their
priest spouts in all but the worst of the mindless third world.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones who go to mass, have confirmation for their kids and the
like but regularly use birth control and do other things the church say are no-nos.

These are the ones I call non-Catholic Catholics.

Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic.

That particular cult has always worked that way and hardly
ever is silly enough to let you rabid fanatics rule the roost.

You dont even see too many fanatical about
booting homosexuals out of the cult anymore.

They are very well aware that hordes of their priest are.

If they are no longer actively practicing then I don't consider them former Catholics, i.e. not
Catholics.

You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.

You're just another rabid fanatic who doesnt actually
have a clue about how that particular cult works.

Its nothing like as hard line as most protestant cults are.

Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules.

Which is my point.

No it isnt.

I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian
or not?

Its nothing like as black and white as that with eating fish on fridays.

Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of faith -- but I get your
meaning.

You can put in a religion and non-religious actions if you rather.

Non religious actions are irrelevant a faith.

And most of the crap like fish on fridays and even birth control arent
examples of papal infallibility anyway so they are welcome to be
selective about what rules they ignore and still be part of that cult.

I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them)
but I don't go to mass, have sex outside marriage, use birth control and support abortion on
demand. Now am I a Catholic?

Yep, a lapsed one who may get his act into gear on that stuff later.

And you arent even a lapsed one if its just contraception and not going to mass.

I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and
culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or
another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go
to church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other
religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite
never going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus
celebrate Diwali despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to fast
during Ramadan.

People like that will sometimes claim to be a member of a religion but they usually just claim to
believe in god.

Wrong, the vast bulk of the catholics that behave like that
claim to be catholics and still get buried by the church etc.

no spam wrote:

I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,

By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass.


IOW, he used the transportation of the day.

Pity that bikes arent that.

Depends on where you are.

Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either.

Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing
what looked thousands of bikes on a round about.

Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian.

I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes
in total much less on the road at the same time.

So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.

So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly
deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

You have gotten so confused

Nope, not confused at all.

you have even lost me.

You're easily lost, you're just another rabid bigot fundy.

Let's review

1) I stated Jesus used the transport of his day.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly crap about bikes.

2) You said that it was too bad "that bikes arent that", suggesting
that bikes are not the transport of today by using the present tense.

They arent the transport of today where that fool who
was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.

3) I replied that in some places bikes ARE the transport of the day in some areas.

Pity they aint where that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.

4) You brought in Christ again,

Because that was what was being discussed, what he would have ridden.

reverting back to the past. Split up my response, see #3, and called my response to you, see #2,
silly.

Your irrelevant **** stays completely irrelevant **** regardless.

5) I asked you to support yourself by telling me how me how it was silly.

Another bare faced lie.

6) Get off track again and refuse to respond.

Another bare faced lie.

Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other
than a 'quickie mart' store (they don't tend to sell
much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my
driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide
dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county
road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on
a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me
thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully
and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to
be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use.

That's how it started but changed it when you changed to the present tense.

No I didnt, that was implied in the original.

If that was what you meant instead of saying :

"Pity that bikes arent that."

you should have said

'Pity bikes were not that.'

Wrong, as always.

See words mean things

Not that you have ever noticed. You're so stupid you cant
even work out the difference between an idea and a religion.

and when you use them poorly you don't make yourself clear.

And you could never ever bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Feb 12, 3:37 pm, Wayne Pein wrote:
no spam wrote:
Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.

Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can **** off someone in
control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had people in
cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded grain truck
doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I were on a
bicycle.

I suggest you not ride a bike, because motorists obviously hate you.
Either that, or carry some grain you can offer. Perhaps the driver was
hungry and wanted your booty.

Wayne

Yes, they do hate you when you hold them back. That's another good
reason cyclists need bike lanes.

I don't know though if the driver is hungry. What I know is that the
dinosaur is hungry and and doesn't want you on a bike.