|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses. I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too. We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
I have a friend on the Gulf of Mexico side of the peninsula.
They have 500 mies to drive to be safe from Irma. Quite a job on a bike, as I'm sure you will agree. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com I doubt the intelligence of people who *choose* to live in an area where hurricanes are a regular occurrence. What, the WHOLE of the sub-tropical area around the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean? It should be unpopulated wilderness, should it? I said those who "choose" to. The whole of the population of the Caribbean, Mexico and the Central American states, plus Texas, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas? What, ALL of them? Can you not understand the word "choose"? Are you silly enough to want to move to a well known hurricane area to live? Perhaps you would prefer to choose a home on a flood plain for your home? There are many that choose to live in these volatile areas for tax avoidance reasons, ie..greed, in which case I find it hard to drum up any sympathy for them. The same applies to the thousands who *choose* to go on holiday in the hurricane seasons. Fools, that's what they are. You have the weirdest of ideas about the people who live around the Gulf. And their reasons for living there. Oh dear, you have a comprehension problem. Let me try to simplify the word *choose*; *choose* means you have a *choice* where to live. This discludes people who cannot *choose*, meaning that they do *not* have a *choice*. People who *choose* to live in an area where they have seasonal hurricanes are either stupid or ignorant of the dangers. Just to be clear. I DO feel sorry for the people who have no *choice*, ie; the ones who are natives and born there who do not have the means to move to a safer district. They can walk! You too have a comprehension problem. If they can't afford move, walking won't help them. Moving isn't expensive if you do it yourself. Travel light. Virgin America Airlines openly mocks those who think they need to carry a lot of baggage. Bret Cahill |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"? That's why I am asking you. Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San Andreas Fault. Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? Â* Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"? That's why I am asking you. Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San Andreas Fault. Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it? I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest. BTW, I live in a wooden house. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 10:20, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? Â* Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"? That's why I am asking you. Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San Andreas Fault. Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it? I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest. BTW,Â* I live in a wooden house. "House losses and unnecessary deaths will continue to increase in Australia if we keep building homes in bushfire-prone areas." http://theconversation.com/which-hom...e-season-20072 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle
On 09/09/2017 10:33, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:20, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote: On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100 TMS320 wrote: On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote: Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then wonder why their houses get burnt down. Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of America and Australia etc. But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick rabbit hutches we have in this country. Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate, but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the ecology of the areas that they affect. Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material, as you suggest. Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO. What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob Morley. In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure. Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be permanently evacuated too? Â* Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"? That's why I am asking you. Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San Andreas Fault. Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it? I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest. BTW,Â* I live in a wooden house. "House losses and unnecessary deaths will continue to increase in Australia if we keep building homes in bushfire-prone areas." http://theconversation.com/which-hom...e-season-20072 If you want further proof: https://www.theguardian.com › World › Cities › Canada 16 May 2016 - Most of Fort McMurray was spared destruction, but 2,400 homes fell to the fire, ... The US Forest Service recently released a detailed report and map of the ... burned for four days straight, destroying most of the city's wooden buildings |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL), the Sociopathic Attention Whore
On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 14:59:06 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again: Travel light. Virgin America Airlines openly mocks those who think they need to carry a lot of baggage. Until airlines stop ****ing about with 2 hour checkins, checks for weapons, and having to print your return ticket while you're on holiday, I will never use an airline. Your psychiatrist might perhaps be interested to hear that, idiot! -- More of Scottish ****** Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "life": "I go commando. Underpants are for people suffering from anal seepage." MID: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fuel | Joy Beeson | Techniques | 1 | October 5th 16 05:22 PM |
A bicycle's "fuel" efficiency! | [email protected][_2_] | Social Issues | 4 | October 13th 09 11:50 PM |
Rocket fuel | Steve | Racing | 10 | October 3rd 06 07:37 PM |
I Like Rocket Fuel | Tyler Hamillton | Racing | 0 | April 19th 05 04:07 AM |
OT - water shortages 2004 | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 7 | November 3rd 03 11:21 AM |