What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Conservation
Conservation in the Trumpocene
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MJB" data-source="post: 3510579" data-attributes="member: 88928"><p>Well done on your success in building your home and on your pragmatic choice of vehicle - no sarcasm intended at all. I also bought my vehicle for the same reason - it gets almost 53mpg/4.44 litres per 100km - but to reduce my personal impact on the environment, I've halved my annual driving by limiting it to 15,000 miles, which also brings an insurance discount (or a hefty penalty if I go over it).</p><p></p><p>Re your expressed pleasure in being the centre of attention, I've already asked a friend who researches in HPD (that's the APA definition) at the UK's National Personality Disorder Institute what they thought about your posts. They replied that it would be unethical to attempt any diagnosis from the content alone, but if their content genuinely reflects your views, then your constant need to denigrate would be worth investigating. I confess that I'm perhaps too ready to dismiss pejorative, name-calling and hectoring posts as demented trolling...:eek!:</p><p></p><p>As for the Poptech list, fugl was far more pithy than I would have been and so I would have expected most on this thread to reach their own conclusions and make comments in support of what they found, or in opposition. However, I did go through that list which mainly comprised narratives, magazine articles and blog-based polemics, high on unsupported assertions but low in citations of scientific papers that feature in impact analyses across a spread of such resources as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and other databases.</p><p>MJB</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MJB, post: 3510579, member: 88928"] Well done on your success in building your home and on your pragmatic choice of vehicle - no sarcasm intended at all. I also bought my vehicle for the same reason - it gets almost 53mpg/4.44 litres per 100km - but to reduce my personal impact on the environment, I've halved my annual driving by limiting it to 15,000 miles, which also brings an insurance discount (or a hefty penalty if I go over it). Re your expressed pleasure in being the centre of attention, I've already asked a friend who researches in HPD (that's the APA definition) at the UK's National Personality Disorder Institute what they thought about your posts. They replied that it would be unethical to attempt any diagnosis from the content alone, but if their content genuinely reflects your views, then your constant need to denigrate would be worth investigating. I confess that I'm perhaps too ready to dismiss pejorative, name-calling and hectoring posts as demented trolling...:eek!: As for the Poptech list, fugl was far more pithy than I would have been and so I would have expected most on this thread to reach their own conclusions and make comments in support of what they found, or in opposition. However, I did go through that list which mainly comprised narratives, magazine articles and blog-based polemics, high on unsupported assertions but low in citations of scientific papers that feature in impact analyses across a spread of such resources as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and other databases. MJB [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Conservation
Conservation in the Trumpocene
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top