Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 08/01/2025 18:34, Pancho wrote:

It has to be the right religion though
A religion that simply takes all yiur wealth and prromises yuoi only hell if you get upset is not a keeper.
>

 How do you explain Jihadist Islam
 

Its similar in most respects to German jihadism,. Mein Kampf=jihad=my struggle.
The operational parameters of the metaphysics are identical.
- a master race, struggling against a world full of oppressive other races, especially jews - who it is perfectly moral to lie to, kill, defraud, commit genocide, rape torture and and maim, because they *are not really human*.
And apart from these things obliterating the subconscious shame you feel at being 600 years behind the times, stupid as fuck and inbred to boot, it gives you a feeling of power and purpose and a promise of [s]lots of virgins in the after life, after you have run out of the ones on the local council estate.

Religion/ideology is like evolution, the selfish meme. It is a mistake to presume it must be intrinsically good for adherents, as opposed to just good at perpetuating itself, creating new adherents.

My point was that it wouldn't be very good at propagating itself if it didn't do its adherents some good.

 

>

Listening to the UK radio last night, a  Labour politician was being questioned on whether Ed Milliband’s "Green new deal" was achievable, realistic. Her response was that it was Labour's most popular policy. Her metric for success was that it delivered Labour/herself political power, and she was probably right, it does.
>

She was of course simply lying.  Or else acknowledging that nothing her government has done is popular, and because it hasn't done anything green yet, they are not being lambasted by that.
>

 I don't see how you know she was lying.

Its a dead cert with politicians, especially laboyr ones
  >I don't think these politicians

understand the issues. They just parrot some dogma they have read. This isn't surprising given most politicians are lawyers or such like. They don't really understand things, they just recite received wisdom.
 

I.e. they lie.

You can't really blame them, you also see this deference to authority in tech academics. They tell you some ivory tower bollocks, you point to real life examples of why it is false, but they still stick to some academic paper they can cite.
 In practical terms, the important thing to a politician is that more people vote for her when she says renewables.
 

No, That is simply not true. Labour got in *despite* having a disastrous energy policy. Because they were *not Tories*
The modus operandi of all government is first of all self legalising protection rackets and then making mistake after mistake until the actual answer is either bleeding obvious or accidentally hit upon by sheer happenstance.
Generally Joe public and Hoi Polloi know the answer long before government.
In this case the public is thoroughly disenchanted with NetZeroBollox™ and GreenCrap™and just wants to be a bit better off.
And not be accosted by simpering nancy boys in frocks at the local pun and told what pronouns they have to use.

 

It was [probably the Boy Buiggering Communist's radio anyway,
>

 I think it was LBC (Iain Dale). Yes, I'm ashamed I listen to that bollocks, but I was just listening while driving to the supermarket.
 

Crikey, I have 64TB pen drive in my car with all of the Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Rolling stones ....etc etc on it.
Mass media is for numpties

Anyway, given your academic background, you should be more circumspect about accusing other organisations of consisting of communist homosexuals.
 

Lol! Touché!
--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect,  masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.