It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Overseas travel warnings about USA mount

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Glamping is posh camping. Glamour camping basically.



Edit:Go Glamping

High heels stuck in mud, quite the fetish apparently...


edit on 18-8-2016 by Jonjonj because: addition




posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

That takes the fun out of it...no roughing it, for the weekend?

'course, the older I get, the more appeal that will probably have...

ETA: Expensive, too. 100 pounds a night, or more? No thanks...well above my pay grade. Actually, I must have misread, some of those prices aren't that bad...and some of 'em look quite cozy, if you're looking for a change from a hotel.
edit on 8/18/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/18/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

It is a bit of a strange idea, which I think was started so that the rich could experience the idea of roughing it, whilst maintaining their home comforts...failed with the rich, but the bourgoise middle class just looooove it!




posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I was recently up your way in June when I was camping in Yellowstone for three days.By proper camping I mean waking up in the middle of the night with a horrid wet feeling in my sleeping bag thinking I'd pi55ed myself.Then when I found my torch I find a puddle of water about 2 inches deep inside the tent.My fault though because I didn't fit the flysheet properly.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

I can see why they would.

I think I still prefer being out back of beyond, but those little places are quite cozy. The same thing here in the States are a bit less pricey, depending upon the exchange rate...and they're all over the place, now that I'm looking for 'em.

...and they're probably rather safe to visit, too. Who'd have thought it?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

Been there done that!! Both the puddle and Yellowstone. Where 'bouts in Yellowstone? ...and the only criminal I worried about were some rude bears that raided our campsite. (just to stay on topic, vaguely...)



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Canyon Campground as it was the only one sort of central that took reservations.I didn't fancy the thought of a 5000 mile journey and then find no vacancies at any of the campgrounds.
My ultimate goal was to see grizzlies close up in the wild,the closest I got was about 2 miles away in a very powerful telescope.The rest of the wildlife was a lot more welcoming,the bufallo in particular always said hello and asked me how I was doing
.

Oh and I ended up in Seattle staying near Lake Sammamish.
edit on 18-8-2016 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

Two miles from grizzlies? that's plenty close enough in my experience. Grumpy, doesn't even begin to describe a mama grizzly bear. Sounds like you had a good time though...

Canyon campground, I haven't stayed there. Haven't been back to Yellowstone in a while as they've tried to curtail back country camping/backpacking because of the habitat damage that some morons insist upon inflicting...nothing pisses me off more than finding a really nice camping spot and finding it with garbage all over the place...worse, is packing it out.

If/When you go back, look out for moose, too. Friend and I once found a grizzley bear, big ol' boy, too, that had been stomped and kicked to death by a moose in rut... A few years later I got treed by one for about twenty minutes or so...felt longer. Pissed off at the world, that one was...

Shortest route from there to Seattle would have brought you darned close to me, that's for sure. Come anywhere near Walla Walla?
edit on 8/18/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I stayed In Gardiner for a few more days,then I90 to Missoula and Spokane,so a bit north of you.Oh and of course how I forget sleeping on a porch in Cody?
The main topic of conversation once the locals knew I was English was 'So this referendum thing.........'

Oh and I really like the free coffee at the public rest areas off the interstate in Washington state.What a shame England doesn't do that I say!



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SudoNim
Your own source proved this to be incorrect as it was lower in 1960.


U.S. Crime Rate Stays Near Historic Lows.

Yup, I guess I am just making things up here. Listen to the Prof:


In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times. - Fischer, Claude. "A crime puzzle: Violent crime declines in America". UC Regents.




Right so now its STAYS NEAR historic lows.

instead of


Since it is at historical lows that would be from the beginning.


You've switched the goalposts once again. Pathetic.

I've never seen a man so desperate to hide the fact he got something wrong, pride is at stake I guess.

Once again FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said that violent crime inched up 0.7 percent in 2012 from the previous year,


So how is it consistently coming down if your OWN SOURCE says it inched up?


edit on 19-8-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
So how is it consistently coming down if your OWN SOURCE says it inched up?


You do understand how a graph works, do you not? For their to be a defined trajectory downward does not mean every plotline has to be below the preceding. As Fischer says, and I stated earlier, crime has been declining since Colonial times, i.e. the beginning.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SudoNim
So how is it consistently coming down if your OWN SOURCE says it inched up?


You do understand how a graph works, do you not? For their to be a defined trajectory downward does not mean every plotline has to be below the preceding. As Fischer says, and I stated earlier, crime has been declining since Colonial times, i.e. the beginning.


Are you just pretending now that you never said this;


Since it is at historical lows that would be from the beginning. Nothing arbitrary there.


It's getting embarrassing.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
Are you just pretending now that you never said this.


U.S. Crime Rate Stays Near Historic Lows.

This works for me. You can quibble about tenths of a point all you want, my original statement was correct.

See, the funny thing is when you got a source that said violent crime has been coming down since Colonial times you said zip.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SudoNim
Are you just pretending now that you never said this.


U.S. Crime Rate Stays Near Historic Lows.

This works for me. You can quibble about tenths of a point all you want, my original statement was correct.

See, the funny thing is when you got a source that said violent crime has been coming down since Colonial times you said zip.


I never disputed that they haven't been coming down.

I disputed your claim that;

Since it is at historical lows that would be from the beginning. Nothing arbitrary there.


You have since been unable to prove this, actually provided clear evidence that it isn't.

Especially since current figures aren't "tenths of a point" they were much lower in 1960.

What's funny is watching you painfully try and avoid admitting you were wrong to save your ego.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
You have since been unable to prove this, actually provided clear evidence that it isn't.


If you do not like Professor Fischer's findings then take it up with him. That is my source to counter all the sources you linked which amount to zero.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SudoNim
You have since been unable to prove this, actually provided clear evidence that it isn't.


If you do not like Professor Fischer's findings then take it up with him. That is my source to counter all the sources you linked which amount to zero.


Professor Fischer's findings do not in any way support your statement below.


Since it is at historical lows that would be from the beginning. Nothing arbitrary there.


Do you understand the difference between historical lowest and near to historical lowest?
How are you failing to understand that?

Your previous source www.disastercenter.com... also completely contradicts your statement.

Showing Violent Crime in 1961 as 158.1 per 100,000 in comparison to 375.7 per 100,000 in 2014.

More than double. You were way off.
edit on 19-8-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Professor Fischer obviously takes into account the change in violent crime reporting that took place in the 1960's as a factor. We covered this already.

If you have an issue with his findings give him a jingle, I am sure he would be thrilled to discuss this with such a brilliant mind on the subject as yourself.

Let me know how it goes.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SudoNim

Professor Fischer obviously takes into account the change in violent crime reporting that took place in the 1960's as a factor. We covered this already.

If you have an issue with his findings give him a jingle, I am sure he would be thrilled to discuss this with such a brilliant mind on the subject as yourself.

Let me know how it goes.



No Professor Fischer doesn't support your statement. I'm not sure how many times I need to write this before you understand.

Lets start with your quote;


In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times. - Fischer, Claude. "A crime puzzle: Violent crime declines in America". UC Regents.


This is from a quote from a Wikipedia editor, not Professor Fischer as you WRONGLY claimed.

Here is an actual quote from Professor Fischer article you sourced.


The rates are now approaching the level of the least violent era in American history, the late 1950s.


I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read your own sources.

Now can you stop lying and admit you were wrong?
edit on 19-8-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
No Professor Fischer doesn't support your statement.


He most certainly does. I stated that crime has been on the decline since the beginning, he agrees.

Have an issue? Take it up with him.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SudoNim
No Professor Fischer doesn't support your statement.


He most certainly does. I stated that crime has been on the decline since the beginning, he agrees.

Have an issue? Take it up with him.


*sigh* you are proving to be quite spineless in your attempt to save face.


Since it is at historical lows that would be from the beginning.


None of your sources claim that Violent Crime is at historical lows.

This is a lie. A lie that you refuse to accept.




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join