Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: SkippyPB on 28 Jan 2010 10:39 On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:11:09 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:26:39 -0500, Tony Harding ><tharding(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>As The Fugs said > 40 years ago, "killing for peace is like f*cking for >>chastity" (or words to that effect). > >That's how virgins are created... The actual phrase is, "Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity". Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been."" -- Unknown ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Howard Brazee on 28 Jan 2010 10:51 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:39:50 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >>>As The Fugs said > 40 years ago, "killing for peace is like f*cking for >>>chastity" (or words to that effect). >> >>That's how virgins are created... > >The actual phrase is, "Killing for peace is like screwing for >virginity". Again, that's how virgins are created... How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like destroying the village in order to save it? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 28 Jan 2010 14:34 In article <834dc8a3-4800-4324-beb3-b87bc998cd52(a)b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 25, 1:35?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article ><f8a8a0a3-d02a-4ff8-b4be-a80dbb68e...(a)a22g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On Jan 23, 2:42?am, "Pete Dashwood" >> ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> Alistair wrote: >> >> > On Jan 22, 1:44 pm, "Pete Dashwood" >> >> > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >> Maybe some people have religion so deeply ingrained in them that no amont of >> >> education will get them thinking for themselves. >> >> >My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of >> >the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what >> >you mean by...". >> >> This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon >> Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct >> Propositions for proof/disproof. >> > >Second time around for me on this and the thought occured to me: if >there is an omnipotent god then there can be no fundamental agreeable >definitions as a god would have the power to change the definition at >any moment. As it seems there can be no ratio established between 'having all powers' and 'having limited powers' - as 'all powers' can readily conclude powers which are not part of the subset of 'the limited' - then any attempt to reconcile an omnipotent being with a limited one can readily be concluded to be an attempt to deal with an irrationality. At least... I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke works. DD
From: HeyBub on 28 Jan 2010 16:52 Howard Brazee wrote: > > Again, that's how virgins are created... > > How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like > destroying the village in order to save it? Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. The Constitution offers only minimal protection to terrorists. The active phrases in the Constitution are things like "In all criminal prosecutions..." or "No person shall answer for a ... crime..." Unlawful enemy combatants are not criminals. They do not have a Constitutional right to a lawyer, trial by jury, indictment by a grand jury, remain silent, or any of the other "rights" accorded violators of the criminal law. What protections they DO have are found under Article II where the President is blessed as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The president may do with unlawful enemy combatants whatever he chooses and his decision cannot be gainsaid by anyone; not the Congress, not the courts. A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who: 1) Wears a distinctive uniform or insignia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Adheres to a defined chain of command, and 4) Conforms to the usual rules of war. By extension, a combatant not fulfilling all these attributes is an "unlawful" enemy combatant. This designation includes saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, resistance fighters, and the like, plus those assisting. The usual way of dealing with these folks, since time immemorial, is to kill them out of hand. All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, just that whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket or the military tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. The Christmas bomber could go either way; someone captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan could, reasonably, be directed only to the military tribunal bucket (after all, what U.S. criminal law has he broken?). Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, constitutional protections when he is outside the criminal justice system. Another significant point is that the citizenship of the terrorist is immaterial. During WW2, we had, literally, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs in the U.S. (Texas alone had over 100 POW camps). A significant number were U.S. citizens (think dual citizenship). Not a single prisoner ever had a day in court for any reason (except for courts martial for offenses committed while a POW).
From: Alistair on 29 Jan 2010 07:32
On Jan 28, 7:34 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <834dc8a3-4800-4324-beb3-b87bc998c...(a)b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On Jan 25, 1:35?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article > ><f8a8a0a3-d02a-4ff8-b4be-a80dbb68e...(a)a22g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >On Jan 23, 2:42?am, "Pete Dashwood" > >> ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> >> Alistair wrote: > >> >> > On Jan 22, 1:44 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > >> >> > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> >> Maybe some people have religion so deeply ingrained in them that no amont of > >> >> education will get them thinking for themselves. > > >> >My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of > >> >the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what > >> >you mean by...". > > >> This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon > >> Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct > >> Propositions for proof/disproof. > > >Second time around for me on this and the thought occured to me: if > >there is an omnipotent god then there can be no fundamental agreeable > >definitions as a god would have the power to change the definition at > >any moment. > > As it seems there can be no ratio established between 'having all powers' > and 'having limited powers' - as 'all powers' can readily conclude powers > which are not part of the subset of 'the limited' - then any attempt to > reconcile an omnipotent being with a limited one can readily be concluded > to be an attempt to deal with an irrationality. > > At least... I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke > works. > > DD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - DD, you should know, better than most, that English is an evolving language and is spoken in many different ways around the globe. I was quite surprised when I looked up Wiki to see exactly how many dialects there are, even in the UK. |