Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Alistair on 31 Jan 2010 07:40 On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates them with > soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever been a soldier...) > would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding hearts a heap of time and > money, and let us get on with the task of finding (and needling) the rest of > them... > A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to your previous stances on crime and capital punishment. As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be permitted under the USA constitution.
From: Alistair on 31 Jan 2010 07:52 On Jan 31, 3:26 am, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <36003cc2-89af-46c9-bfde-fc34d9165...(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups..com>, > > Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On Jan 29, 3:57?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article > ><cab0c90e-17c2-4dff-bcc9-2e181877c...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >On Jan 28, 7:34?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > > [smip] > > > > > > >> >> 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, 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. > > >> I am not only willing to admit to the limitations of my learning... by my > >> postings here it might be concluded that I'm willing to demonstrate it, as > >> well. ? > > >> To the best of my knowledge the 'ir-' prefix (as derived from the Latin > >> 'in-' prefix) has been used to indicate negation or the absence of a > >> quality for a goodly number of centuries and the specific I used > >> ('irrational') can be traced to the early-mid 15th century. ?This may be > >> seen as a rather sound precedent... but, of course, if anyone has citings > >> indicating otherwise then, by all means, bring them forward so that > >> something might be learned from the analysis and discussion thereof. > > >I wasn't criticising the ir- prefix, merely the innocent proclamation > >which followed it. > > Leaving aside the criticising of an act labelled 'inncenct - an odd > combination of words, I'd say - I believe that what you are referring to > as a proclamation is 'I believe that this is part of how English As She Is > Spoke works.' Granted that languages evolve... but notice how the > confession of belief is concerned with the present tense ('... As She > Is...'), hence my curiosity as to where and how, contemporaneous with the > present, that things are otherwise. > > DD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You appear to be referring to English as a single entity in which case your perception is false in that you can only entertain that English is spoken in many different ways depending upon where an individual originates. You may, however, be referring to one definitive form of English (presumably your local dialect) and would therefore need to define to which form it is that you refer.
From: Alistair on 31 Jan 2010 07:58 On Jan 30, 1:14 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > Sure. And the definition of "lawful combatant" DOES appear in the 3th Geneva > Convention, Article 2(B) as one who wears a uniform, has a chain of command, > carries arms openly, and follows the rules of war. By extension, a > belligerent not meeting the requirements of "lawful combatant" is an > "unlawful" enemy combatant. Does the Geneva Convention define a non-participant eg a civilian? I only ask because, unless there is a specific definition for non- belligerant civilians OR belligerant UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, all civilians would be deemed unlawful combatants. Elsewhere, someone pointed out that French Resistance fighters in WW2 were unlawful combatants. I doubt that they and their kin would appreciate being linked to OBL and his murderous thugs.
From: Anonymous on 31 Jan 2010 10:15 In article <ecad5889-a7c9-4fbb-bc4a-483bb1f87021(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 31, 3:26?am, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article ><36003cc2-89af-46c9-bfde-fc34d9165...(a)p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On Jan 29, 3:57?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >> In article >> ><cab0c90e-17c2-4dff-bcc9-2e181877c...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >On Jan 28, 7:34?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >> [smip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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, 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. >> >> >> I am not only willing to admit to the limitations of my learning... by my >> >> postings here it might be concluded that I'm willing to demonstrate it, as >> >> well. ? >> >> >> To the best of my knowledge the 'ir-' prefix (as derived from the Latin >> >> 'in-' prefix) has been used to indicate negation or the absence of a >> >> quality for a goodly number of centuries and the specific I used >> >> ('irrational') can be traced to the early-mid 15th century. ?This may be >> >> seen as a rather sound precedent... but, of course, if anyone has citings >> >> indicating otherwise then, by all means, bring them forward so that >> >> something might be learned from the analysis and discussion thereof. >> >> >I wasn't criticising the ir- prefix, merely the innocent proclamation >> >which followed it. >> >> Leaving aside the criticising of an act labelled 'inncenct - an odd >> combination of words, I'd say - I believe that what you are referring to >> as a proclamation is 'I believe that this is part of how English As She Is >> Spoke works.' ?Granted that languages evolve... but notice how the >> confession of belief is concerned with the present tense ('... As She >> Is...'), hence my curiosity as to where and how, contemporaneous with the >> present, that things are otherwise. >> > >You appear to be referring to English as a single entity in which case >your perception is false in that you can only entertain that English >is spoken in many different ways depending upon where an individual >originates. You may, however, be referring to one definitive form of >English (presumably your local dialect) and would therefore need to >define to which form it is that you refer. Mr Maclean, how you interpret appearances can be seen as saying more of you and your abilities to interpret than of the phenomena interpreted. I referred to, clearly and unambiguously, to 'English as I believe she is spoke'. If this is not, by definitions cited in commonly accepted sources, an indication of time (present tense) and my of own habits/states of mind then.. I have asked, twice now, if you have any indication whatsoever if the ir- (or in-) prefix has a use other than that which which I have used. Third and final time, if you have such, please be so kind as to cite the source so that it might be discussed and something learned therefrom. DD
From: SkippyPB on 31 Jan 2010 12:26
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:40:32 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 30, 1:40�pm, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates them with >> soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever been a soldier...) >> would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding hearts a heap of time and >> money, and let us get on with the task of finding (and needling) the rest of >> them... >> > >A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to your >previous stances on crime and capital punishment. > >As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would >condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be permitted >under the USA constitution. Unless they live in Hawaii :) -- //// (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 |