Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Nov 2006 07:57 <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote in message news:1162901489.499250.295790(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Winfield Hill wrote: >> >> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > > Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > of the posts were under the original subject title. This > must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > I suspect there is no "end state" for the remaining die hard participants. Some (unsettled) have arrived late and do little but insult, but for the rest ... well it could go on for some time ... I was wondering how this would affect GoogleGroups. I seem to remember its interface was clumsy for anything more than about 100 post threads. I may have to check it out there :-)
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 07:53 In article <e%H3h.6202$B31.4607(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ein93c$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <uo83h.4309$9v5.64(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: <snip> >> How would you prove that you did not spend money outside the >> state. You cannot demonstrate this with an absence of data. >> This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >> internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >> a similar tax law will become national. > >Why shouldn't internet transactions be taxed? But this isn't happening in my state. What they want to do instead is tax you sales tax even though you haven't purchased anything. That is what the clause about taxing a sales tax based on your income is all about. They trying to get away with a very nasty tax method and seem to be doing well at it. If this one "works" for them, it will show up on IRS forms. <snip> /BAH
From: T Wake on 7 Nov 2006 08:01 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454FCFE4.67960A2B(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>Nobody's appeasing anyone not suggesting they should do. >> > >> > unsettled (and those like him) have no case to put forward. As a result >> > they >> > have to rely on scare terms such as the ubiquitous "Nazi" reference, >> > mixed >> > in with what they view as cutting insults. >> > >> > How can you be an appeaser when there is no Nazi state to appease? >> >> As usual for you, your reply has nothing to do with >> what came before. You've not seen the documentary so >> you have no frame of reference whatever on which to >> base your response. It is interesting that unsettled felt my response had nothing to do with what came before. He made the association between jihadists and the nazis, then finished off by "accusing" me of being a "classic apologist appeaser." Sadly, his lack of understanding has meant he doesn't realise my response was a response. > I challenge you to watch the documentary series ( 3 episodes of ~ 1 hr > ea ) The > Power of Nightmares. It's one of the best analyses I've ever seen on TV. > > http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=power+of+nightmares > > Is episode one. Follow the links for the remainder. Thanks, I have only briefly watched this, but I will look more later. So far it seems interesting. > Apparently no major US network would broadcast it I've been told. Maybe it > challenged a few too many sacred cow like ideas ? > > If you can post a link I'll happily watch the one you refer too as well. Not sure if it will turn out to be available online yet.
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:02 In article <454F3EF6.9E47CD7D(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message >> >> > Eeyore wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside >> >> >> from bragging rights of course ! >> >> >> >> >> > you can't figure it out? why does that >> >> > not surprise me? >> >> >> >> Because not everybody in the world allows the cost of their possessions to >> >> define them as human beings? >> > >> >A film and sound editor acquaintance of mine who's worked in the USA said he >> >couldn't live there long-term in part because he found the use of wealth to >> >define yourself to be offensive. >> >> Then he didn't mix with the usual US types. He only saw a slice >> of US. > >What are 'the usual US types' ? To get a genuine idea on the least amount of time, grocery stores can provide that infomation. A better place is the farms. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Nov 2006 08:02
In article <GsSdnfyAiLgRp9LYnZ2dnUVZ8sSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:einbk7$8qk_007(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <454C9C11.F26D71E5(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >Do you guys not have fireplaces any more ? >>>> >>>> Only for show. >>> >>>I have 3 working ones. >> >> I have one that is functional. But it doesn't do anything useful. >> I can't cook nor heat with it. >>> >>> >>>> Are you saying that it's OK to pollute the air for heating? >>> >>>A good stove can be 90% efficient. >> >> That's not good enough if you're burning wood. > >What efficiency would you require for burning wood? No smoke at all. /BAH |