Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 8 Nov 2006 07:34 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:3Rc4h.355$GS2.255(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e7e64$45515248$49ecf6c$10663(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >> It amazing to me how far afield from the original conversation >> this has been taken in order to avoid confronting the valid >> points that were made. > > Good conversations meander, and explore all facets of a topic. Would you > rather that we spent the last 7300 posts fawning over you and how right > you were (which you weren't, by the way)? How insecure can you get? Get > over yourself! I have yet to see something which even slightly resembles a valid point made by unsettled. >> I'm amazed too at just how anti-American some people living here >> in the US are. > > And here you are dead wrong in your assumptions. I love my country...so > much so, in fact, that I want it wrested from the grasp of a President and > political party run amok. It is incredibly arrogant of you to think that > you have the only way of thinking that could be considered pro-American, > and to equate "disagree with you" and "anti-American". In fact, that is > the most anti-American attitude I can think of--to be expected to either > agree with everything my government does or shut up. > It seems unsettled only has one bogeyman to call on. If you disagree with him you are "un-American." If you questions anything your government does you are "un-American." I am amazed he can even spell democracy.
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:30 In article <l7idnSIMuLZKodLYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eindoh$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <L62dnR_UNZvcstLYnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ein7c1$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <kTb3h.1659$r12.387(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>>>>>kicked his >>>>>>>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>>>>> >>>>>> It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous >>>>>> campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had >>>>>> allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look it >>>>>> up. >>>>> >>>>>And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it >>>>>*might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly zones. >>>>>However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember analysts >>>>>at >>>>>that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. >>>> >>>> This was during the time when Clinton was in office. >>> >>>So the Clinton administration did indeed keep Saddam in check? Is that >>>what >>>you are saying? >> >> Take your reading comprehension pill and read me in the morning. > >No need to be rude, it was an honest question. > >However, earlier on in the thread it was commented that the enforcement of >the north and south no-fly zones were "keeping Saddam in his cage" and here >you say this was an act of the Clinton administration - which, again >previously, you said did nothing. I should have added the word useful to that sentence. > >You cant have it both ways. Tying up the military in babysitting jobs is doing nothing useful. That seemed to be Clinton's style. I never understood it because this approach did not work with Germany. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:34 In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >> >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >> >> No, it's not. > >Do please supply an appropriate example. The computing technology has been an area where this was happening fast and furiously. The industry is gradually maturing so that will settle down. The current fast and furious industry is delivering information over the nets. The next one will be banking and trade services. The next ones? I don't know. I suspect it might involve custom-made items. That seems to already be getting started with car sales. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:37 In article <MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >> > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >> > >> > No, it's not. >> >> Do please supply an appropriate example. > >Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >one will pop up. > He'll object to that because they're too old. Google, E-bay, Vehix(sp?). I can imagine a day where you login to General Motors and fill out the specs for the car you want and have it delivered in n days. I'd like to see this done with books ;-). IOW, mass production will become blase for anything other than computer equipment :-))). /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:39
In article <454FB397.8418F4B7(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > krw wrote: >> > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >> > > > > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >> > > > > >> > > > > No, it's not. >> > > > >> > > > Do please supply an appropriate example. >> > > >> > > Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >> > > one will pop up. >> > >> > I don't believe any of the above were inherited though. >> >> What does that have to do with the price of oats...? > >" The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into an airframe manufacturing >enterprise are gone. " Good grief. Pendantic. Yep. Nowadays, nobody has to wait for their parents to die before making oddles of money. /BAH |