From: Eeyore on 9 Nov 2006 05:02 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > > PLONK > > Do you even know what this means, or did you just see someone else us it one > time and think it was cute? I've been waiting for you to start ignoring my > posts since you said "PLONK" the first time, so the rest of us can get on > with the discussion of ideas without your endless insults. I'm delighted he plonked me a day or two ago. Graham
From: Ben Newsam on 9 Nov 2006 05:23 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:11:55 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:49:27 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:31:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>C) Taking a high tech biz like Google, what sort >>>>> of people do they employ, ie, what's the >>>>> distribution >>>> >>>>Mostly commie pinkos I expect. I even thought of applying for a job >>>>with them myself. Why? >>> >>>Typical stupid Brit comment, purposely out of >>>context too. No doubt the product of a dumbed >>>down "education" process. > >> Does that mean I was right? > >Sentence 1, improbable. > >Sentences 2 and 3 are not subject to my determination >of correctness. > >This is yet another derailment of the discussion >which should normally have arisen arise out of my >comments. Oh, I see. Sorry. OK, I agree with all your future pronouncements, and I hereby answer all your future questions with the words supplied by you for me to answer with. Happy now? <Taps head significantly and winks> >You're entitled to pee all over the newsgroup as >you have been doing. OK. Blimey, you are one sad piece of work, to be sure.
From: Ben Newsam on 9 Nov 2006 05:24 On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:24:37 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:dccf4$45528bce$4fe710f$18087(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >> You're entitled to pee all over the newsgroup as >> you have been doing. > >Dammit, I'm going to have to take a night job, at the rate this unsettled >idiot is making me keep replacing my irony meter. LOL! <FX: Falls off chair lauging>
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 06:51 In article <b5udnSoHhb_ZEc3YRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eipusm$8qk_001(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <u6adnW6SMJ3KqtLYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> <snip--cleanup> >>>>>First >>>>>though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. >>>> >>>> If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will >>>> cooperate with each other temporarily. >>> >>>Possibly, but what are the chances of any conflict becoming a "War on >>>Islam?" >> >> At the moment, I think it's very high. The goal of the extremists >> is to convince all moderates that it is a war on their religion. > >Oddly, most moderates do not believe anything that the extremists say. That isn't odd; that's why they are called moderates. > As >the west continues dancing to the extremists tune, bombing and shooting >people by accident, it becomes easier for the extremists to convince the >moderates. No, as these moderates see that there are people who will protect them from the extremists, they will begin to say no out loud. They already are starting but they need time. > >> If that does happen, the Dark Ages will commence. > >I doubt it. While a global conflic would be devastating it is unlikely to >turn the clock of society back to the ninth century - no matter how much the >Religious Right may want that. Now study flows of knowledge. > >That said, the "Dark Ages" were not a bad period of time compared to what >followed. Compared with my life style today, they were bad. I do not wish to repeat that history but I'm now certain we will. > >> Moderates need about 10 years to change this extremist trend. > >Randomly chosen timescale. Not really; it's actually too optimitic. That doesn't quite cover a generations' worth of retraining the school systems and start turning out kids who have learned skills that make things rather than destroy them. I'm thinking of the span of time from kindergarten to 12th grade and not even including the college time frame. > >> And that's being >> optimistic. Schooling of their kids has to be converted from >> learning how to kill and then die to learning how to thrive >> under a society based on law. > >Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as its >guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people who are not Muslim must be killed. Just because it's called law does not, in any way, imply this coda agrees with Western civilization's laws. They are based on two different foundations. The current conflict is the two sides figuring out a common ground. The extremists are insisting there is none and will kill anybody who taints their base. /BAH <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 9 Nov 2006 07:22
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as its > >guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. > > And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people > who are not Muslim must be killed. No it's not. That is a complete fallacy. Graham |