Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 10 Nov 2006 16:19 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:39:12 GMT, I wrote: ><snip> >Combined with the >fact of many states including specific suffrage for more than a >wealthy few (under This was the setting leading into the federal >convention. ><snip> I think my more complete thought here was, "By the way, when the prior articles of confederation were framed and the idea of intercitizenship first developed for it, it included most everyone who was a part of the overall community, but specifically excluded paupers, vagabonds, fugitives, and slaves. The fact that many states already included specific suffrage for more than a wealthy few as a preface (setting leading into) to the federal convention may further dispute your theory." Sorry about the editing weirdness there. Jon
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 16:19 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:j6l9l2914tfv63ue83ugqup502mj0ne188(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:01:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >><snip> >>In this medium, the only way to figure out if I'm wrong is >>to say something and let people stomp all over it. The original post didn't show up on SBCs news server, and Jonathan was too nice to reply to it, but I can't let it go by. All I can say is that this is about the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard anyone say in a long time, certainly in this thread. You keep parroting this "I'm trying to learn from you guys", but yet you never learn from the verifiable facts that anybody quotes as they stomp all over your skewed assumptions. The facts never actually seem to sink in. All you seem to care about is shoving your ill-conceived paranoia down others' throats, and then telling them to "stuff it where the sun don't shine" when they don't swallow it whole. Your actions badly belie the sentence you wrote above. Jon, I apologize for not taking the time to read all you wrote, you've written several very well-researched essays recently, and I just don't have the time I should to do them justice. I'm a chemist--absorbing and understanding the "anthropogenic sciences" takes time for me. Perhaps this weekend, with the Missus out of town, and Ohio State playing their last patsy of the year.... > My point is simple, your comments seem based on your reasoning about > what _may_ have been, not about what actually _was_. I recommend that > the latter takes precedence over the earlier. Unquestionably, her entire philosophy seems to be based on what *might* be, not what is. I admit to being a bit of a contrarian (noooo, really?????) and sometimes getting into a mood where I refuse to let "what might be" be limited by "what is", but my family, friends and colleagues are pretty good at bringing me back from the "might be" to the "is". Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 16:22 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:FuudnUJttc5DecnYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... > > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:1ko8l25obt73evog3kn6g81jeimhc27str(a)4ax.com... > >>>When Saddam was "arrested," why did the occupation forces remain? >> >> --- >> 1. To make sure the country wouldn't fall into worse hands than >> Saddam Hussein's. > > Interesting argument. I assume from this that self determination is not an > option in your opinion. In fact, many Iraqis seem to think it *did* fall into worse hands than Saddam Husseins.... >> 2. To rebuild the country. > > Iran has made the same claims. Why does the US have more right to do this > than the Iranians? > >> 3. To help give the folks there a chance to govern themselves. > > You need to leave to do that. When a country is occupied it is not > governing itself. What you may mean here is to give the folks the chance > to set up an acceptable government. I wonder if he can honestly not see the hypocrisy in 3. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 16:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4553F91D.886C9D18(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:455395B2.B98BE126(a)hotmail.com... >> > >> >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>For credit points: What cease fire violations did Saddam commit? >> >> >> >>Didn't they 'lock on' to various flight with their AA radars a few >> >>times ? >> > >> > >> > Yes. Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by >> > strikes as >> > were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft. >> >> That used to be called "target illumination." When >> detected it is rightfully understood to be a threat. Yes it is a threat. What is your point? >> "Painting"? > > So ? > > >> Now there's a bit of doublespeak for you. > > What's your point ? Not sure why it considers "painting" doublespeak, seems fairly appropriate considering how AD radar systems work.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 16:28
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:lmq7l25cu232rpa9l1aqr021va712vst19(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:44:39 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>Since I'm sure JoeBlows will only be capable of hurling insults, anyone >>else >>feel free to chime in. > > > You're a goddamned idiot, and you do not warrant any sort of > response other than an insult, dipshit. You perpetuate that warrant > with every post you make. Seems like Eric was pretty much spot on there. |