Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 08:20 In article <5MOdnbB1D9f_WsnYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej1qbp$8ss_006(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <9HG4h.11569$B31.1808(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eivamt$8qk_008(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <BM14h.8314$B31.7002(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eiq0h1$8qk_012(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <dGS3h.5355$7F3.3682(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:MPG.1fb9bd1d862e8abb989ab0(a)news.individual.net... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dry wood burns very cleanly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It still stinks to hell. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I burn some in a fairly efficient stove, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's not just efficiency, it's also related to pollution control >>>>>>>devices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but unless there is a wind blowing it's a mess. It stinks if it's >>>>>>>> still, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you make everybody do this? >>>>> >>>>>Why your desparate need to "make everybody do" things. Why not just let >>>>>them make their own decisions, and you make yours? >>>> >>>> Because there are never "do not burn" stamps on wood filled >>>> with arsenic. Because there isn't any pollution controls >>>> on burning wood. The ones who "sin" the worst are those >>>> who are rabid anti-smokers of cigarettes, consider the need >>>> for oil to be a mortal sin, and are against nuclear power plants. >>>> >>>> Yet these people have no problems with filling a whole neighborhood >>>> with smoke and arsenic. This is another example of perfection >>>> of inability to think. >>> >>>Why do you presume that it is the anti-smokers who burn pressure-treated >>>lumber illegally? That is a rather illogical, quite misanthropic, and >>>*very* disingenuous assumption. >> >> Why do you assume that I have no personal experience at all? > >I dont think people do make that assumption. The problem is you extrapolate >your very limited experiences on a massive scale with little or no reason to >do so. My knowledge about how things works cannot be used. My experience cannot be used. The fact that there is an absence of stories about how good the system is (from people who are really ill) cannot be used. What am I left with? Politicians saying it is the right thing to do. People who believe that they should get everything free and have the government pay for it. Some cost analysis statistics that should be used as a tool rather than a reason for implementation of the system. I can't do this without feeling intellectually dishonest. /BAH > >> It >> appears that, unless I can point you at some web site, you won't >> accept any fact at all. > >A projection methinks. > >
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 08:24 In article <c029l2p7ro3hqkphqqr4kegohnqtgmc9pb(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 06 12:37:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <45535A1F.F229D5D9(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>The best way to avoid a 'mess' is to behave intelligently and avoid provoking >>>hostility. > >--- >I think Theodore Roosevelt summed it up quite nicely with "Speak >softly and carry a big stick" The problem is that, until Bush was President, nobody believed that the US would use it. Now these same people think that they only have to wait until 2008 when a Democrat becomes president and the stick will only be brought out for show and never used. >--- > > >>You are considered to be the equivalent of vermin in a certain >>interpretation of the Koran. You do not merit hositility since >>that would give you an equal standing. > >--- >I agree. So why do the people, who think that that's a lie, think it's a lie even though bomb events show the contrary? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 08:28 In article <ej28t7$j3j$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <c029l2p7ro3hqkphqqr4kegohnqtgmc9pb(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 10 Nov 06 12:37:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <45535A1F.F229D5D9(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>The best way to avoid a 'mess' is to behave intelligently and avoid >provoking >>>>hostility. >> >>--- >>I think Theodore Roosevelt summed it up quite nicely with "Speak >>softly and carry a big stick" >>--- >> >> >>>You are considered to be the equivalent of vermin in a certain >>>interpretation of the Koran. You do not merit hositility since >>>that would give you an equal standing. >> >>--- >>I agree. >> >> > >Do you also agree with his: > >"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally >treasonable to the American public." I see you took out a piece from the "...". Would that missing piece of the statement have shown the context of the remark? The complaint is valid. The message the Democrat leadership is sending to all the Islamic extremists is that they tacitly approve and won't retaliate. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Nov 2006 08:29 In article <qR%4h.222$yE6.175(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej1rq5$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>Say what you mean exactly instead of making vague allusions. >> >> I don't think I've been vague at all. > >Well, there's where you would be wrong. You make vague assertions, then >when people are forced to infer what you mean, you get all pissy when they >interpret your words differently than you meant them. In addition, there >have been several times when you have made vague assertions that have then >been shown to apply equally well to the US government and the Islamic >extremists, and you get all pissy when someone points that out. > >If you don't want people to have to infer what you mean, then just come out >and say it. I am trying to be explicit. The more explicit I am, it seems the more vaguely my words are read. /BAH
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 08:35
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:58:29 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:7gs9l2d2b5tpkeo6r93fkkp8nskbfitte1(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:11:12 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:vk59l2phvmcn4ilmj8cn6kvgape1ip72h5(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:28:43 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:>>>here. >>>>>Again, I resent having my money wasted in the way that it is. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Move then? >>> >>>Great mindset. >> >> --- >> Just reductio ad absurdum... > >Possibly, however it creates the situation where any complaints or hopes to >improve a much loved country can be met with dismissive retort. --- I'm surprised that you, someone who apparently plays at sophistication missed, along with the Lucas buffoon, the significance of the question mark at the end of "Move then?" Oh, well... -- JF |