Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 11 Nov 2006 12:46 In article <MPG.1fbe66ec423f59d8989ae3(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [....] >> Almost certainly, although its use as surface boards on decks has been a >> problem--it gets really slippery when it's wet. > >"Trex", and the like, doesn't look like it would be slippery. The stuff that uses mineral dust to color it redish, doesn't get slippery. I think the surface has a microscopic grit to it and I suspect that something about it prevents slime. > >-- > Keith -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Nov 2006 12:49 In article <ej4j53$8ss_024(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >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. Nonsense. The democrats have only said that they won't attack some unrelated country and won't blunder about on the world stage like a bunch of heavily armed drunks. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 12:46 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:25:00 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ben Newsam wrote: > >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >>>The fact is that some jobs >>>aren't worth "minimum wage". >> >> >> Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you >> would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? >> >> The trouble with naked capitalism is that it doesn't just produce >> winners and wealth, it actually requires losers and poverty to >> operate. Because otherwise there would be no incentive to do anything, >> would there? The "pure" capitalist system actually requires that some >> people starve to death just to make sure that the oiks get back to >> their slave labour. > >Been reading too much Marx of late? ha! If you think I am anywhere near being a Marxist, you know very little about anything.
From: Ken Smith on 11 Nov 2006 13:01 In article <a317f$455504ac$4fe76a4$1154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > [....] >> What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the religion >> people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to >> religion-derived law though. > >If you're actually an athiest then you know that >religion is derived from the human experience. No, many athiests would disagree. To many of them religion can be traced to an instinct to follow a strong leader or father figure. It would in that case not be the result of human experience but instead be the result of ape experience. >If not, then why would you worry about this? Only >a worry if you've crossed swords with the almighty. People worry about other people's beliefs in all other areas so why not in this case? The christian right has characterized their failure to get everything they want as a "war on christianity" when in fact over the last several years, they have made great strides. This because it is hard to fire up your troops with "we haven't got quite everything yet". Movies, folk songs and epic poems are written about people who strove on against enormous odds and not (at least not favorably) about the ones that killed the last member of the other side. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 13:02
John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:20 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the religion > >people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to > >religion-derived law though. > > --- > Like the prohibition of murder and theft? What does that have to do with religion ? Graham |