Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 19:33 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:19:46 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >>>> >> >>>>>Not that we're >> >>>>>lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >> >>>>>snacks either. >> >>>> >> >>>>How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >> >>>>high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus >> >>>>unum" >> >>>>to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" >> >>> >> >>>Fields has warranted a nickname. >> >>> >> >>>Impaler ! >> >> >> >> >> >> No, that would need to be 'almost Impaler.' Doesn't quite rank up >> >> there with the best of them, yet. ;) >> > >> > >> > Several of you need to get back on your meds. >> >> Hey, it was Fields that pointed out that our standard for decency involves >> not cannibalizing our young. > >The phrase 'ignorant swine' was coined for the likes of Impaler Fields. --- I think not. "Ignorant swine", ISTM, refers to stupid pigs who can't see beyond, and therefore welcome, the swill they're fed. Like you and your swinish cohorts. -- JF
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 19:34 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:f223d$45565fb7$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ben Newsam wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of what >>>the patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the >>>doctor thinks is the best treatment? >> >> >> I would imagine that under a system where anyone can visit any >> specialist at any time, the best specialists would be inundated with >> rich hypochondriacs wasting their time. > > That doesn't seem to happen much in the US. I don't > need a referral to see a specialist. Sentence #1 doesn't follow from sentence #2 above. In fact, sentence #1 is simply wrong. Your anecdote aside, anybody who has an HMO for their health care (i.e., most of the people insured through their jobs by corporate concerns) must go through their PCP (primary care physician) to get to a specialist...at least they do if they want the HMO to pay for it. Eric Lucas
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 20:52 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:20:48 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote >> >> Gratuitous bullshit. > >This is cool! Instead of posting a bunch of gratuitous bullshit like he >usually does, the unsettled one simply posts the words "gratuitous >bullshit", and saves everyone the time reading. Kinda like the famous Rene >Magritte painting. Ceci n'est pas usenet
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 05:49 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:uYt5h.734$yE6.425(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:d3be2$45565f5f$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:45564091.D091A51D(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Another example is the recent trial of Nick Griffin (the leader of the >>>>>BNP), >>>>>in which a court has acquitted him of race hate. Now personally I find >>>>>it >>>>>shocking to acquit the likes of Griffin and it is somewhat similar to >>>>>saying >>>>>the Pope isn't Catholic but at the end of the day, whether I like it or >>>>>not, >>>>>he has been acquitted. Following this John Reid says current laws may >>>>>need >>>>>reviewing. Surely this is madness. John Reid has judged Griffin guilty >>>>>and >>>>>intends to change the laws until he can get a jury to think the same. >>>> >>>>From what I've heard of the Griffin case it seems to me that he was >>>>being >>>>critical of Islam. >>> >>> >>> Which is reasonable enough. >>> >>> >>>>Because (a) he wasn't singling out a group by ethnicity as such and (b) >>>>because >>>>I'd hate to see some forms of criticism made illegal, I'm very glad he >>>>got >>>>acquitted. >>> >>> >>> I agree. It is a sad day, though, when I find myself hoping a racist >>> bigot will be let off... >> >> Even if it is anti-American bigotry such as you promote >> in these newsgroups? > > Sorry, nice try. Just because you disagree when he points out fact that > you don't like about the US doesn't make it "bigotry". Learn the > language. > As normal, Unsettled has no idea what he is talking about and just feels the need to post something vaguely insulting. I am certainly not "Anti-American" and there is lots to admire about the nation. Sadly, some bigots feel that _any_ criticism can be shot down with claims like this.
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 06:07
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:fmicl29s9l1lkjcroaqam5u80nklu7ofr5(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:38:34 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>In the instance you cite above it is a harder call as to the law for >>double >>jeopardy, but it remains that a law has been changed because of emotional >>issues. While I don't know the ins and outs of the new legislation, >>unless >>is hinges on the defendant later admitting guilt I cant see how it is >>fair. >>While double jeopardy was a "law" it required the prosecution build the >>strongest possible case, knowing they only had one shot. I am not saying >>it >>_will_ happen but there is now the possibility of many smaller, poorly >>evidenced trials on the "off chance" that the jury will convict. Although >>it >>has the best intentions, this is a popularist law which has the potential >>of >>causing more harm than good. > > I don't think the changes as a result of the Dunlop case were done for > emotional reasons. It took 20 years to mget the conviction after a lot > of hard work. Apart from the unusual and gruesome circumstances of the > discovery of the body, it was an unremarkable murder in other ways. The individual case was most probably not done for emotional reasons, but the thinking behind the overhaul of the law is probably not as "unemotional" as it should be. A law changed to arrest and prosecute a single person would be wrong and I suspect this is not the case here. The combination of public opinion about trials in which "assumed guilty" persons were let off was the main driving force (at least overtly) for this reform. > As I understand it there has to be either an admission of guilt, as in > the Dunlop case, or compelling new evidence. DNA evidence would count > as new in many cases of course. I don't have a problem with that. If > someone is guilty and can be proved to be, then they should be > prosecuted. The pre-assumption here becomes the person is guilty. This is what I have a problem with. English law presumes innocence. To declare new evidence "compelling enough" pre-judges the case and cant help but have an impact on the jury. > I am reasonably confident that there are enough checks and > balances against the wilful multiple prosecution of suspects merely > hoping for a lucky conviction in the end. The media would jump on it, > for one thing. Well, I hope they would anyway. Yes, they probably would. In todays climate there are indeed enough checks and balances. The reason I raised this in the first place is it is part of a larger whole in which previously held freedoms are being ebbed away one small step at a time. All it needs is another government to be formed with a large majority, some more fear-mongering about Islamic terrorism and lots of press releases saying "it makes you safer." And I am aware of the irony in the fact that I am fearmongering here on a par with the Islamic-terror-brigade. For me personally, the slow overhaul of the freedoms I grew up to think natural is much more frightening than the off chance some idiot might strap explosives to themselves in a rush to see God. >>Another example is the recent trial of Nick Griffin (the leader of the >>BNP), >>in which a court has acquitted him of race hate. Now personally I find it >>shocking to acquit the likes of Griffin and it is somewhat similar to >>saying >>the Pope isn't Catholic but at the end of the day, whether I like it or >>not, >>he has been acquitted. Following this John Reid says current laws may need >>reviewing. Surely this is madness. John Reid has judged Griffin guilty and >>intends to change the laws until he can get a jury to think the same. > > Well, there I agree with you completely. Odious though the fellow's > views are, in the words of the Law Lords in a case I was acquainted > with: "There is no need to regret the failure of an attempt to make > the facts fit a law that was not meant to contain them". Nicely said. |