Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 20:01 On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:43:00 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >news:eghel21umi202n5ohm1kngi4v4s0g838k3(a)4ax.com... >> >> I'm with you on that one. When I heard of the bombings in London last >> year, I said to myself "They picked the wrong city to bomb this time, >> London will just carry on as normal". > >The media here picked up on that. It was an admirable response. When I lived in London in the 70s, it used to annoy the hell out of me when they shut down the entire Tube network for hours every time some IRA arsehole left a small bomblet in a litter bin and phoned a newspaper about it. Those bombs still have repercussions today, you won't see litter bins on any railway station any more.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Nov 2006 20:09 unsettled wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > unsettled wrote: > > > >>I never met anyone who grew up during the great depression > >>who didn't think they had a good life and a good childhood > >>on account of not having much. > >> > >>Take the model of hunter-gatherer tribes. They wouldn't > >>begin to understand a value system that thought they are > >>just "existing." Still the totality of their posessions > >>was limited to what they could carry. > > > > > > > > So? If they had to move, they didn't have to worry about what to > > leave behind. > > Yes, so very little which took significant investment in > time and energy, that means wealth in posessions, was > accumulated. Only such things as they could carry. > > > As long as they could eat, clothe themselves and keep a > > roof over their heads, they had what mattered to them. > > So the definition of "living" as oposed to "surviving" which > spawned this bit of discussion was clearly invalid > > Do you realize how insane the discussions by Lucas, Eeyore, > Newsam, and Wake are after this point (your posting) in > time? They're feeding off one another now. I think if > any opposition to their philosophy stops right here they > are quite capable of carrying on congratulating one another > for another 10K posts. Who? Oh, yeah, I kill filed all of them long ago. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Nov 2006 20:12 Jamie wrote: > > I'm sorry, you still haven't gone back far enough that gave > justification to "John Fields" comment. > Keep side stepping, you're dance is getting entertaining. Like the "Dancing Ducks" on "WKRP in Cincinnati"? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 20:45 Ben Newsam wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <wnl5h.2390$6t.198(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > >> >They don't have insurance, and cannot afford to go to a doctor. Pretty > >> >simple, really. > >> > > >> >> That is > >> >> the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being > >> >> based on whether you have insurance or not. > >> > > >> >I agree--so why not make sure everyone has the effective equivalent of > >> >insurance...i.e., a nationalized health care system. > >> > >> Why not remove the insurance altogther? > > > >The NHS *isn't* an insurance funded system ! > > Although for a while it sort of pretended to be. You had to have a > card with actual physical stamps stuck on it, called an NHI card, > where NHI stood for National Health Insurance. The idea was that the > contributions funded the whole thing, but that was a convenient lie, > there is no ring-fenced fund at all. Not in recent times for sure. The NHS gets a decent chunk of general taxation too. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 20:46
Ben Newsam wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:49:10 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Ben Newsam wrote: > >> You don't have to cross the Atlantic to encounter confusion over the > >> words "sink" and "well", (both nouns, and also verbs associated with > >> the appearance or disappearance of water into or out of the ground). > >> What we in England call a "sink", the arrangement in the kitchen for > >> holding water that has taps (Damn! Faucets!) and a plughole, is known > >> as a "well" in Scotland, or at least in certain parts of it. > > > > A tap is for threading holes. > > Yes we have those too. And let's not get into a long discussion about > "cocks" and their various translations and meanings in various > European languages... Stopcocks ? Graham |