Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 23:22 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:8tpkl21887k6k7mmfphoicckl50f2ks1u0(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:00:10 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <_fadnZyBlKEt2svYRVnytA(a)pipex.net>, >>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>news:dgrbl2tp8gllrf3vcia0uembocqs0v9aei(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:33:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> But not understanding >>>>>what he's talking about never stopped him anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> Severe understatement. >>> >>>Wow. Yet another irony meter goes. >> >>I suggest a PTC, a MOV, a SIDAC, a Gas-tube Surge >>Protector, a fuse and a spark gap, if you are going to keep bringing your >>irony meters near this thread. >> >>You may want to add a spike snubbing inductor as well just to be safe. >> > > You're an idiot, SmithTARD! Would an opto-isolator get rid of this noise? :^) Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 23:24 unsettled wrote: > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>unsettled wrote: > > >>> > >>>>They should work for what they're worth rather than > >>>>what you think they're worth. > >>> > >>> Can you live on nothing? > >> > >>False dilemma. > >> > >>I earned very well because I was paid what my > >>work was worth. > > > > Yet you expect others to live on nothing? > > We have a number of welfare systems for those > whose work is worth nothing, so yes, certainly. The 'work house' ? Graham
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 23:25 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > unsettled wrote: > >>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >>>>the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >>>>some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >>>>you need you should contact them because they have >>>>programs to assist those living in poverty needing >>>>their products. >>> >>> >>> >>> Have you ever tried to qualify someone for free drugs? Every one >>>I've tried to help was denied. >> >>Were they living in poverty? > > > > Yes. Well under $10,000 income per year. One of them finally got > her disability and some medical help just in time. She almost lost her > feet due to blood clots, and has had to undergo six operations to > install stints to improve her circulation. She has spent the better > part of this year in and out of the hospital. > > The others are still waiting, and hoping. https://www.pfizerhelpfulanswers.com/StartEvaluation.aspx I assume they're all similar.
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 23:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:af2fc$455a6697$4fe40db$12195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Don Bowey wrote: > >> By the way, who helped you get the wage you receive(d)? > > Here's a bit of news for you. > > I negotiated it based on my performance and reports from > those I formerly did work for. I discovered something > pretty simple that seems to elude several of you > posting to this thread. Employers will gladly pay > someone for any exceptional value they bring to the job. ....and apparently for that ego, too. > There's a Marxist-socialist undercurrent in this > discussion which seems to want to equate the value > of all work and all workers. You're hearing things that people aren't saying. Nobody said anything about wanting to "equate the value of all work and all workers", not even close. That would be your hyperbole you added, because you couldn't make a cogent argument without it. It's called a "strawman". > It never works that way unless artificial controls are > imposed. And that would be you slicing the strawman in half. > > If you say 'nobody' you're a fool. > > I helped me get the wages I received. You're a fool not to recognize the others that helped, as well...even if their contribution wasn't immediately obvious to you. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 23:28
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't > >> >> >living on"$2/day". > >> >> > >> >> Right. It was $2/month. > >> > > >> > And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? > >> > >> The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in 1960s > >> dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for inflation, > >> and > >> 2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added at > >> least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. > > > > $50 in 1960 would be equivalent to $316 in 2005. > > That's only 4% per year for the past 45 years? Seems awfully low. > > Still, even at $316, that's a far cry from $2/month. > > Oh, and by the way, typical college room and board, which she said she paid, > includes rent and food, so that $2 didn't include her lodging or her daily > eating needs. > > Those rose-colored glasses she's wearing are another part of what makes her > resist change with every fiber of her being. I suspect she thinks everyone has the same advantages she did back then like the included food. Graham |