Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 12:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejf2rl$8ss_015(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <IfqdnQjJRMY1WsXYRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej9mau$8qk_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <iMqdndygs8fA08rYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej725c$8ss_002(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <Tel5h.2388$6t.1435(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ej4gig$8ss_012(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> Why do you think Arabs asked >>>>>>> the western world for help? In all other cases, this would have >>>>>>> been unthinkable. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, that the house of Saud is a US puppet is widely acknowledged >>>>>>around >>>>>>the >>>>>>world. Not unthinkable at all. It just happened to be a slightly >>>>>>neater >>>>>>way of getting things done. >>>>> >>>>> You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Oh no, another irony meter bites the dust. >>>> >>>>Are you asserting here that the Saudi royal family are not widely >>>>considered >>>>a government which is obedient to the US? >>> >>> I'm not asserting. It is politcally dangerous for a Muslim >>> to be associated with Western culture unless that piece of >>> culture has been approved by the Imams (I think that's the >>> name of the people who do approvals). >> >>Yet the Saudi government are widely considered (by Arabs and non-Arabs) to >>be closely associated with the US. > > Why? Is this before or after the first Gulf War? Why? Because the Saudi royal family bend over backwards to accomodate westerners, in particular the US. In exchange, western governments often turn a blind eye to the human rights violation in the country. The Saudis had many issues with the 1979 revolution and appear to have decided siding with the Americans was going to help them fight off a power struggle with the Persians. This was from before GW 1 and continues. >> >>Isn't that strange? > > There is a difference between diplomatic associations and puppets. Yes there is. Perception is the key. > If it were perceived that the Saudis were only puppets to the US, > they would no longer be allowed to rule by their people. Far, far from the truth. The Saudi regime is very oppressive. The people have little say in allowing the government to run. One of UBLs early "complaints" was about the Saudi royal family and he wanted to over throw them. >> >>Now going back to the earlier point, what do you mean when you said >>Lucas's >>post was deluded? > > Which one? Most of them seem to be deluded. Scroll up. You wrote "You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got them." Are you struggling to remember what you write?
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:00 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:63x6h.6421$Sw1.4642(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455A8441.4333989A(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> There's a big difference between reasonable >>> profits coupled with a good value product, and gouge-o-matic >>> practices. One is good old fashioned American capitalism and one is >>> outright theft. Do you know which is which? I have doubts that you >>> could. >> >> LOL ! > > I'd still like to hear his theory of who or what gets to determine what a > "reasonable profit" is. Unless his answer is "the free market", it sounds > like price controls, to me. (Ironically, it is the free market that has > led prices to rise so high.) I've never heard of price controls in pure > capitalism. "Fair profit" does not exist in pure capitalism either. Fair profit can not be deemed by anything other than price controls - the market doesn't recognise it's existence. JoeBloe is another Socialist in denial.
From: Ben Newsam on 15 Nov 2006 13:01 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:03:41 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >The 8M is the sync speed. I've actually transferred data at about 6.5Mbps max in >practice. It is also contended, so you have to fight for that bandwidth with whoever else is sharing it.
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:06 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1jw6h.6411$Sw1.3562(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:GZadnR1moYq8q8fYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ejckhl$8qk_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >>>>> of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >>>>> that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >>>>> eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. >>>> >>>>Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. >>>> >>>>You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are >>>>earning >>>>$200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you live >>>>while >>>>you are saving? What do you eat? >>> >>> When I said plan, I meant long-term planning. That is why people >>> buy their own house and start paying the money they earn while >>> young to pay off the mortgage. When the mortgage is paid off, >>> they don't pay rent. The plan to stay in the house when >>> they quit working. >> >> When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a >> mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? > > The longest common mortgage used to be 30 years, with 15 and 10 not being > uncommon. In the UK we are heading towards longer duration mortgages. One of my employees has just bought a house with a 35 year mortgage (he is 25). The mind boggles at what people are having to do to get a place to live now. >> How much of a deposit is normally put down? > > Typically 10 - 20%, although with the housing market softening, mortgage > companies are starting to do really dodgy things, like suckering people > that can barely afford it into a mortgage with 0% down. When someone is > this financially strapped, it doesn't take much (one appliance failing, > for example) for them to get well and truly upside-down, another term for > "financially fucked". Yes. This is the point I was trying to make to /BAH. Some one earning $200 a week is going to find it hard to save a $10,000 deposit. They have to have some where to live until then! If they go for the income draining 100% mortgages (in the UK you pay a higher interest rate the higher your percentage of the house is), then they are on a financial knife edge. Minimum wage jobs often also come with minimum job security. >> I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not >> lend itself to that kind of living. > > Bingo. When people barely make enough to eat, the financial options > available to them are significantly worse than those with a modest amount > of disposable income. It's a scale that's very non-linear at the bottom > end. Sadly.
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:07
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455A99E1.A3ED916A(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> >> > When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a >> > mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? >> >> The longest common mortgage used to be 30 years, with 15 and 10 not being >> uncommon. >> >> > How much of a deposit is normally put down? >> >> Typically 10 - 20%, although with the housing market softening, mortgage >> companies are starting to do really dodgy things, like suckering people >> that >> can barely afford it into a mortgage with 0% down. When someone is this >> financially strapped, it doesn't take much (one appliance failing, for >> example) for them to get well and truly upside-down, another term for >> "financially fucked". > > I saw the othe day that some UK lenders are now offering 40 yr + mortgages > and > crazy income multiples. It is insane. People are borrowing five times their salary - obviously hoping to get a big bonus or something. I dread to think how they keep up with the repayments. |