Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 10:12 In article <1cd33$4566184a$4fe77e2$26508(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Nov 06 15:09:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>I have yet to hear anybody help about this step to a dicatorship; >>>it is very worrisome. > >> You must be an idealist Libertarian or something. As I've mentioned >> here earlier, I grew up working the fields as a child to make the >> money I needed to eat, lived in a home without walls, begged for food >> at grocery stores, and I did NOT have medical care. There is NO >> possible excuse for a society such as ours with children growing up as >> I did, after my father died. It's inexcusable. Period. > >> It has nothing to do with dictatorship. It has everything to do with >> being compassionate. Something, perhaps, you lack? > >The fact is we've made a point of looking after orphans >since the earliest days of the US, so I really don't >understand the basis for your history. I understand. /BAH
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 10:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek6peu$8ss_004(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ek5979$t07$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to >>>>have >>>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of >>>>local >>>>control. >>> >>>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>>the economics, the system becomes communism. >> >>You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >>are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >>organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. > > Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a > large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any > other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told > what to do all the time. Socialists do not generally require the control of dissenters. Socialists _generally_ think more towards individual freedoms than communists. Be carefull about the wide ranging assumptions you make here, if we put the US under the spot light some of your "signs of communism" may become visible. >> >>Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. > > No. That's the sound bite. It is impossible to large and efficient > with a central control. No, that really is a sound bite. > There have to be too many layers of > managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production > is done. Do you mean to say the US military is very inefficient? > Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all > innovation has to be squelched. Incorrect assumption. > Gradually, enforcement has to resort > to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't > fake compliance. Again, starting with incorrect assumptions tends to lead to false assessment.
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 10:22 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:rqccm258t0llkqugcamvgj39edlfmfi02r(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:31:27 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>Such a grown up insult. You are such a witty genius. > > Better than what you have coming up... What is that then? >> >>Seriously, when you and Frazir get it on, who is the daddy? > > Oh boy! That was *real* mature... NOT! I don't claim to be mature. I simply claim to be more mature than you. That said, you still haven't answered the question. Is it Frazir? Are you a bit ashamed about that?
From: T Wake on 24 Nov 2006 10:23 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456659BB.4CBD9819(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message, >> >>>>>>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>So who are you then? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My moniker is in some listings. JMF's is in all the listings. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Stop alluding then. Tell us. Listings of what? This is USENET, as >> >>>>>>it >> >>>>>>stands, >> >>>>>>based on your recent posts you are currently as believable as tj >> >>>>>>Frazir. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> As if a twit like you, resting only one notch above TJ Frazir, >> >>>>> could >> >>>>> judge anyone else. >> >>>> >> >>>>At least I, unlike you, am that one notch above Frazir. Even he >> >>>>laughs >> >>>>at your posts. >> >>> >> >>> You're an idiot. >> >>> >> >>> He can't even spell the words laugh, your, or post, much less know >> >>> what they mean. >> >> >> >>Yet he still has you beaten hands down. Pretty sad really. I feel sorry >> >>for you. >> >> >> > You need to stop looking in a mirror when you are thinking up your >> > replies. It shows, terribly. >> >> Yeah, works well with five year olds - but that is about all you can deal >> with really. You are pathetic, and as such, you really do have my >> sympathy. >> Hopefully one day you will be able to take your place as an adult in >> society - but at the moment, that day is far, far away. > > I'm sure there must be some ppl in the UK as stupid and bigoted as JoeBloe > but > it seems at least they don't post on Usenet. Sadly, some do. Androcles on news://sci.physics is a good candidate. Some of the other newsgroups have examples of English bigots who are probably posting from padded cells.
From: lucasea on 24 Nov 2006 10:25
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:542fc$45657734$4fe7682$23423(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > Lucas and Wake are, without a doubt, agitator class > Marxist socialists. Lucas keeps denying it, but all > the words and concepts are there from both of them. Think what you want, you've done that throughout this thread--ignore the truth and make up facts to justify your rantings. Label me what you will--it is your loss to ignore a point of view just because you have chosen to label it. Trust me, there are lots and lots of people in this country that share my views. More than half, if you believe the latest "poll" results (i.e., the recent election). Label us and ignore us at your own peril. By the way, nice disingenuous arguing tactic--you refuse to address my comments directly, instead hurling insults from a distance, then refusing to answer to the criticism of them. I thought you said you were going to ignore what I had to say? Or was that only as a tactic for "winning" arguments? > Neither of them has any real depth in the things they > write. I think that's because they're dealing out of a > backdrop of recitational knowledge of their beliefs, > learned much as we learned the times tables as children > without a really good handle on numbers systems and > all those associated concepts. The problem, of course, > is that they'll never progress past the point they've > achieved. Just because a fact is simple, doesn't mean that it is untrue, or it is unimportant to make sure that people get that simple fact right. You might want to consider getting the simple facts correct before you impose all of your complex analysis upon them. All I've been doing in this thread is pointing out incorrect facts and illogical conclusions drawn from those facts. 6X9 = 54 might be simple recitational fact, but it is still very important to get it right, and to point out the incorrect statement when someone says "6X9 = 25". > Like so many things that are only superficially > understood by them, You might want to consider getting the superficial facts correct before you attempt to analyze them. > I'll start thinking that the healthcare system is failing > when we start to see a significant decline in US life > expectancy. So far, it seems to me, that has been increasing. The failure of the US health care system has nothing to do with lifespans or anything like that. The failure of the US healthcare system has to do with the fact that 1 out of every 5 people in this country has no health care because they cannot afford it. Period. Like I said, get the simple facts correct before you try to impose your interpretation. > The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > delved into why that is. I suspect it has to do with the fact that some people refuse to concede that the birth of a child is a life-changing event. When you see mothers holding children while a lit cigarette hangs out of their mouth, you begin to get an understanding of why we don't "do well with infant mortality". > Given the number of abortions > we do in this country I wonder if some of them aren't > simply a cruel form of post partum abortion. Nice disingenuous tactic--take a hot button issue that you wish to influence peoples' opinions against, like abortion, and then imply without any sort of data whatsoever, that it is responsible for some major failing of our society. Typical neo-con tactic. > See also > the "Who is the father of my baby" genre television > talk shows of recent times. Is *that* where you get your information? That would explain a lot. Eric Lucas |