Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:29 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4567396C.7C52AD37(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> >>>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>> >>>>> Being a Usenet PlonkTARD is likely worse. Announcing your filter >>>>>file edits plants you squarely at the bottom of the barrel. >>>> >>>>Oh, you mean like Unsettled does? >>> >>>And lots of the others here (/BAH, Terrell etc). >> >>It's intruiging how us 'socialists' don't have this yearning to cut >>ourselves >>off from opinions we may not agree with. > > > Sadly true. > > >>On the subject of which, during a chat with a very intelligent mate of >>mine >>yesterday he reckoned I should cut my hair and join the Conservative Party >>! He >>reckoned I'd go far. > > > How times have changed :-) The Labour party is privatising things all over > the place, beating down the unions and increasing spending on defence > (including the one time arch enemy of labour - the Nuclear Deterrent!), > while the Tories are going about saying how much they value civil liberties, > want to fight climate change etc. > > Really strange turn of events! :-D Te US saw similar reversals a good while back. Lincoln was a Republican.
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:30 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:456732BC.6010E26E(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >> >>At least they seem to be quite rare then. > > > Fortunately :-) Thanks to the NHS[*] we can still lock up a fair few of our > nutters :-) > > > [*] and the Mental Health Act :-) > > How *do* you keep escaping?
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:32 krw wrote: > In article <45673A08.AADD3B40(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >>krw wrote: >> >> >>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>>>>>delved into why that is. >>>>> >>>>>It's possible that medical technology is too good. >>>> >>>>In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? >>> >>>Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. >> >>I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into it. > > > The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they > would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth > to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, > though everything possible is still attempted. New mothers giving birth to addicted babies are routinely arrested and charged. >>It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to social >>issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. > > > Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was > the direct *cause* of much of this mess. >
From: Don Bowey on 24 Nov 2006 20:33 On 11/24/06 12:11 PM, in article 456751F9.811CA3F0(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> krw wrote: >>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>>>>>> delved into why that is. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's possible that medical technology is too good. >>>>> >>>>> In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? >>>> >>>> Drugs in the inner cities, mainly. >>> >>> I could believe that but I fail to see where medical technology comes into >>> it. >> >> The mothers are crack whores who don't seek medical care (they >> would be found to be crack whores). These mothers then give birth >> to crack addicted infants, usually prematurely and beyond hope, >> though everything possible is still attempted. >> >>> It also sounds fwiw like another failing of US society when it comes to >>> social >>> issues. Pure capitalism is rather poor at dealing with these. >> >> Socialism is worse, as evidenced by "The Great Society", which was >> the direct *cause* of much of this mess. > > Since when has the USA had socialism ? > > Graham > There have been "pockets of socialism in the US, including one (productive and profitable) in Alaska, which remained when the Territory of Alaska became a state. It had no problem inter-working with US law.
From: unsettled on 24 Nov 2006 20:36
T Wake wrote: >>>Physician heal thyself. >>> >>>Wake, you're loony. > > > Amazing. How *do* you keep escaping? |