Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 09:10 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <6fccf$45670c62$4fe76e5$31568(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <MPG.1fcf9771c508b2b6989c41(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >>>>says... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>>>>>>>>>says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>appreciate that capitalism has a soul. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>(Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>To define a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >>>>>>>>>>>>>embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >>>>>>>>>>>>>imposition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair >>> >>>profit" >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>really means. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>>>>>>>>>>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>>>>>>>>>>not it is not "fair". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>>>>>>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>>>>>>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>>>>>>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>>>>>>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>>>>>>>for the same journey and ticket. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>>>>>>>compelled to buy it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples >>> >>>where >>> >>> >>>>>>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >>>>>> >>>>>>/BAH >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? >>>> >>>>It's not particularly caring nor compassionate to force money from >>>>one person to give it to another. The Salvation Army and even the >>>>Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG in the past couple >>>>of disasters. >> >>>Red Cross isn't any good either. It's run with a government model. >>>The Walmarts and other retail did the best. People should be >>>wondering why and then take another look at all social programs >>>not managed well by governments. >> >>Because they limit themselves to management skills rather than >>embracing people with entrepreneurial skills. > > > I don't think so. I think it was because a business can interrupt > its usual activities to pay attention to an emergency; it doesn't > matter whether tha emergency is internal or external. > > The Red Cross spent its time establishing its territorial imperative > rather than hunkering down and doing the work, leaving the > territorial meetings to occur weeks later. Ability to adapt rapidly to meet changing conditions is one of the important aspects of entrepreunarism. Filling out forms, pecking order games, and territorial meetings are in the management realm. Not all business have entreprenaurial skills. It is impressive that one as large as Walmart has retained the capability.
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:05 In article <45672D76.2B46C928(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >> >> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >> >> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >> >> > >> >> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >> >> > >> >> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a >> >> >good >> >> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it is >> >> >for sure essentially 'no frills'. >> >> >> >> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >> >> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. >> > >> >It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in >> >each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to >> >that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? >> >The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. >> >> It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each >> of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws >> supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases >> where the Feds want control and the states say no. > >Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will >Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act together >again. I thought those places based their politics on ideas started with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform basis. /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 09:11 In article <ek9ig1$8qk_005(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. > > You are blind. > It doesn't. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Nov 2006 09:06 In article <45673618.53BD60(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >> >>> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >> >>> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >> >>> > >> >>> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >> >>> > >> >>> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a >> >>> > good >> >>> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it >> >>> >is for sure essentially 'no frills'. >> >>> >> >>> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >> >>> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. >> >> >> >>It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in >> >>each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to >> >>that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? >> >>The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. >> > >> > It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each >> > of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws >> > supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases >> > where the Feds want control and the states say no. >> >> The law in Scotland is different from the law in England. Why do you think >> they are the same? > >It would appear to be another of her mis / preconceptions. > >Mnay Americans don't even realise the UK is made up of 4 countries. And I was thinking of the Magna Carta. /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 09:14
In article <ek9ijm$8qk_006(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will > >Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act > together > >again. > > I thought those places based their politics on ideas started > with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform > basis. There is a varying degree of autonomy in the four nations that make up the Uk. I live in one of them (Wales) with a National Assembly that has secondary legislative powers and some primary legislative powers (now) in a limited field. Hence whey they are able to vary their legislation to take into account of different local conditions. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |