Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:51 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Gordon wrote: > > > >> I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will > >> achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly. > > > >There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO thought about > >what we're doing. > > --- > LOL, you think that because you're in the dark as to what's going on > behind closed doors that nothing's being done? That's gotta be > pretty close to penultimate arrogance. You're trying to suggest that there's some method to this madness. No. I don't believe that for one second. Bush and his ilk are American supremacists pure and simple. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:52 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> > > >> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that > >> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the > >> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? > >> > > >> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? > >> > > >> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I > >> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with > >> history if you don't like it. > > > >But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? > > > >Graham > > Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. That strikes as being wholly unacceptable. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:53 John Fields wrote: > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:21:44 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's > >> > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. > >> > >> I agree completely. > > > >How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? > > --- > Unless that led to convergence, why would that guarantee cessation > of hostilities? > > The solution is the willingness to look for common ground and to > build a mutually respectful relationship around that island. So where do bombs and guns fit into this ? Graham
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 15:51 On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:37:52 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:UzBUg.49790$E67.22461(a)clgrps13... >> >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> news:5cn5i2tfs8dhlbmarcltqii1bgcrggt3ou(a)4ax.com... >> >>>>Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact. >>>> >>>>That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual >>>>indiscretion yet >>>>not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very >>>>telling >>>>and a very depressing comment on the state of US society. >> >>> You pay _way_ too much attention to the media. >> >> What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to? >> > >Six packs? --- :-) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 15:54
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:3oc7i2hc14krufblrpvgq9cstc115lq4i7(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:29 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:61u2i2pirp98lghk6samgbgfq4f9ria646(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America, >>>> >>>>Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out >>>>the >>>>hate word the very second even the tiniest >>>>criticism is voiced against them. >>>> >>>>It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your >>>>governmemnt and the ppl who elected them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> and makes up things to support that need. >>>> >>>>Simply no need ever to do that ! >>>> >>>> >>>>> So naturally he doesn't like to >>>>> be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that >>>>> the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance. >>>> >>>>The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little >>>>doubt that Russia would have eventually defeated >>>>Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia, >>>>the numbers simply aren't even remotely >>>>credible. >>> >>> --- >>> That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had >>> Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think >>> that you'd still be speaking English as a first language? >> >>And that isn't Monday morning quarterbacking? > > --- > No, it's merely conjecture. A Monday morning quarterback is one who > criticizes or passes judgment from a position of hindsight. Notice > that it was posed as a question, which offers room for a reply. > It was posed as a loaded question - even sentences offer room for reply. The person can simply disagree. Your post was, by the implied answer, passing judgement from a position of hindsight. If it was an honest question, then sorry for jumping to a conclusion and "Yes" is the only answer. Even in poor, constantly invaded Poland, Polish was their first language. Your implication that Russian would take the place of English is not supported by history. |