Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9ijm$8qk_006(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. The Magna Carta pre-dates the act of union by a significant amount. Scottish and potentially NI law is not "founded" on the dictates of the Magna Carta. Little of English and Welsh law is. By _your_ reasoning then, there is not a uniform basis. Which falsifies _your_ previous statement that "It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a uniform government, and a uniform political base of assumptions." Still, I very much doubt you will question any of your preconceptions based on your own falsification of one of them. Hopefully some one will reply to this and you will see it. If not, never mind.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9jcn$8qk_002(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-6DC9F9.14143025112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>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. >> > My statement about a uniform political basis did not mean that > all were exactly alike. Was this really not written clearly enough? No. What did you mean? They do not even stem from the same basic laws (England falling back on the laws of the Saxon and Danes, Wales and Scotland having a more British history, NI being a conglomerate of them all will lots of special powers due to the troubles) any more than every state in the US has a uniform political basis.
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 14:10 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45685444.51ABCB71(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> My statement about a uniform political basis did not mean that >> all were exactly alike. Was this really not written clearly enough? > > Apparently not. > > You used the idea to suggest that the UK was more uniform that the USA > whereas > we've contended it is no such thing. And now, as always, she is twisting and turning to make it seem like she meant something else.
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 14:13 In article <t9pgm2lappghenv9lv745anspgnte4vcnr(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:18:58 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >> > > >> > Her view is that for ordinary medical care there > >> > should be no insurance. There should be insurance > >> > in cases where medical care becomes financially > >> > catestrophic for median income people. > >> > > >> > This would keep routine and ordinary medical care > >> > affordable to everyone. That's pretty much how things > >> > were when she and I were kids. > >> > >> Ahh, the good-old-days argument. Well, you might be interested to know > >> that, in those halcyon days, doctors didn't make more than 10X the national > >> average income. Things have changed since then, and in ways that we cannot > >> go back. But the, you've got yours, so why should you care if anyone else > >> gets proper care? > > > >In the 'good old days' cancer was a death sentence. Today most forms are very > >treatable with good outcomes. Same is true for many other conditions. > > > >Thank goodness the 'good old days' are no longer with us. > > --- > These _are_ the good old days. For the lefty loons the "good old days" == "My parent's days (when my every need was met, down to wiping snot from my nose)". -- Keith
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 14:21
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ek9gda$8ss_002(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <456844E0.DCECFFCA(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>What nonsense is this now ? >>>>> >>>>>Where *do* you get these ideas ? >>>> >>>>I think about what I read. >>> >>>You'r reading garbage in that case. >> >>Historians write garbage? De Touqueville wrote garbage? The >>framers of our Constitution wrote garbage? Thatcher wrote >>garbage? Churchhill wrote garbage? Generals wrote garbage? > > > Yes to all the above. If Thatcher wrote a book about the development of Iron > age cultures in the La Tene region, it would probably be garbage. I have > read books by Generals which have been nonsense. So you're really just another "rebel without a cause". Finally I understand. Good. > You repeatedly commit the authority fallacy. You assume because person X is > famous, what they write must be true. Autobiographies are the worst > offenders and normally full of self serving nonsense. > > As for historians, well yes they do sometimes write garbage. For an example > find some texts written in the early twentieth century about the rise of > Barbarians at the fall of the Roman Empire and compare it to books written > in the last ten years. One group must be writing garbage. > > You have no frame of reference with which to detect your author's bias - and > _all_ historians have a bias. This means you have no way of determining what > is incorrect, what is blown out of proportion and what is simply incorrect. > > It may shock you to know this, but sometimes famous people make mistakes. > Sometimes world leaders make mistakes, sometimes Generals do, sometimes > presidents do (etc). > > If Thatcher wrote something about 1980s Britain which was wrong, how would > _you_ know it was wrong? > > |