Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 08:34 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote > >> > > >> > (quick rule of thumb - Unsettled is an idiot) > >> > >> A massive understatement. Unsettled registers 5.8 Porats on the idiocy > >> scale. > > > > Borats surely ? > > Sorry it was a bit on an "In joke" about the posts Y.Porat makes in > news://sci.physics. Basically he is illiterate and woefully uneducated and > convinced that photons have mass. Any one who disagrees is called a "Nazi" > (or more often than not a Nasi, Nsai or Nzai) and subjected to a tirade of > (badly spelt) insults. I'll have to take a peek then ! Graham
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 08:36 In article <VT9ah.1263$Th4.391(a)newsfe07.lga>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: > Stretch the true ?, you have to start with true before > you can do any stretching. I think there is only one > known stretching method that you're familiar with punk. Every single post of your is an insult, which leads me to believe you don't understand the arguments and are merely trolling. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 08:38 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > >> >contracts. > >> > >> Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. > > > >Actually I think I may have been mistaken about the uncontested bit. > > > >I think some British companies did bid too, so it wasn't uncontested but since > >they were British they weren't allowed to receive US 'reconstruction' funds. > > --- > That doesn't make any sense, since I'm sure they knew the ground > rules before they bid, so why would they waste money putting a bid > package together if they knew they wouldn't win the job? You haven't posted an insult this time ? AIUI certain companies were interested in the possibility of tendering and expressed their interest publicly presumably before the 'rules' were announced. P&O comes to mind as one of them btw. I'm sure one of more our large construction companies were interested too like Tarmac, MacAlpine whatever. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 08:39 In article <45699180.78427DD2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >> of tobacco illegal. > >No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's becoming >illegal. In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts and mine cannot be? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 08:44
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Don Klipstein wrote: > > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > >Don Bowey wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Oregon has it's own medical plan. > > > > > > > > And a fine job they do, letting their mental patients run free to > > > >make threatening phone calls to people. One has lost multiple ISP > > > >accounts for threatening people online, been bared from the local > > > >Wal-Mart, and arrested for trying to run over someone, as well. > > > > > > Are you arguing on basis of the actions of one person in the entire US > > > "state" of Oregon? > > > > It's amazing how often ppl do this. Newspapers do it too. > > > > Graham > > When you want to attack something, you conveniently ignore the 90+% it > does things right and focus peoples minds on the 1% it was very wrong. > Then rather on trying to fix the 1% by improving the system, you push > your own agenda for change. And of course politicians too. The classic one here is blaming the other party for the shortcomings of the NHS as if they all hadn't played their part in it. It gets very shallow very quickly. Graham |