Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 09:15 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4568ECCD.C24602FB(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > 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. > > Did she plonk you ? She claims to "Ctrl+R" my posts, and I can only assume that on here antique software that means mark as read without downloading the message. > How unreasonable ! Lots of other people have done it, so I can live with it.
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 09:11 In article <45699BCB.BDACF454(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: >> > >> >> 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. > >That sounds like simple 'scaremongering' to me. It's exactly how the current laws barring all people from smoking in all public places started. > > >> 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? > >Which personal experiences ? You've posted many and I've posted very few. That >seems to contradict your assertion. ARe you being ignorant on purpose? You don't allow me to use facts that happens in my life as a valid debating point. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 09:17 T Wake wrote: > "neo" <MATREEX(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > > This thread is closed. > > Really, thanks for letting me know. I declare this thread open for business. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 09:12 In article <phineaspuddleduck-4AAD24.13454326112006(a)free.teranews.com>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >> of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started >> in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, >> you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's >> largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves >> Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable >> people. > >Blanket generalisation? It's not my usual style but it appears to be the case in this state now. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 09:19
unsettled wrote: > John Fields wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>unsettled wrote: > >>>Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are > >>>>>areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! > >>>> > >>>>Thats pretty rich coming from a poster who has to try hard to be > >>>>noticeable, let alone interesting. It seems the quality of political > >>>>debate in the UK is far more mature as we grew out of calling people > >>>>"leftist" or "rightist" as insults quite a while ago. > >>> > >>>Yes indeed, and grew cruder in the process. > >> > >>The USA has taken crudity to an entirely new level. > > > > --- > > Yes, now we even _talk_ to Brits. > > > Try to, actually. But it doesn't seem to work, they continue > to think the world revolves around them. It does. UTC is *Greenwich* time. Graham |