Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 09:26 In article <3eadnQD-tbZCPfTYnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:co8ah.15761$9v5.12967(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > > > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > > news:phineaspuddleduck-CFED3B.14281925112006(a)free.teranews.com... > >> In article <phineaspuddleduck-DA5DCC.14260525112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> They do NOT have a uniform political basis tho. > >> > >> To add. Although the act of Union between England and Wales meant that > >> Welsh Law (codified mainly by Hywel Dda) was superceded by English Law > >> (even though in a lot of ways Hywel's laws were better) - the act of > >> Union between Scotland and England did not - there is a wealth of > >> Scottish law that is unique to them. > > > > Actually, what I *really* wanna know is, who decided that it was a good > > idea to make "w" a vowel. > > Depends if you see "y" as a vowel. Now you see how we in Wales are more inclusive then you, we say "Let them BOTH be vowels, if they want too". We don't allow consonant based prejudice here, boyo ;-) -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 09:26 In article <eka0ov$lag$14(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ek9k74$8qk_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ek7g2j$hv4$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ek4cee$8qk_008(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ek37ho$2pn$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[...] >>>>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper >>>> >>>> >>>>The paper is needed. >>> >>>No, *some* paper may be needed. >> >>You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >>paper was created to solve a problem. > >As you agree below, that problem may not exist anymore. It also may not >have existed on the day it was "solved". Sure it did. You don't understand how processes evolve. > > >> Each step and check of that >>step was created to solve a problem. > >You are assuming no "blockers" were involved. Blockers create extra >paperwork because they see paperwork as an ends not a means. No, they see it as a means of control. That is what processes need. > > >> All processes, bit flows, >>work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >>processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >>the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >>these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >>will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. > >So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. Processes evolve. What once was necessary is only there because deleting the step would cause more breakage; leaving the step in doesn't break anything. > Now we can go back to >the argument about what its effect is on the economy. I suppose. > > >>The fact that not many get weeded out is due to the dynamics >>and psychology of people. They will protect their territory. > >It is also because once a system works at all many people will assume it >is perfect. ARe you kidding? Everybody bitches about the other guy's control. > >[.....] >>What you do is investigate the history of that step. Learn how >>it was implemented. Learn what problem it was to supposed to solve. >>You may be surprised that the problem is still there but caged >>by the paperwork delay. > >No, we were talking about the economic effect of the needless paperwork. I'm saying that you cannot identify which is needless. I can think of some cases, where a delay is inserted in a process so that the processing works more smoothly. The delay, by itself, is completely unnecessary; howver, in context of the whole process, it is what keeps the timing exactly correct. >As soon as we agree that some must exist, we can go onto the real core of >the discussion about the economics. No, we can't. You keep using an incorrect assumption. I don't see how using a false premise is going to create any useful discussion because conclusions using a false premise will produce thread drifts. They would be a waste of our ASCII time. Once more I'll try an analogy even though they don't seem to work in this thread. You are essentially asking me to assume that any high school chemistry lab can make gold out of pencil erasers. Then you want to discuss the effects of shutting down all gold mines on the economy. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 09:31 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. I can't wait for the ban on smoking in pubs to come into force here ! > >> 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. Ones that are no longer relevant like paying the doctor in eggs or chickens do seem somewhat out of place in this day and age. Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 09:32 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > > >> >>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper > >> >> > >> >>The paper is needed. > >> > > >> >No, *some* paper may be needed. > >> > >> You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of > >> paper was created to solve a problem. Each step and check of that > >> step was created to solve a problem. All processes, bit flows, > >> work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of > >> processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure > >> the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some > >> these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper > >> will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. > > > >Over here my GP now types his notes straight into a PC. No paper is needed. > > Oh, good grief. Editing direction: > > For all instances of the word paper, insert > virtual in front of it. That is somewhat different to be honest. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 09:29
In article <phineaspuddleduck-B8D548.13474726112006(a)free.teranews.com>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ekc2ot$8ss_004(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >Just plonk the duck. He's never come close to write anything worth >> >reading. >> >> I'm already ignoring two: one because of posting repititious >> drivel and the other by his request. Every once in a while >> somebody does chime in with an interesting post. > >KRW said this has he is feeling overwhelmed. Unfortunately he has >misunderstood the idea of a public USENET. Oh, my. My, my, my, my. YOu really should figure out whom you are talking about before you pull outrageous boners like this one. > Plus with the Animal Farm >reference going completely over his head as well.... ARe you talking about denizens of this thread? /BAH |