Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:34 In article <45695A2A.D1855019(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > In article <4569017C.53F66DE4(a)hotmail.com>, > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > T Wake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Shall we look at Halliburton and think about how it has got the contracts it > > > > > > is currently running? Do you mean to imply there was an open tender and they > > > > > > simply put the best bid in? > > > > > > > > > > It's been interesting to see that none of the right-wingers has responded to my > > > > > comments about Bechtel and Halliburton. They can't refute it, it would seem. > > > > > > > > The assertion has been made so many time I'm tired of answering it. > > > > You actually blew your own legs out on this by by admitting that > > > > that a Brit firm wanted a piece of the action, but wasn't allowed > > > > to since the work was being done with USD. Golden rule. > > > > > > And why was that ? > > > > Seems pretty obvious, dumb donkey. > > > > As I said in another article, US money + US law => US corporation. > > > > You want a Brit company to get the contract, fork over the money. > > I seem to recall there was this little matter of 'forking over' the use of our army, > navy and air force actually for your convenience. How about the construction funds, dumb donkey? Your money, you spend it how you see fit. -- Keith
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:35 In article <grKdnbxZKfNsFPTYRVnygw(a)pipex.net>, usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4569017C.53F66DE4(a)hotmail.com... > > > > > > krw wrote: > > > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> > > >> > > Shall we look at Halliburton and think about how it has got the > >> > > contracts it > >> > > is currently running? Do you mean to imply there was an open tender > >> > > and they > >> > > simply put the best bid in? > >> > > >> > It's been interesting to see that none of the right-wingers has > >> > responded to my > >> > comments about Bechtel and Halliburton. They can't refute it, it would > >> > seem. > >> > >> The assertion has been made so many time I'm tired of answering it. > >> You actually blew your own legs out on this by by admitting that > >> that a Brit firm wanted a piece of the action, but wasn't allowed > >> to since the work was being done with USD. Golden rule. > > > > And why was that ? > > It appears that the golden rule is to work in countries "opened to freedom > and choice" by the Americans you must be an American company. > > If he was trying to imply that to tender for a contract paid in USD you have > to be a US company, this is really, really not true. Clueless fool. -- Keith
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:40 In article <45695694.974F9F44(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > Don Bowey wrote: > > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > > > > > contracts. > > > > > > > > > > Graham > > > > > > > > You just went to the top my extreme-nonsense-author list. > > > > > > You reckon the need for re-construction wasn't considered until after the event ? > > > > > > Why were British companies excluded from tendering ? > > > > US money => US law => US company. Dumb donkey! > > So it *was* to line the pockets of US construction companies then ! Typical dumb donkey logic. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 10:43 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-142F2C.15134426112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <BpWdnSzp7ersM_TYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in >> message >> news:phineaspuddleduck-518B5A.13562126112006(a)free.teranews.com... >> > In article <ydWdnRXxfrDqB_TYnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Sadly, the time was ideal for her to prosper and then by a miracle >> >> enough >> >> people seem to have a blinkered opinion of the period that the other >> >> "bad" >> >> things seem to have been brushed over. >> >> >> >> Her economic policies caused all manner of turmoil and took the best >> >> part >> >> of >> >> a decade to ty and rectify, yet now people seem to have some weird >> >> flashback >> >> about how great things were. >> > >> > I remember the miners strikes vividly due to the utter turmoil they >> > caused in the communities here. >> >> Same here. It was not a good time and it was not a good example of how >> democracy works (on either side). > > For me one of the darker aspects of it was the increasing use of the > police as a political weapon. Miners movements were being restricted, > and aid had to be sent to those families fighting for their very > existence. > > It is telling that there are very few Tories these days who crow for a > return to hardline Thatcherism. It surprises me still that we did not > springboard into a hard-left government directly after, and ended up > with a left (in name only) one. Yeah, I must admit it is a bit of a surprise. I suspect peoples greed is a resilient thing :-)
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:47
In article <ekc7gl$8qk_004(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <456856D8.D3AFF55F(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. Yes, right down to copying patient information, by hand, from one virtual piece of paper to another. Each virtual form replaced a tree form. Tree forms didn't talk to each other. Virtual forms that replaced them, don't either. -- Keith |