Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 10:50 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-6502CB.14263426112006(a)free.teranews.com... > 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 Welsh Law (codified mainly by Hywel Dda) was superceded by English Law 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 ;-) I was always brought up to see "y" as a vowel. (which is why words like why can exist!) W on the other hand.... well.....
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 10:50 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:22:43 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:06:17 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> > >> >Unsettled seems to think the US government is inherently corrupt and that it >> >is not responsive to the will of the people. Odd really, as I thought the US >> >was a democracy. >> >> The fact that you do not *know* tells a lot about just how little >> you do know about the world, much less corruption in it, or the lack >> thereof. > >Whereas you 'know' what you've been told / indoctrinated to believe. > >Graham > No, dolt. The fact that you do not know whether we are a democracy or not. You really are quite slow. You're not a donkey, you're a friggin sloth.
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 10:53 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:17:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. > >False premise commented on. > > >> They have to import people to do the work. > >Like Mexicans in the 'socialist' USA you mean ? > >Graham You're slower than molasses in the dead of winter.
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 10:53 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? It boils down to the simple fact he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
From: krw on 26 Nov 2006 10:55
In article <4569585F.77873811(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power > > > > > > Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if nothing > > > had changed ? > > > > THere is a method (actually two) for changing it. If it needs to > > be changed it can be tried[*]. Until then it is the supreme law of > > the land and must be treated as such or it has no meaning at all; a > > dangerous thing. > > > > [*] NHS won't even get to first base. > > If it's possible for you to accept that an 'NHS' isn't some form of communism, do you > actually have any objection to the idea *in principle* ? You cannot separate the two; certainly. -- Keith |