Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 11:15 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:46:10 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I wonder what'll happen when all their old farts finally die off ? --- Ask Pete Townsend. -- JF
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 11:18 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:36:26 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:dt7gm2tlnloik6hbil6unchvspc3i6eqjq(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:38:32 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> > >>>> >In Canada, the provinces are really about as independant as the states >>>> >in >>>> >the US. >>>> >>>> Isn't Canada also under the UK? >>> >>>Canada's an independent country now ! I has been for some time in fact. >>> >>>Graham >> >> >> Do you mean to tell me that the Queen's visage is no longer on their >> coins?! Oh my! > >Yeah, so? George Washington is still on our quarter, but he hasn't been the >actual leader of our country for over 200 years. > >Eric Lucas > It is utterly obvious that you completely missed the point.
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 11:18 In article <phineaspuddleduck-F709AE.15044526112006(a)free.teranews.com>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ekc8bc$8qk_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > 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. > >What do you mean. krw warne dyou to plonk me. Flu playing with your head? Nope. Not in this case. krw gave me a hint that I might want to make all of yours calls a skip return. > >> >> > Plus with the Animal Farm >> >reference going completely over his head as well.... >> >> ARe you talking about denizens of this thread? > >Earlier post - four legs good, two legs bad. Now read Ayn Rand's version of _Animal Farm_. /BAH
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 11:23 In article <44qdnccZZ7DjIfTYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Really? Do you? It was an apt comment for him to make at the point it was > made - unless you are talking about KRW as it seems, in which case - yes, > you are correct. Unsettled has a unrequited love affair after I plonked him. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 11:22
In article <sjejm2p8s46sf4nj6e287dni4pu8ga71ir(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 26 Nov 06 13:39:04 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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? > >--- >If I may chime in for a second... > >Good catch! > >It's because Graham isn't in it for the discussion and the exchange >of information, he's in it for the win and in order to gain an >unfair advantage he tries to stack the deck. Oh, but graham isn't the only one using this tactic. It caught on when they could see that it was a way to prove they were right and I was wrong. /BAH |