Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 12:19 In article <3nhjm2ha1kmf138hudg13m1se507goduit(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > That's not the point. > > The point is we have 50 little countries, we've all agreed to live > under a set of rules designed to keep the federal government our > servant instead of our ruler, and we've been living under those > rules and fine-tuning them for almost 250 years. You all only came > out from being under someone's thumb maybe 200 years ago, and you're > only just now starting to get used to it. Look at what amounts to > the United States of Europe. Why are you only now starting to > emulate our system? Because you wanted to hold on to the last > vestiges of what you had for as long as you could. In other words, > it took about 200 years to wean you away from a monarchial system > where your cradle to grave existence was pretty much planned for you > and there was little you could do about it. That is probably the worst precis of European history I have ever read. Talk about my country right or wrong... -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 12:20 In article <KXjah.480$Py2.308(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > When I was a youth, PBS broadcast "How Green Was My Valley". What a > beautiful movie. I was absolutely mesmerized by the Welsh language. > > Eric Lucas Diolch yn fawr iawn - thank you very much! -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 12:25 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:57:37 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <oa5jm2p1ot7fseogrnu0kke1jhnak6ob0b(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> We've had almost 250 years of self-determination since we declared >> ourselves independent, while you still have a queen. A figurehead, >> of course, but still... > >The only difference is you choose your head of state, ours is born. --- That's not true. Ours has power to do, while I believe (with the veto) yours only has power to keep from being done. --- They have a veto which has never been used, because they know it will bring on a republic. As a result, its a non-seqiteur. --- If the conclusion follows from the premise, then it's not a non-sequitur. What you're describing is something closer to a paradoxical situation or , perhaps, a dilemma. -- JF
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 12:28 In article <3nhjm2ha1kmf138hudg13m1se507goduit(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > The point is we have 50 little countries, we've all agreed to live > under a set of rules designed to keep the federal government our > servant instead of our ruler, and we've been living under those > rules and fine-tuning them for almost 250 years. You all only came > out from being under someone's thumb maybe 200 years ago, and you're > only just now starting to get used to it. Look at what amounts to > the United States of Europe. Why are you only now starting to > emulate our system? Because you wanted to hold on to the last > vestiges of what you had for as long as you could. In other words, > it took about 200 years to wean you away from a monarchial system > where your cradle to grave existence was pretty much planned for you > and there was little you could do about it. Whilst you are basking in your little utopia, may I remind you that your own history has been less then whiter then white? Slavery, Vietnam, Korea, Watergate, Prohibition.... Look deep into any country's history and there are stains of various colours. Don't go down the route of the Roman Empire and think you can last unscathed for a thousand years. The barbarians at the gate may already be inside. If you seriously think we're all flag waving royalists you're sadly mistaken. I'm pretty much a republican with a small r myself. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 12:33
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc7ba$8qk_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Bullshit. Those laws were started because people got tired of being forced to inhale someone else's poison every time they wanted to go *anywhere* in public. You extrapolating them to making possession of tobacco illegal is fear mongering. >>> 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. Because of your consistent misinterpretation of just about everything. See above for a good example. Eric Lucas |