Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 12:34 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc7cn$8qk_003(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-4AAD24.13454326112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >>> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>> of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started >>> in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, >>> you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's >>> largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves >>> Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable >>> people. >> >>Blanket generalisation? > > It's not my usual style Yes, actually it is, if your participation in this thread is any indication. > but it appears to be the case in this > state now. Bullshit. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 12:37 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:1rydnfqYN7fvPPTYnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4568ECCD.C24602FB(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >>> >>> >> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >>> >>> >> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does >>> >>> >> >deliver a good >>> >>> >> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too >>> >>> >> >but >>> >>> >> >it is for sure essentially 'no frills'. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a >>> >>> >> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules >>> >>> >in >>> >>> >each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to >>> >>> >that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide >>> >>> >then? >>> >>> >The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each >>> >>> of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws >>> >>> supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases >>> >>> where the Feds want control and the states say no. >>> >> >>> >>Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as >>> >>will >>> >>Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their >>> >>act >>> > together >>> >>again. >>> > >>> > I thought those places based their politics on ideas started >>> > with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform >>> > basis. >>> >>> The Magna Carta pre-dates the act of union by a significant amount. >>> Scottish >>> and potentially NI law is not "founded" on the dictates of the Magna >>> Carta. >>> Little of English and Welsh law is. >>> >>> By _your_ reasoning then, there is not a uniform basis. Which falsifies >>> _your_ previous statement that "It services a small geographic area with >>> a >>> uniform economy, a uniform government, and a uniform political base of >>> assumptions." >>> >>> Still, I very much doubt you will question any of your preconceptions >>> based >>> on your own falsification of one of them. >>> >>> Hopefully some one will reply to this and you will see it. If not, never >>> mind. >> >> Did she plonk you ? > > She claims to "Ctrl+R" my posts, and I can only assume that on here > antique software that means mark as read without downloading the message. > >> How unreasonable ! > > Lots of other people have done it, so I can live with it. It's hypocrisy. She claims to want to learn from other people, then she ignores those who are trying to teach her. At least she's not as gutless about it as unsettled, since it responds to posts it claims to ignore. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 12:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekcf09$8ss_002(a)s1173.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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! Far from a good catch, sycophant. There is a difference between using personal experience and extrapolating from limited anecdotal evidence >>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. Nonsense. You pull out any anecdotal evidence you think will support your "argument" and dismiss anything which doesn't. Your anecdotal argument that the Canadian health care system was failing because the people you had spoken to thought so, despite all the other data is a prime example. You are as much of a crackpot as any of the others in sci.physics.
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 12:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekc862$8qk_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > 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. Why would you say that? You use incorrect assumptions and false premises all the time. > Once more I'll try an analogy even though they don't seem to work > in this thread. Because 1) you choose poor and irrelevant analogies, and 2) no amount of "clever" analogies can mend an underlying false premise. > 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. That's just silly. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 12:47
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekceog$8ss_001(a)s1173.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Brilliant. You say "nope" then repeat what Phineas T Puddleduck said. Amazing. Do you _ever_ come into contact with reality? >>> > 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_. Has she done a cover version? Is it better than the original? Have you read the original (or seen the cartoon?) Can you do me a favour please? I've searched several web sites for a version of Animal Farm written by Ayn Rand, and I cant find it. Do you know what it's ISBN is please? |