Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 13:00 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:ohfjm2l78a17bt0n8k8hhi3otcd6j6de5o(a)4ax.com... > 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. The only point is that all your posts are nonsense.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:01 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:11:33 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >> we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >> the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >> this further. So add a grain of salt. > >There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the meanings of >the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. --- What's this, then? http://sp-usa.org/ -- JF
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 13:07 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Ghkah.491$Py2.425(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "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. True. I unfiltered unsettled because I noticed I was reading more and more of his posts by way of other people's replies, so I wanted to see what the crank was saying himself. Unsurprisingly it is still gibberish.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:08 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:19:20 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>>Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >> >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are >> >>>>>areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! >> >>>> >> >>>>Thats pretty rich coming from a poster who has to try hard to be >> >>>>noticeable, let alone interesting. It seems the quality of political >> >>>>debate in the UK is far more mature as we grew out of calling people >> >>>>"leftist" or "rightist" as insults quite a while ago. >> >>> >> >>>Yes indeed, and grew cruder in the process. >> >> >> >>The USA has taken crudity to an entirely new level. >> > >> > --- >> > Yes, now we even _talk_ to Brits. >> > >> Try to, actually. But it doesn't seem to work, they continue >> to think the world revolves around them. > >It does. > >UTC is *Greenwich* time. --- Doesn't matter. The world revolves around its axis and around the sun, not around you lot. -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:09
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:20:07 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> Don Bowey wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Oregon has it's own medical plan. >> >> >> >> And a fine job they do, letting their mental patients run free to >> >> make threatening phone calls to people. One has lost multiple ISP >> >> accounts for threatening people online, been bared from the local >> >> Wal-Mart, and arrested for trying to run over someone, as well. >> > >> >Under the NHS he would be 'sectioned'. >> >> --- >> From: >> >> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sectioned >> >> sec�tion (skshn) >> n. >> 1. A cut or division. >> 2. The act or process of separating or cutting, especially the >> surgical cutting or dividing of tissue. >> 3. A thin slice, as of tissue, suitable for microscopic examination. >> >> v. >> 1. To separate or divide into parts. >> 2. To cut or divide tissue surgically. >> >> And you think the US is crude??? >> >> -- >> JF > >IDIOT. > --- Ah! I got it right! -- JF |