Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:38 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:19:50 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >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. --- Yeah. I know. I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, two world wars that we got dragged into and a lot more fun stuff like that. --- >Talk about my country right or wrong... --- Not at all, I was just trying to point out one of the reasons you have been slow to warm up to democracy. -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:40 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:25:50 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. --- Correction: The monarch has "reserved" powers which are only to be used during severe emergencies --- >--- > >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: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:50 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:28:24 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >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.... --- Yes, of course, but what does that have to do with the previous? I see no mention of Crusades, Inquisitions, two world wars we got dragged into, etc, ad nauseam, all I was doing was more or less fleshing out for Graham what BAH and I were discussing, since he seemed to have gotten sidetracked. >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. --- I support the right, but I lean to the left. -- JF
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 13:50 In article <OX9ah.15796$9v5.2965(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:ekaas8$8a0$1(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <a2165$45687e83$4fe7197$8951(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> [....] >>>The lemming reference isn't an idle insult, but a comment >>>that the person is heading over the cliff into the sea by >>>following some invisible passion (in the case of the >>>immediate discussion, the immediate discussion) blindly. >> >> Ok. >> >> The "invisible passion" part I'd missed. I'd taken it as following a >> person. > >Unsettled knows perfectly well that the usual meaning of the "lemming" label >involves blindly following another person, and that essentially everybody >would read it this way. To claim otherwise is hypocrisy. No, you are making a claim about him knowing something without proof. Elsewhere you have suggested that he is ignorant on other subjects. His explanation of what he meant works for me. I am sort of surprised that it doesn't work for you too. If he means "invisible passion" you have some very good arguments you can use against the claim. [....] >>>> The lurkers are the ones that both sides have a chance to convince. You >>>> can't convince them if they get bored and quit reading. IIRC I made >>>> this >>>> point somewhere in the first week of this thread. >>> >>>While that's true, usually I'm just trying to have a discussion. > >Bullshit. He's one of the three biggest insult-mongers in this thread. Perhaps that is only "was". Lately he has been fairly mild in his use of them. He may actually be trying to have a discussion. Now is your chance to convince him that you are right and he is wrong. Go for it. >He's not even honest about his reasons for killfiling, since he routinely >responds to my posts through somebody else's response to me. If he really >found me to be unworthy or reading, he simply wouldn't read anything I >write, or respond to it. His only purpose for killfiling people is to make >a big show of denigrating their opinion just because they won't fall down >and fawn over everything he says. > >He is a gutless hypocrite. Even if he was a one legged gutless hypocrite, don't you think it would be far better to try to convince him of a better philosophy than to complain about him not already accepting it? "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round". Doesn't get anywhere. Try "when a ship is far away, you can't see the whole ship but you can see the mast". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 13:56
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Sadly, the time was ideal for her to prosper and then by a miracle enough > > >> people seem to have a blinkered opinion of the period that the other > > >> "bad" things seem to have been brushed over. > > >> > > >> Her economic policies caused all manner of turmoil and took the best part > > >> of a decade to ty and rectify, yet now people seem to have some weird > > >> flashback about how great things were. > > > > > > I remember the miners strikes vividly due to the utter turmoil they > > > caused in the communities here. > > > > Same here. It was not a good time and it was not a good example of how > > democracy works (on either side). > > For me one of the darker aspects of it was the increasing use of the > police as a political weapon. Miners movements were being restricted, > and aid had to be sent to those families fighting for their very > existence. It was the first time number plate identification was used. > It is telling that there are very few Tories these days who crow for a > return to hardline Thatcherism. They know no-one would vote for them ( well... only the cranks and retired Majors - actually probably not even the retired Majors any more ). > It surprises me still that we did not > springboard into a hard-left government directly after, and ended up > with a left (in name only) one. Too many owners of ex-council-houses is one reason why. Graham |