Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 13:57 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:34 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:59:03 -0500, Jamie > >> <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:05:38 +0000, Eeyore > >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>>unsettled wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>>Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. > >> >>> > >> >>>Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay open later > >> >>>than that ! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> That's because they're so inefficient they have to. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >:)) good one! > >> > >> --- > >> :-) > >> > >> -- > >> JF > > > >IDIOT > > --- > So, I've reduced you down to your essence; a sad creature with a > vocabulary of one word. Works for me!!! > > -- > JF ignorant fool
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 13:58 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > I wonder how they react to the national guard.... > > > > > > My usual (albeit unfair) gut-level response to the phrase "national guard" > > > is "place for your rich daddy to hide you from military service during war". > > > Like I said, completely unfair, but The Shrub is partly to blame for that > > > one. > > > > What does the USA actually need a national guard for ? > > Ever been in a flood? Ever see the devastation from a tornado or > hurricane? Earthquake? The National Guard is supposed to be the > first in, authorised by the governor. We use the ordinary emergency services for that and then the army if they can't cope. Your devastation is worse than anything we get normally though. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 13:59 In article <ekc2ig$8ss_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek9rql$lag$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>[....] >>>It's similar to my inability to understand >>>how royalty functioned in Europe. >> >>It isn't that complicated. > >You don't understand what I'm talking about. I can't explain it >better. Ok, I guess I don't. [.....] >I see you've become silly. Long threads can do that. :-) Many would argue that I started off silly. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:00 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > >>The doctor *does* control his own practice you numbskull ! The government / > > > >>state / > > >>NHS does not > > > > >>own the practices nor does it dictate any part of their day-to-day running ! > > > > > > > > > > Money => control. You can't be on a "salary" from the government > > > > > and work for yourself. You're working for the government, dumb > > > > > donkey. > > > > > > > > I'll bet there are facility specifications that the doctor has to > > > > comply with. > > > > > > > Not according to the dumb donkey. The doctor is free to do as he > > > pleases. He's on a salary with no controls. > > > > Where did I say his salary was uncontrolled you lying piece of pond slime ? > > aW, the dumb donkey is all in a tizzy. Ya' dumb donkey, *you* said > they run their business as they see fit, yet are on salary! "On > salary" implies they are working to someone else! Dumb donkey. It's like being a sub-contractor you clown. Do sub-contractors not run their own businesses as they see fit ? Graham
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 14:02
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ek6qau$8ss_008(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <ek55cd$nvu$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <542fc$45657734$4fe7682$23423(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>>Ken Smith stands in opposition to a lot of stuff >>> >>>I'm also for a lot of stuff too, but thank you. >>> >>>[....] >>> >>>>The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>>>delved into why that is. >>> >>>Part of it is who the mothers are and how poor their health is. For some >>>reason the US has a lot of things like "crack babies" pushing the number >>>of deaths up. I suspect that if you could remove that bias the difference >>>would be smaller. >> >>Is that where the difference is? > > > The "crack baby" issue is not the whole story but it does bend the numbers > against the US. There is a whole other debate about why the US has so > many more of them than other countries. Still there is a remaining > fraction to be explained, once you remove that difference. > > > >> I wonder if the number will diminish >>since the Federal govnerment has put a limit on the number of babies >>it will pay for. > > > No, I doubt it. "Crack babies" are usually born to women who have > resorted to prostitution to pay for their drugs. They don't use effective > birth control and end up pregnant. Their thinking does not extend to the > existance or lack of support for the baby. It only goes as far as the > next fix. > > The easiest way to solve the problem would be to get them off the drugs > before the baby. Though this is the easiest, it is far from easy. > > When taken in crack form, the drug enters and leaves the brain very > quickly creating a huge contrast. This is makes a crack addiction happen > quickly and very hard to kick. It would be unpopular in some areas but > switching them over to power cocaine first may make it easier for them to > break the adiction. Even after that, it seems that once the brain has > been programmed for addiction, it doesn't change back. Any exposure after > that and you are right back at the full addict. Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... |