Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 14:15 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <OX9ah.15796$9v5.2965(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>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? There are a few virtual mouths incapable of rational discourse in this thread. He'll never be able to ditch the vitriol long enough to have a meaningful dialog with anyone on any subject. The same is true of T. Wake and Puddledick. One has only to look at their discussions outside this thread to see what their native standards for participation are. I like to think they're arguing from weak points and have nothing better to offer. They haven't made any effort to make anyone think otherwise. Then there's that something about leopard and spots.
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 14:16 In article <MPG.1fd25c9a5487b315989c98(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [....] >> >> "shock and aw" == terrorism >> > >> >No, it's war. You want to shock the enemy into submission. To do >> >otherwise is inhumane. More will be killed, eventually. >> >> It is using fear to reach a political goal. > >To instill fear in the opponent's ARMY rather than civilian >population. There is a "small" difference that you lefties will >never admit. You are claiming that the intended effect was on the army. Others would disagree with you. But never mind, it isn't part of the two I counted. >> >> >> >> war == violence >> > >> >No, it's state sponsored violence, >> ^^^^^^^^ >> You admit it is violence so we can skip this point. >> >War is a state sponsored event. It's not simply "violence" and >cannot be lumped in with a mugging or a homicide bomber killing >kids in a pizza parlor. A red apple is an apple. A green aplle is an apple. State sponsored violence is violence. >> >> >> war == "nonpolitical methods" >> > >> >One out of three is pretty good, for you. >> >> There are three kinds of people in this world, those who can count and >> those who can't. It appears you are in the latter group since you >> admitted I was right on two of the items. > >No, I do not agree that war == violence. I noticed that and my mind boggles at the concept of some sort of violence not being violence. > Even so, if only one of >your premises is invalid any conclusions drawn on that is invalid. You said one of three. I was correct by your own statements on 2 of the three. It is really incidental now whether the argument I was suggestion holds up. We have a whole new issue to drone on about. BTW: I was predicting the argument that others may use. Not one of my own. >Also note that a Reductio ad Absurdum argument isn't the strongest >one. Any argument that gets the job done is strong enough. A proof that if "A" is odd, it must be even adn if "A" is even, it must be odd, works quite well. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:17 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > > > Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power > > > > > > > > Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if nothing > > > > had changed ? > > > > > > THere is a method (actually two) for changing it. If it needs to > > > be changed it can be tried[*]. Until then it is the supreme law of > > > the land and must be treated as such or it has no meaning at all; a > > > dangerous thing. > > > > > > [*] NHS won't even get to first base. > > > > If it's possible for you to accept that an 'NHS' isn't some form of communism, do you > > actually have any objection to the idea *in principle* ? > > You cannot separate the two; certainly. The NHS is most certainly not communism. Can you not even see that ? Graham
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 14:20 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:42:11 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>You are as much of a crackpot as any of the others in sci.physics. > --- > And I suppose any of the others in sci.physics could say the same > about you... Seems that Wake never posits any physics. He just argues.
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 14:26
In article <Lp-dnWODWZrNTvTYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:phineaspuddleduck-2757BF.16232326112006(a)free.teranews.com... > > In article <44qdnccZZ7DjIfTYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >> >> ARe you talking about denizens of this thread? > >> > > >> > It boils down to the simple fact he really doesn't > >> > know what he's talking about. > >> > >> Really? Do you? It was an apt comment for him to make at the point it was > >> made - unless you are talking about KRW as it seems, in which case - yes, > >> you are correct. > > > > Unsettled has a unrequited love affair after I plonked him. > > > > You seem to attract stalkers. It must be your aftershave. Eau de Nutter by Paco Rabanne I think ;l) -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |