Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 17:22 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:38:13 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields 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! >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> JF > >idiot > --- Flummoxed, hey? -- JF
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 17:44 In article <mmvjm2hqo6e1n5umtk2lui4kjutvjh4idf(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:38:11 -0600, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > > >>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. > >--- > > Hehehehahahahahahah... I like it! Simple things please simple minds. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 17:47 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:41:20 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >On Sun, 26 Nov 06 13:39:04 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> 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! >> > >> >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. > >Do please tell how a 'tactic' can affect right and wrong ? --- OK. Assuming there's an absolute right and wrong, just for the sake of _this_ argument, the 'tactic' will change neither. However, someone unaware of the tactic in an argument with someone who is using the tactic to win the argument merely has to be forced to concede the argument and will leave the argument with the _perception_ that what was, in reality, wrong was right or vice versa. -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 17:49 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:45:37 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:de612$4569e902$4fe775f$22927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> 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. > >Obviously. --- Nor, AFAICT, have you ever posted even _one_ on-topic post to sci.electronics.design. Why is that? -- JF
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 17:50
In article <ih3km21epdj5q6lmu4nni0fesh5strvrci(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > I've asked T Wake to explain how your NHS works, but perhaps you > could also explain? I'm particularly interested in the relationship > between your government and your NHS and how the funding works. Oh god no. Don't ask me about funding. ;-) My bank account is proof enough;-) http://www.nhs.uk/ is the NHS in England, which has a different relationship to the companion hospitals then the other four nations. Its a start! http://www.wales.nhs.uk/ and so on for scotland etc -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |