Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 18:19 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:23:30 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> >Well, the Monarch has largely devolved the Royal Prerogative to the >> >government of the day and I think the last time the Monarch did anything of >> >a "power" line was a one off in the 1830s. >> >> --- >> Sorry, no. Australia 1975, Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994. > >That wasn't the Monarch. --- From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Westminster monarch and her representatives retain significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded only in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises (e.g., Australia 1975, Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994)" >> >The Monarch is a constitutional rule and as such, subject to the decisions >> >made by the Prime Minister and the cabinet. >> >> --- >> More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >> Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >> State. > >Titular Head of State. --- Nope, the babe's got some real clout if she has to use it. See the wikipedia link. -- JF
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 18:19 John Fields wrote: > 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. You mean a bluff ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 18:20 John Fields wrote: > 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 > >> John Fields wrote: > >>> "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? Dare I venture to suggest it might be becasue he's posting from another of the groups in this thread ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 18:25 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >Well, the Monarch has largely devolved the Royal Prerogative to the > >> >government of the day and I think the last time the Monarch did anything of > >> >a "power" line was a one off in the 1830s. > >> > >> --- > >> Sorry, no. Australia 1975, Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994. > > > >That wasn't the Monarch. > > --- > From: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy > > "Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the > Westminster monarch and her representatives retain significant > "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded only in times of > extreme emergency or constitutional crises (e.g., Australia 1975, > Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994)" Note " and her representatives ", meaning the UK government. > >> >The Monarch is a constitutional rule and as such, subject to the decisions > >> >made by the Prime Minister and the cabinet. > >> > >> --- > >> More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a > >> Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of > >> State. > > > >Titular Head of State. > > --- > Nope, the babe's got some real clout if she has to use it. See the > wikipedia link. I dare say if it came to it, our armed forces would be loyal to the Crown rather than the Government of the day. One of the strengths of this system. Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 18:26
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456A2157.4092A354(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> 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 >> >> John Fields wrote: >> >>> "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? > > Dare I venture to suggest it might be becasue he's posting from another of > the > groups in this thread ? > As far as I could tell before I filtered his posts, I never saw John Fields post one on topic post to sci.physics. Strange isn't it. I have never seen unsettled post one on topic post, anywhere, but that isn't strange. Sadly given the sci.* nature of all the groups (un)fortunate enough to be graced with this long running thread, there is very little understanding of science displayed. If unsettled wants to, we can talk about that - although I would like to know what his previous identities were. |