Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 19:00 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> >> >> Don Bowey wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Oregon has it's own medical plan. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And a fine job they do, letting their mental patients run free to > >> >> >> make threatening phone calls to people. One has lost multiple ISP > >> >> >> accounts for threatening people online, been bared from the local > >> >> >> Wal-Mart, and arrested for trying to run over someone, as well. > >> >> > > >> >> >Under the NHS he would be 'sectioned'. > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> From: > >> >> > >> >> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sectioned > >> >> > >> >> sec�tion (skshn) > >> >> n. > >> >> 1. A cut or division. > >> >> 2. The act or process of separating or cutting, especially the > >> >> surgical cutting or dividing of tissue. > >> >> 3. A thin slice, as of tissue, suitable for microscopic examination. > >> >> > >> >> v. > >> >> 1. To separate or divide into parts. > >> >> 2. To cut or divide tissue surgically. > >> >> > >> >> And you think the US is crude??? > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> JF > >> > > >> >IDIOT. > >> > > >> --- > >> Ah! I got it right! > > > >No you didn't. > > --- > I wasn't talking about the medical part which, of course, is absurd > even for as backward a bunch of yokels as y'all, it was getting you > to do the one-word flame reply that I got right! > --- > > >Do you fancy establishing for yourself what it means here or would you like me > >to explain it ? > > --- > Sure, go ahead, but I suppose it's close to what we would call a > "Section 8." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28military%29 Well.... nought to do with the military http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2204983.stm http://www.thesite.org/healthandwellbeing/mentalhealth/treatments/beingsectioned Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 19:02 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, > > > >Totally irrelevant. > > --- > Hardly. Those are part of the ugly part of Europe's history. Certainly not relevant to the preceding discussion though. > >> two world wars that we got dragged into > > > >You have this continual memory problem about WW2. > > > >Have you forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? > > --- > It wasn't the war in the Pacific I was talking about. Are going to try to suggest you could have gone to war with Japan and not Germany ? Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 19:06 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456A2B1D.D6321B85(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, >> > >> >Totally irrelevant. >> >> --- >> Hardly. Those are part of the ugly part of Europe's history. > > Certainly not relevant to the preceding discussion though. In addition to not being relevant to the preceeding discussion they occured long enough ago to form part of the US's history as well. History is a wonderful thing, and there are many, many lessons to be learned from it. One of the most important is to not cherry pick what parts are looked at, but to look at the whole and in the context of the time. >> >> two world wars that we got dragged into >> > >> >You have this continual memory problem about WW2. >> > >> >Have you forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? >> >> --- >> It wasn't the war in the Pacific I was talking about. > > Are going to try to suggest you could have gone to war with Japan and not > Germany ? This will rapidly bog down into a re-run of the previous version of this very argument a few weeks ago. It is easy for people to sit at home today and predict that US could have crushed Japan without the UK's bases and the Commonwealth support just as it is easy for people to sit at home and say it would not have been possible. The US was not dragged into WW2 by Europe.
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 19:08 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:b3bjm2p49vqe1klpf96e2ol9mguar6g72k(a)4ax.com... > 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!!! Yes, you do seem to have a talent for dragging people down to your level. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 19:15
In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [... crack addicts ....] >Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict away from drugs. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |