Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 11:50 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:08:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"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. --- Even if that were true we'd still be soaring miles above the likes of dung beetles like you. ;) -- JF
From: Ben Newsam on 27 Nov 2006 11:52 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:44 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"YD" <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote in message >news:l8ukl293srote1hpn3ipljupe27qggjbgl(a)4ax.com... >> So, have the lot of you reached a consensus, does jihad need >> scientists or not? >> >> - YD, just throwing some spanners in the works. > >You need to give it a few more weeks. There haven't been enough posts to >come to an answer yet. So, come on everybody! Get posting! We've a couple of thousand to go yet! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 11:54 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <MPG.1fd28e4b92c5a97989cc1(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <asydncaDLYw_J_XYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, >>usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >> >>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >>>news:phineaspuddleduck-416009.21422525112006(a)free.teranews.com... >>> >>>>In article <Ls-dnZRLjKdkKvXYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I certainly agree on that. "Chavs" have a tendency to crop up most in > > the > >>>>>areas most affected by Thacherite policies. >>>> >>>>It seems to be a rebellion to the way things were done. You have the >>>>worst of both systems. The right wing view that everything now >>>>disallowed is permissible, and the left wing view that the state should >>>>mollycoddle you. Add that to a fanatical hatred of anything not "local" >>>>and "familar" and you have a chav. >>>> >>>>I'm left of centre myself. I can see the need for the state to keep >>>>checks and balances, but human nature sometimes really makes me cry! >>> >>>Prior to getting embroiled in this thread, I thought I was fairly right of >>>centre. I now see the error in my ways and I am firmly left of centre now. > > I > >>>suspect half the apparently right wing extremists posting on this thread >>>live very different lives away from USENET. >> >>No, you're a left-wing extremist, right there with the dumb donkey. >>This isn't surprising since you're both socialist Europeons. >> > > > To you, anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a socialist. You probably ought to read history about Attila (and note the spelling, it's not a Brit name.)
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 11:59 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:24:00 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:q2ejm2dk696g373or7il1s1j3cgtg20duc(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:38:08 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up >>>> >> >uncontested >>>> >> >contracts. >>>> >> >>>> >> Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used >>>> >> instead. >>>> > >>>> >Actually I think I may have been mistaken about the uncontested bit. >>>> > >>>> >I think some British companies did bid too, so it wasn't uncontested >>>> >but since >>>> >they were British they weren't allowed to receive US 'reconstruction' >>>> >funds. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> That doesn't make any sense, since I'm sure they knew the ground >>>> rules before they bid, so why would they waste money putting a bid >>>> package together if they knew they wouldn't win the job? >>> >>>You haven't posted an insult this time ? >> >> --- >> I only post insults when they're warranted. > >Ah, you mean like when you have nothing more intelligent to add? --- No, only when they're warranted. Just like I wrote. I'm surprised you couldn't glean that from the sentence since it's short and succinct. Must be either a reading comprehension or an attention span problem huh? Here's how it works. If you insult me I'll insult you back. If you don't, I won't. Do you understand, or is that sentence too long or complicated for you? -- JF
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 06:08
In article <e4ba5$4569fea8$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, >> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >>><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>[.....] >>>> >>>>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>>certifications for a piece of gear? >>>> >>>>I like radio just fine. >>>> >>>>Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>>>state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>>government preemptive control. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio transmission, >>>what is the purpose of your post? >>> >>>Perhaps the problem is with your understanding. >> >> >> No, the question goes to a core issue. A FM station in SanFransisco is >> not "interstate" but is controlled by the FCC. Under some peoples reading >> of the constitution, it should not be. > >I'm sure you can make a good case for that, however >it belongs to a reguated class, so it is actually the >definition of the class that you'd be fighting. It >gets to be a hairy battle. > >OTOH there's also the argument that it affects interstate >commerce. > > Sure, and the USSC used that argument to uphold the feds overruling states which passed medical marijuana laws -- even if the marijuana is grown and used within a state. |