Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 13:12 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:52483$456b1860$49ecfde$979(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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.) A lot of it depends on which bits of history you want to read about Attila (same with most of the other "demons" from that period - the Vandals were far from vandalous). Modern historians have largely managed to throw off the Roman Catholic dogma about the dark ages. (And as an aside, I don't think Lloyd is a brit)
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 13:19 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:18:47 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:qogjm2h2o3omue5is96u5d5ceut4bndgjc(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:55:10 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck >> <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <ekc3qu$8ss_007(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> There is something more important here. He cannot conceive >>>> of a medical distriubtion system that isn't completely >>>> controlled by the national government. This means that >>>> he doesn't require chocies and is willing to allow a few >>>> politicians make all this decisions for him. This means >>>> that when his politicians do screw him, he has no means >>>> to save himself. >>> >>>Our Health Service is NOT completely controlled by Govt. Funded by not >>>equal to controlled by. Are contractors controlled by their funders? >> >> --- >> By and large, yes. >> >> If I hire a contractor to put a new roof on my house I will expect >> him to put a new roof on my house. >> >> Similarly, I expect that your government, if it's funding the health >> service, expects certain norms of competence to be exhibited by the >> contractors (doctors) it hires. Also, I'm sure there are certain >> basic rules laid down by the government which the health service, >> itself, must follow, which _is_ control. Am I wrong? > >Yes. Aetna pays doctors to perform services, but I don't know a practicing >doctor who would say that Aetna controls what they do. --- Not true, in the sense that I'm sure Aetna tells them what they must _not_ do, which is control as well. -- JF
From: JoeBloe on 27 Nov 2006 13:22 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:44:43 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> Gave us: >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. > You mean like a retard like you hanging out in Usenet?
From: Michael A. Terrell on 27 Nov 2006 13:24 Spehro Pefhany wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:41:28 GMT, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >> In article <4568E61C.7E27585B(a)earthlink.net>, > >> Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >Ken Smith 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. > >> > > >> > > >> > You can't keep the signal from crossing the state lines at night. I > >> >can hear radio stations from Ohio (700 KHz) and Tennessee (650 KHz) at > >> >night on the standard AM broadcast band. I can hear stations from most > >> >of the rest of the world on the shortwave bands. Not only is the RF > >> >spectrum controlled from the federal level, it is controlled under > >> >international agreement. > >> > >> Things like FM and 802.11 can be kept within the bounds of a state. In > >> that case, it is not "interstate commerce". > > > > > > Explain why WACX TV in Orange City Florida is required to block their > >signal from radiating out over the Atlantic ocean. > > Are they actually required to, or do they just use a directional > antenna to optimize the signal strength where there are actually > receivers? It did nothing to improve the radiated signal across the state of Florida. In fact, it reduced the signal level in a few small fringe areas. I think the FCC didn't want the programs to reach Cuba. When I worked there we got letters from people in Texas that could pick up a crystal clear picture for hours at a time, when the sun spots were more active. One man claimed a full eight hours one evening, till well past midnight. He gave enough accurate details about our programming that we sent him a letter thanking him for his report. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: JoeBloe on 27 Nov 2006 13:31
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:14:34 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:b5gjm2lhjfg85cgogqf0ooj1aj37glfl0v(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:26:34 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >> (Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >>> Industries that use >>>computers for things that could kill you usually have standards that rule >>>out Windows. >> >> You're an idiot. > >While that may be true, he is correct. > >Eric Lucas > No, he is not correct, which is yet one more reason why he qualifies as idiot. |