Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 14:23 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456B38B1.1B547481(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> > >> >>Your failure to answer a simple question noted. >> >> >> >>Graham >> > >> > It's pretty sad when idiots like the WakeTARD and the dolts in the >> > kook groups rub off on a dipshit that claims to be intelligent. >> >> Aww. You never used the word "retard." I am disappointed. You really must >> try harder. > > Have you any clue what point he was trying to make btw ? Aside from > general > abuse. > > I couldn't make head nor tail of it. > To me, it just looked like his general line of abuse. There never seems to be _any_ point to JoeBloe's posts.
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 14:27 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:26:11 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >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. --- And why should there be? The thread has nothing to with science regardless of whether "science" is in the subject line or not, and its content is off-topic in all the groups it's been posted to, being used mostly to annoy by trolls like you and Graham. -- JF
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 15:27 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:26:11 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >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. > > --- > And why should there be? > > The thread has nothing to with science regardless of whether > "science" is in the subject line or not, and its content is > off-topic in all the groups it's been posted to, being used mostly > to annoy by trolls like you and Graham. Us ??? Trolls ??? You seem to be taking a keen interest in it too btw. Graham
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 15:41 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:05:39 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:66bmm29tl5hrpc5k7a2nk33fed404bmoat(a)4ax.com... >> 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? > >You are a funny guy. I bet you were so pleased when you learned the word >retard. Although given your posts, I suspect it was one of the first words >you heard and you've heard it so often, no wonder you cant help but use it >so much. --- In reality, how can he help it? I mean, just take a look at the atrocious construction of your post and ask yourself if that's how someone who pretends to be as intelligent as you do should be writing. Let's look at the second sentence: "I bet you were so pleased when you learned the word retard." In the first place, "I bet"... is just plain wrong. You didn't bet anything, so the proper form should have been something like "I'd bet... In the second place, it's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment because it has no proper ending. If it had an ending, it would read something like: "I'd bet you were so pleased when you learned the word 'retard' that you smiled from ear to ear." That's because the adverb 'so' is called the 'intensive so' when it's used in the way you used it, in writing, and requires a completing 'that' clause. There's much more, but should someone's vocabulary contain the word 'retard', as mine does, that's likely to be one of the first words that springs to mind as I try to slog through the garbage you write. -- JF
From: krw on 27 Nov 2006 16:00
In article <7k8km21br4kravjd07m0jl9rpkcmthtecc(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and > >> >> we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call > >> >> the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored > >> >> this further. So add a grain of salt. > >> > > >> >There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the meanings of > >> >the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. > >> > >> --- > >> What's this, then? > >> > >> http://sp-usa.org/ > > > >Do they have any elected representatives ? Bernie Sanders (new US Senator) ran as a Socialist for mayor of Burlington. He since switched to "Progressive" and then to "Independant" running for the House. Socialist, he is. > --- > That's a different question. Do you concede that there is a US > Socialist Party? The same way he admits ICmax on power pins (portable goal posts). -- Keith |