Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 16:36 T Wake wrote: > "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. I don't think I'd call that "dogma". See the definition: <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Adogma&btnG=Google+Search> I wouldn't hesitate to call it revisionism though. Part of that problem was that the Pope was required to meet with Attila outside the gates of Rome to negotiate the price of peace in terms of tribute paid annually. I guess that was an insult they never lived down. LOL > (And as an aside, I don't think Lloyd is a brit) You're right, of course. But my reasoning was apparently unobvious. Amerenglish descends from Brit roots, was the reason for the quip. We pronounce the name as though it were Atilllla, while the correct nonBrit spelling is Attila. In the original language (belonging to the Finno-Ugric group) the accent is always on the first letter of the word, so it is properly pronounced (Anglicized rendition) Ahhhteela. Find a local friendly Finn, Estonian, or Hungarian to pronounce the name for you if there's a problem with it. Wikipedia has a reasonable description of the language group.
From: T Wake on 27 Nov 2006 16:44 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:aef0a$456b5a67$4fe7469$3244(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > > I don't think I'd call that "dogma". See the definition: > > <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Adogma&btnG=Google+Search> > > I wouldn't hesitate to call it revisionism though. I dont _really_ want to head to far down the road of arguing over words but "Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas) is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative" seems to make it appropriate to its use earlier on. > Part of that problem was that the Pope was required to meet > with Attila outside the gates of Rome to negotiate the price > of peace in terms of tribute paid annually. I guess that was > an insult they never lived down. LOL :-) If you ever get the chance, Terry Jone's book Barbarians (ISBN: 0563493186) is a very funny and interesting read. Also, it is well referenced enough to act as a good starting point for further reading.
From: Edward Green on 27 Nov 2006 16:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1163509645.701125.130030(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> Winfield Hill wrote: > >> > > >> > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >> > >> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > > > >Amazing, now nearing 9000 posts and still going strong. > >Furthermore, a subtle point, the posts haven't strayed far > >from the original post in terms of individual thread-segment > >lengths, so Google Groups tree view still nicely handles all > >the pieces in a narrow sidebar. > > Really?!!! That's interesting. Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that future generations may not lose one word. The subject line view has hiccupped a bit though. I smirk at those who malign Google groups as the new AOL ... all 10,000+ posts may be easily ignored; apparently this is causing some other interfaces some difficulty, though.
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 16:57 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:aef0a$456b5a67$4fe7469$3244(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >>>>>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. >> >>I don't think I'd call that "dogma". See the definition: >> >><http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Adogma&btnG=Google+Search> >> >>I wouldn't hesitate to call it revisionism though. > > > I dont _really_ want to head to far down the road of arguing over words but > "Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas) is belief or doctrine held > by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative" seems to make > it appropriate to its use earlier on. Over a beer it might be fun, but not here. >>Part of that problem was that the Pope was required to meet >>with Attila outside the gates of Rome to negotiate the price >>of peace in terms of tribute paid annually. I guess that was >>an insult they never lived down. LOL > :-) > If you ever get the chance, Terry Jone's book Barbarians (ISBN: 0563493186) > is a very funny and interesting read. Also, it is well referenced enough to > act as a good starting point for further reading. Thanks, found it at Amazon, on the list.
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 17:00
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > John Fields wrote: > >> "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. > > One of the things I always get amused over on USENET is when people get on > their high horses about Trolls and trolling. John seems to have snipped some > of the critical context of my message, solely to accuse us of being trolls. > > In the past, I have found the people who are most vocal about calling others > trolls, are doing little other than troll themselves. > > If he thinks we are nothing but trolls - why reply? Honesty about his motives doesn't seem to be one of Field's strong suits. Graham |