Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 12:26 In article <cf466$456b1b2d$49ecfde$1175(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <d6db5$4568f041$4fe7791$11303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has >>>>>been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." >>>> >>>> >>>>If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could >>>>point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. >>>> >>> >>>Magna Carta limited the power of the king in 1215. >>> >> >> >> It also only empowered the nobility, not the common folk. That came much >> later. >> > >Not really, the essence was there in the 12th century which >thus predated Magna Carta: > >"Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in >1305, in the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were >issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II >in the 12th century. Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the >English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the >process thus: > >"Only the King had a right to summon a jury. Henry accordingly >did not grant it to private courts...But all this was only a >first step. Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, >eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court >of his lord into the court of the King. The device which Henry >used was the royal writ...and any man who could by some fiction >fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might >claim the King's justice. " > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus > >The short version is that the King was not free to do as he would >with his subjects. > >>>It was more than 5 more centuries before the US was founded. > >>>But you're Welsh, so what would you know.... > >The basics were in place well before the birth of the US. In >fact, one of the complaints on this side of the pond was that >Englishmen in the Americas were not being afforded the same >justice they were due in England proper. There was a lot of >dissent about the revolution over this issue. Had George Rex >extended the same protections to the American colonies there >might never have been a revolution at all. > And: A large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued when Henry I ascended to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles, effectively granting certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility." [The Great Council]Still, the council was very different from modern parliament. There were no knights, let alone commons, and it was composed of the most powerful men, rather than elected.
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 18:50 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:27:21 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ??? --- Was there ever any doubt? --- >You seem to be taking a keen interest in it too btw. --- Of course. The politics of control through intimidation by confusion is very interesting and I like to watch the practitioners as they muddy the water and play with smoke and mirrors. -- JF
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 19:08 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:00:33 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >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). --- Nice. One more nail in his coffin... :-) -- JF
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 19:24 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:03:44 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote >> >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> Gave us: >> >>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>>> 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. > >And you reckon T Wake and I are trolling ? --- Well, you were, but now you're rising to the bait and biting. -- JF
From: John Fields on 27 Nov 2006 19:46
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:08:36 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:456B4A29.D4554B63(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> 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. > >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. --- Critical content? In one of _your_ messages? LOL, there was no "critical content", just some self-serving bullshit. If there was "critical content", I invite you to repost it, and let's have a go at it. The simple fact is, you _are_ trolls. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that, but to try to deny it once you've been exposed is disingenuous and to try to maintain the facade that you're not, hilarious. --- >In the past, I have found the people who are most vocal about calling others >trolls, are doing little other than troll themselves. --- You don't need the comma after 'trolls', but it wouldn't hurt to insert it after 'troll'. LOL, I've never denied that I was anything _but_ a troll. --- >If he thinks we are nothing but trolls - why reply? --- I like to troll for trolls, and it seems I've got you both hooked and on the ends of my lines. :-) -- JF |