Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 27 Nov 2006 20:44 In article <456B607D.64CFAA12(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > I do wish you'd use a proper sig. > > > > > > > > > > Why ? Is my name not good enough ? > > > > > > > > I don't care what you put in it, use a proper sig separator. Not > > > > doing so makes you no better than a top-poster. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Keith > > > > > > What exactly is the big deal with that ? > > > > I see. You are no better than a pig-ignorant top-poster. > > You're incapable of explaining yourself is what I see. Dumb donkey, just follow the accepted Usenet standards. Trust me, there are reasons for them. To do otherwise simply tells the world; " I care more about my 'individualism' than I care about conversation". A proper sig-separator isn't all that hard to do. -- Keith
From: krw on 27 Nov 2006 22:08 In article <4569E624.586BCFF9(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > Don Bowey wrote: > > > > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > > > > > > > contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graham > > > > > > > > > > > > You just went to the top my extreme-nonsense-author list. > > > > > > > > > > You reckon the need for re-construction wasn't considered until after the event ? > > > > > > > > > > Why were British companies excluded from tendering ? > > > > > > > > US money => US law => US company. Dumb donkey! > > > > > > So it *was* to line the pockets of US construction companies then ! > > > > Typical dumb donkey logic. > > It's perfect logic. Foreign companies were excluded from tendering, so US companies knew > that a juicy contract was up for grabs. Dumb donkey: If A => B and C => D does *NOT* mean B => D End of today's logic course. Your head would pop if you ran into anything more complicated. > That's a classic way of ensuring a high tender price ( by excluding a lot of the > competition ). You really are a simple pimple. -- Keith
From: krw on 27 Nov 2006 22:10 In article <ekf023$abg$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > > OK, Sweden. Saab, Volvo, Scania -- plenty of private enterprise. You do know that Saab is owned by GM and Volvo by Ford? -- Keith
From: krw on 27 Nov 2006 22:21 In article <bJsah.31159$yl4.21695(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e4ba5$4569fea8$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, > >> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>>On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$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. > > And there's also the argument that health care does, too. A pandemic that > starts in one state will affect the ability of people to travel to and from > that state, perhpas due to quarantine, perhaps due to simple fear. ....and you better believe the USG will take over control of that pandemic, right down to shutting down interstate transport and even guarantying entire states, if need be. At that point it does become an interstate issue. Your sniffles aren't. -- Keith
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 23:28
Ben Newsam wrote: > 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! OK, here's the AMA's answer to high costs. http://amapatientrights.com/ |