Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 17:25 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w(a)pipex.net... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:efvu0c$8ss_002(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>> Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find >>> the ones were posted by thoughtful people. >> >> Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read >> posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of >> pointless to me. > > Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't > give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten > physical violence and assault. I have learned a lot from the few > *reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those I > don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I > disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad that > everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the > slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of > violence instead of healthy discussion. > Sadly it is what passes for normal debate on USENET most of the time though :-)
From: Kurt Ullman on 4 Oct 2006 17:27 In article <XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:kurtullman-556EC5.17113404102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. > . > > In article <HPWdnXZeKd_lvLnYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > > > >> If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how > >> great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy > >> would make more sense. > > > > I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of which > > is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s > > they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G). > > Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem to > avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... :-)) I suppose now is a good a time as any to bring out the two countries divided by only a common language quote. G In case you are interested a Yank-Brit dictionary can be found at http://gardenphotos.com/gethitched/huh.html
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 17:25 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:42:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:00:38 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >John Larkin wrote: >>>> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic. >>>> >> >>>> >> Is ignorance better? >>>> > >>>> >It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds >at rest, >>>> should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with >Muslims being >>>> progromised. >>>> >>>> I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does >>>> "get nasty" include acquiring political power? >>> >>>If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not the politicians. >> >>--- >>So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for >>something to happen so you can let it out? > >Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and >the Brits should have made a deal? --- Almost. It was that if the US hadn't gotten into the war, then when the UK and Germany were duking it out and Germany double crossed Russia, The UK and Germany would forget their squabble and get together to fend off Stalin, who'd be after Hitler's blood for the double-cross. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 17:29 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > >> > It's called realpolitik. > >> > >> Call it anything you want. It gets in the way of solving the problem. > >> > >> What would your answer be? > > > > Go for it. I consider myself a realist. I doubt that all the answers will > > be entirely pure-as-driven-snow 100% ethical, they never are. > > The problem is one of history though. > > For example, we are currently in a situation where people are "getting > revenge" for acts carried out against their people by the Oppressor > (Palestinians vs Israel for example). And the USA vs Islam. > As part of this thought experiment we > imagine a situation where the "West" decides to enforce a cease fire and > forces Israel to give the Palestinians land, coastline, water etc. > > Now, fast forward 50 years and picture a group of disaffected Israeli boys > being whipped into a murderous fervour by a Rabbi who is telling them how > the dirty Arabs stole their lands and how they should exact revenge. Off > they go, with their guns and kill some Arabs. The cycle continues. I can well imagine this too. Israel has to be encouraged to come to a mutually acceptable deal with the Palestinians. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 17:30
Keith wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > Keith wrote: > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the > > > > wild west, "Blazing Saddles". > > > > > > He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out > > > the horse. > > > > Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted. > > > > Do you think that violence is the only way to 'win an argument' ? > > Perhaps not Just perhaps ? > , but if you're dead you certainly 'lost the argument' > (why the single quotes, I have no idea). The Islamists certainly > want you to lose the argument. I haven't a clue what you mean. Graham |