Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jamie on 28 Nov 2006 22:13 Eeyore wrote: > > John Fields wrote: > > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>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 ??? >> >>--- >>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. > > > Good Lord ! > > The ones muddying the waters here have been the right-wing Americans. They keep > denying reality. > > Graham > We're only trying to help you see the light! Because most of us over here realize that you're candle has burned out long ago!. -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: |||newspam||| on 29 Nov 2006 06:00 John Fields wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:14:44 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > >> > > >> >> Powerful minority parties were an > >> >>anathema to them, as is seen now in parliamentary systems. > >> > >> Not at all. They saw the problems in England with a two-party system, and > >> at least some felt they could be solved with multiple parties. > > > >Funny how it's turned out now then ! > > --- > Why? We naturally gravitate to diametrical opposites. From time > immemorial to the present we've had our time subdivided into night > and day. From that we have evolved into creatures with symmetrical > external bodies with mirror-image left and right sides. We also > have good and evil, one and zero, right and wrong, republicans and > democrats... And therein lies the problem with US politics today. You now have a situation where the two main US parties core supporters are never likely to change sides no matter how badly behaved or corrupt their goverment becomes. Look at how many US states are locked permanently into a safe seat for one side or the other no matter what happens (and that is a very bad thing). You appear blind to the common shared values that both parties encompass. The recent spate of hugely expensive knocking copy advertising for the mid-term elections was a total disgrace in any democracy. Whatever happened to substantive policy debate? You should do away with one party name since you have effectively polarised to an extent that they are now poles apart. They should be represented as A and NOT A, or perhaps in English as a palindrome pair. It is absurd that you do not have any political party to occupy the middle ground with sensible core policies that the bulk of the electorate can agree upon. Replican : Democrat :: Tarcomed : Nacilper The new common ground party should have a true palindrome name. How about calling it a Libebil ? As it is you have two main parties that exist primarily to pander to the whims of their major sponsors and ignore the electorate save for a couple of weeks every few years. A mature democracy *needs* a third up and coming political party to keep the two main encumbents on their toes. They are a source of new ideas, and sometimes get a bit of regional power if a safe seat for one of the main players becomes corrupt. YMMV Regards, Martin Brown
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 06:55 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >krw wrote: > >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > >> >> > In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It may take some >> >> > > time for you guys to catch up. > >> >> > >> >> Not going to change without a new Constitution. > >> > > >> >If that's what it takes..... > >> > >> --- > >> It's not going to happen. We've gotten to the top of the heap with > >> our Constitution and it's not likely we're going to abandon it for > >> something as silly as pie in the sky. > > > >For ever ? > > --- > Nothing is forever. > > You all now have a Supreme Court, no? The Law Lords. In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Nov 2006 07:43 In article <op.tjqwulgn26l578(a)borek>, Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: >On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:35:58 +0100, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> Now consider the fact that packaging is going to have "I am here" >> chips in them. Now consider the problem when cereal boxes are >> transported across state lines to all grocery stores. > >My Windows are smarter then me, my mobile is smarter then me, now my >cereals are going to take their share. I haven't heard of a use for eating the chips....yet. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Nov 2006 07:54
In article <ekhjnf$pkt$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekhdvu$8qk_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ekcs4f$g1o$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, >>>Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: >>> >>>{... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...] >>> >>>> In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC, >>>>this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio >>>>transmissions. >>> >>>The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it >>>regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would >>>argue that it is. >> >>All of this is going to have to go through a long debate with the >>invention and now-common use of new comm technology. > >No debate is needed. It is either constitutional or it isn't. All new technology requires vigorous, and usually public, debate. That's how democracries work. > >[.....] > >>Now consider the fact that packaging is going to have "I am here" >>chips in them. Now consider the problem when cereal boxes are >>transported across state lines to all grocery stores. >> >>All of a sudden, you have the FCC, the FTC and all kinds of >>other regulatory entities claiming their piece of the grocery >>store territory. > >We already have that so nothing much will have changed. Both regulate >that which can be sold in the stores. I'm talking about transport. /BAH |