Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2006 17:48 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:19:37 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Keith wrote: >> >> >> Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the >> >> wild west, "Blazing Saddles". >> > >> >I've never watched it. It's far too tedious. >> > >> >Graham >> >> Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes, >> usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a >> nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are >> just a framework to hold things up. > >I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny >and nothing else. > More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists; some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in noire) humor you may not get. What humor meets your standards? John
From: lucasea on 4 Oct 2006 17:48 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com... > >>> --- >>> "It" being radical Islam, >> >>Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." > > --- > I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the > acquisition of unlimited power. Is there any evidence for this, or is it your speculation in the absence of data? And this is an honest question, so don't go talking down to me or throwing insults at me for asking it. I just haven't seen data one way or the other, and since the Western point of view is so different from the Middle Eastern, I would be loath to ascribe motivations based only on my point of view...especially about something so important. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 17:50 Gordon wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > > > >>>Clinton was successful. > >>> > >>>Bush is a failure. > >> > >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. > > > >9/11 was Bush's failure. > > How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in > office the 8 years before that? What's that got to do with it ? You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ? The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 17:51 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:eKVUg.51441$E67.25489(a)clgrps13... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:nK6dndhIJoSMvLnYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d(a)pipex.net... > >> Yes, but we are not the generation of seventy years ago. >> >> It is not a case of reading reports of pacifist beliefs - currently we >> are willing to surrender basic freedoms all to "Prevent Terrorism." >> >> I have no doubt the British people are as warlike as they were in the >> fifth century. >> >> I do, however, doubt how wedded we are as a society to the fundamental >> freedoms we grew up with. (Stop and search, ID cards etc). > > All you need is another Churchill. You've already got a Chamberlain. > Yeah, Churchill who championed Gallipoli......
From: Kurt Ullman on 4 Oct 2006 17:51
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my > living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your > listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather interesting case to make. |