Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2006 17:30 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> >> And everybody > >>> >> >> seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. > >>> >> > > >>> >> >What Cold War there ? India ??? !!! > >>> >> > >>> >> India was classified as third world country. > >>> > > >>> >And what does that have to do with the Cold War ? > >>> > >>> Are you joking? Let's back up. What is the characteristic > >>> the makes a country to be classified as third world? > >> > >>Mainly lack of 'development'. > > > > Then the USSR would be third world. > > It is now. But there is no USSR any more ! You can't really call Russia third world surely although some of the CIS states would be so considered. Graham
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:39 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45788C2C.9A3B7C99(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift >> >> >>kick to >> >> >>the nuts does ! >> >> > >> >> > With the methods available today, you will never see your killer. >> >> >> >> If they kill Eeyore they have failed. Killing people doesn't convert >> >> them, >> >> it just kills them. >> >> >> >> The fear you monger is more likely to cause a conversion. >> > >> >It's actually more likely to cause a backlash in fact ! >> >> It doesn't matter if you convert > > What part of the wrod backlash didn't you understand ? The word "wrod." :-) Sorry, couldn't resist that. I do apologise for a spelling lame.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:39 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45788B77.CE44F06D(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift >> >> >kick to >> >> >the nuts does ! >> >> >> >> With the methods available today, you will never see your killer. >> > >> >There's no need to be as silly as I was being ! >> >> I wish I could be silly. > > Did you also once think there really were 'Reds under the bed' too ? > She still does - despite her massively Marxist leanings.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:43 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457893C2.CCA341B5(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> > >> > "In some ways, it's the same as always: People lose a paycheck or hit a >> > sudden >> > expense, Hunt said. But it's different, too. Millions of home buyers >> > are >> > just coping with their first big jump in mortgage rates." >> >> I suspect /BAH's response (and maybe some of the sycophants) will be >> along >> the lines of he bought in too "ritzy" a neighbourhood. >> >> He should have been happy to live in a yurt, tend his cattle and grow his >> own vegetables and make his own clothes. Everything else is attached to >> the >> despised middle class. >> >> As /BAH appears to promote rampant capitalism, her Marxist leanings are >> amusing. > > It's quite perplexing ! > > Note her comment that the USSR was 'third world' if the status is > associated > with 'development'. Current (read Wikipedia) use of the term does seem to plug the former USSR into "third world" although, I suspect that is a re-writing based on a historical opinion. Modern Russia certainly is not "third world" in the normal sense of the term. Having said all that, "second world" seems to have fallen out of use since the end of Cold War and most of the Former USSR states are certainly not as industrialised as the traditional "first world" so maybe "third world" is suitable. I also notice some people are coining the term "fourth world" to create an image of people even more impoverished than the traditional third world image. Onto the main part of this - India - it has pretty much always been fairly wealthy and capable of industry so I have no idea what (if any) thought processes /BAH is using here.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:47
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45789446.A41A58B4(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> > >> > And that shows he's (a) dumb as a fence post; (b) out of touch with >> > reality; >> > (c) both (a) and (b). >> >> I vote she is C. >> >> >>You've been trying all along to move the damn goalposts. >> > >> > I've been trying to tell you right-wing zealots you don't know what >> > you're >> > talking about. "Poor" to you seems to mean playing golf at a public >> > course instead of a private one. >> >> Yes, generally speaking _if_ you can buy your own house you certainly are >> not poor. > > It may make you 'poor' though in terms of what you can then afford ! Then we fall into the debate of what is "poor." The term is often used (sometimes interchangeably with "poverty") to mean a relative level of spending power. I am not sure if this is how I would use the term and to be honest, I am not sure if I would be able to define poor at short notice. My feelings are that if you can afford to buy a house, you are not poor. You have resolved one of the basic needs (shelter) and given that house prices will invariably rise over time you have an investment. You probably have managed to save up around �5k for a deposit which means you really are not poor. Obviously if you go with out food, clothing, heat, transport etc to afford the house you are still poor (and will die soon - hunger if nothing else :-) ) and really shouldnt have bought the house. >> As for moving the goalposts - blimey. As they move with ever post /BAH >> makes >> how can *anyone* know where they are supposed to be? > > I reckon a pincer action is needed. > I think an octopus would have a hard time keeping up. |