Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 9 Dec 2006 12:25 In article <1165669215.800813.245470(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote: [....] > Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. I think we'll hit 100,000 if the world doesn't end before then. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 9 Dec 2006 13:42 "Borek" <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote in message news:op.tkayhaxz26l578(a)borek... > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:15:25 +0100, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> The way the Democrats tested reactions >>>>> of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained >>>>> the ideas they wanted a reaction test. BBC would report on >>>>> the speech. The American news media would report on what >>>>> the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's >>>>> speech. The politician would then watch to see how the >>>>> voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat >>>>> platform had been vetted through Europe this way. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, considering Europeans are healthier, are happier, live longer, >>>> are >>>> more educated and more literate, etc., maybe we could take some >>>> lessons. >>> >>> We do? Good, I am not moving anywehere. >> >> <grin> You detected the attitude, too. > > Nope. I was deadly serious ;) I may be wrong, but I think she thought you lived in the US ;-)
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:05 hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > > Winfield Hill wrote: > >> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >>>> > >>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) > >>>> > >>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, > >>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. > >>> > >>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts > >>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > >> > >> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > >> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > >> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > >> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > > > > Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. > > Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. Time to talk to the Guiness book of records ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>>>Are you joking? Let's back up. What is the characteristic > >>>>the makes a country to be classified as third world? > >>>> > >>>>/BAH > >>> > >>>Originally, that it wasn't aligned with the US or USSR. > >> > >> OK. At least we have a similar definition. > >> > >>> Then it became more > >>>of a descriptor of the level of development, industrialization, etc. > >> > >> When did that happen? The decade will be close enough. > > > > > >1970's. > > I've been reading histories of the UN that include that decade. > They hadn't redefined the term in those books. Was there > a resolution that stated the redefinition? Is that a joke or simply tongue in cheek ? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/third%20world 1. the underdeveloped nations of the world, esp. those with widespread poverty. 2. the group of developing nations, esp. of Asia and Africa, that do not align themselves with the policies of either the U.S. or the former Soviet Union. 3. the minority groups within a nation or predominant culture. Compare First World, Second World, Fourth World. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American. Minority groups as a whole within a larger prevailing culture. Underdeveloped or developing countries, as in The conditions in our poorest rural areas resemble those in the third world. This expression originated in the mid-1900s, at first denoting those countries in Asia and Africa that were not aligned with either the Communist bloc nations or the non-Communist Western nations. Because they were for the most part poor and underdeveloped, the term was transferred to all countries with those characteristics, and later still to poorer groups within a larger prevailing culture. n : underdeveloped and developing countries of Asia and Africa and Latin America collectively several sources Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:12
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> But your BBC news reports our politicians' sound bites as news. > >> >> >> You are basing your decisions on political slickerhood. > >> >> > > >> >> >Who said I was relying exclusively on the BBC ? > >> >> > >> >> Because I've traced it. > >> > > >> >Traced what ? I read multiple sources of info indeed including the BBC but > >> >also > >> >American and Arab sources for example, even Russian sometimes ! I was just > >> >reading the Times of India in fact. You can soon weed out national bias > >> >that way. > >> > >> I used to use that approach. But it's not as reliable anymore > >> because news items usually have a one-person source and every > >> news outlet picks it up. Your approach only works if competing > >> news agencies send people they employ. Nowadays, the only > >> spots that get covered by competing media are > >> the frenzy of the week. > > > >If you used the web I'd recommend Al Jazeera for an interesting alternative > >source. Here's the link anyway. > > > >http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.h > tm > > I read that to find out the latest propoganda. I find very little > news that hasn't been soaped, rinsed, repeat. Usually I use > it to see how news items are slanted, using the premise that > I might be able to get an idea of their mindset and how it's > stuck. And what's your conclusion. I find Al Jazeera pleasantly unbiased in fact, yet it gives an insight into an Arab perspective of the news. Graham |