Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: > >On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:12:50 +0100, Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> 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. You're aware he's from Poland ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:17 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>[.... Ken Smith ? ....] > >>>>There have, however, been periods of more and less violence. The > >>>>Clinton era was one of the cases of less. > >>> > >>>That sentence is unbelievable. > >> > >>.....only by those who don't believe the truth. > >> > >>> There was a lot of killing going > >>>on during the Clinton years. Or is the definition of peace the > >>>absence of using high tech weapons? > >> > >>How many people died of violence per year in WW1? > >>How many people died of violence per year in WW2? > >>How many people died of violence per year in the Vietnam era? > >>How many people died of violence per year under Clinton? > > > > ISTM at least a million were getting killed the contenent of > > Africa. That's not a world at peace. > > Who said it was? Remember the phrase you are trying to weasel away from is > "The Clinton era was one of the cases of less [violence]." Nothing about > world peace. > > Are you saying that the millions getting killed in Africa now dont count? Or > has peace broken out on the quiet? I recall hearing anecdotally that at any given time there are typically 100 wars going on around the planet. Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:24 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "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? > > It isn't something which is defined by UN resolution. The "third world" was > coined by a French demographer. > > The UN may use it's own terms to define first, second or third world > nations, who cares? It has nothing to do with your argument here. When I looked up 'third world' at dictionary.reference.com I was intruiged to see the first dictionary reference to the 'fouth world'.... the world's most poverty-stricken nations, esp. in Africa and Asia, marked by very low GNP per capita and great dependence upon foreign economic aid. The several definitions of 'first' and 'second' world were intruiging too including some apparent contradictions. Second...... 1. the world's industrialized nations other than the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. 2. the Communist and socialist nations of the world. n. During the Cold War, the Communist nations of the world. First the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan. During the Cold War, the industrialized capitalist nations of the world. Yet I would certainly include Russia as a first world country now. What category would you place say Brazil into ? Or China and India ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:29 T Wake wrote: > "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 ;-) That was my suspicion too. I suppose BAH couln't imagine one might be happy living in Europe ? Time will tell I guess. Graham
From: T Wake on 9 Dec 2006 17:31
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457B3784.DFED8175(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > "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? >> >> It isn't something which is defined by UN resolution. The "third world" >> was >> coined by a French demographer. >> >> The UN may use it's own terms to define first, second or third world >> nations, who cares? It has nothing to do with your argument here. > > When I looked up 'third world' at dictionary.reference.com I was intruiged > to > see the first dictionary reference to the 'fouth world'.... > > the world's most poverty-stricken nations, esp. in Africa and Asia, marked > by > very low GNP per capita and great dependence upon foreign economic aid. > > The several definitions of 'first' and 'second' world were intruiging too > including some apparent contradictions. > > Second...... > > 1. the world's industrialized nations other than the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. > 2. the Communist and socialist nations of the world. > > n. During the Cold War, the Communist nations of the world. > > First > > the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western > Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan. > > During the Cold War, the industrialized capitalist nations of the world. > > > Yet I would certainly include Russia as a first world country now. > > What category would you place say Brazil into ? Or China and India ? Or Monaco? I have always thought this sociological approach to the world is a full of nonsense. It amazes me that "social sciences" can even exist, let alone get science funding :-) |