Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 9 Dec 2006 17:39 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > 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 :-) I've always reckoned various levels of 'developed' cover it better - or at least more accurately e.g Developed, developing, under-developed and un-developed too I guess. I doubt political differences count for much any more. Graham
From: T Wake on 9 Dec 2006 17:39 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457B38D0.9B892C0D(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. But by then, the goal posts will be over there ^ and she will be saying how socialist Europe is all over again.
From: JoeBloe on 9 Dec 2006 18:15 On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:25:02 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. > > > >-- Figure on between 125 and 200 posts a day.
From: John Fields on 9 Dec 2006 18:31 On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:29:36 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? --- Paying about 40% of what you make as tribute to your government? Value added taxes which take away even more of your discretionary income? Taxes on motor fuels which keep you close to home? Yeah, it sounds like a lot of fun to me... --- >Time will tell I guess. --- It already has. You've slipped from being the mightiest nation on Earth to whatever it is you are now, and why? Because your government still isn't republican. What is it about you all that you can't embrace taking responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming your errors on Mum. Or Dad? You have no hard constitution to speak of and, presumably, none in the offing so, ISTM, that what you want to do is play fast and loose with what you've got in place now and dodge the fallout. Am I wrong? -- JF
From: John Fields on 9 Dec 2006 18:54
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:31:10 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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? --- Why didn't you answer the question first instead of bypassing it and substituting your own question, cheater? --- >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 :-) --- "a full of nonsense"? Like you know something about sociology or science? Or even the English language? LOL, your entire posting history here has been devoted to nothing more than trying to entrap poor souls into falling for your cheap tricks. -- JF |