Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 10 Dec 2006 08:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:elgsn6$8ss_004(a)s892.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <op.tkayhaxz26l578(a)borek>, > Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: >>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 ;) > > You must find us terribly naive. Only you.
From: T Wake on 10 Dec 2006 08:19 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457BA3D6.C7DAD8BF(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> 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. >> >> --- >> Bullshit. all you can do is read what others' opinions are and then >> decide whether they conform to what you consider the "right way" for >> the US to act to be. >> >> In the first place, you need to come to the realization that what >> you think doesn't matter and hasn't mattered since the first time >> you were overwhelmed and had to ask us for help to survive. And >> then, after the second time, surely you must realize that, in >> effect, we own you. >> >> In the case of America's being right and doing the right thing, >> however, no amount of information attesting to that being true would >> satisfy you since you've already made up your mind that we're >> unequivocally wrong, no matter which road we decide to tread. >> >> On the other side of it, I don't see where you had any problems with >> questions of ethics when you were trying to gobble up the globe and >> arrogantly declared that "The sun never sets on the British Empire". > > Britain did introduce democracy to its colonies. > > It's more than the USA has ever done. The British Empire was pretty much over by the time I was born. What on Earth does it have to do with anything today? It amuses me how people try to play the history card when it suits them, but when the inevitable counter examples from history are shown they whine about it no longer being relevant. Asking why people alive today didn't have any problems of ethics when the Victorians were carving up the globe in the name of Empire is ludicrous. It is as comical as asking Americans why they oppressed the Native American tribes.
From: T Wake on 10 Dec 2006 08:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:elgsj2$8ss_003(a)s892.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <457B34C7.6EDCC233(a)hotmail.com>, > 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: >>> >> >> >> 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. > > Anything written is biased. That's why science uses the scientific > method to produce its knowledge. Blimey. The testable, repeatable and falsifiable criteria of the Scientific Method do not remove bias. If you search arxiv.org you can find hundreds of reports which are biased. While I agree anything written is biased (*), I think you miss part of the logical conclusion of that sentence - written scientific reports are biased. Textbooks are biased. You also miss the point that any information someone passes on to you is biased to some degree. The important part is determining the bias, which then allows you to account for it. (*) You should really pay _much_ more attention to this when you try to tell Europeans what Europe is like because of a few books you have read.
From: T Wake on 10 Dec 2006 08:32 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:457BA0D7.3E14702D(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >Oh yes, we've got to deter a first-strike by India. >> >>> >> >>> It appears you haven't been keeping on who has nuclear weapons >> >>> and who is working on getting them in that area. >> >> >> >>It appears that you have some odd ideas about who'd even >> >> think about engaging in >> >>a first strike on the USA. >> > >> > Wake up. To start a mess does not require a first strike on the >> > US. An atomic war between India and Pakistan would create >> > enough EMF to wipe out all the electronic paper pushing that >> > has been contracted out to India. >> >> Blimey. When the aliens land we need to make sure we have quark-guns >> because >> they are the only thing which can get through their force fields. We need >> to >> work at preventing this mess know. >> >> I can imagine it so it must be real. > > You do know that the USMC has a 'space division' ??? And apparently the US Department of Defence spends $1 million a year on anti-gravity research. Amazing the things people will do because logic escapes them.
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Dec 2006 08:27
In article <rLudnWxVuPVZleHYnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:elgsom$8ss_005(a)s892.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <9OKdncnQ5K4OnubYnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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, >> >> You are. >> >>> but I think she thought you lived in the US ;-) >> >> Nope. >> > >Ok. I don't get what you meant then. I was giving you the benefit of the >doubt and assuming it was supposed to be funny, but now it just doesn't make >sense. If are able, put yourself in the context of the Poles. They died to get rid of their flavor of forced socialism. All people who lived in that area had to know politics and how to do politics from the time they started talking as children. You and I are extreeemely spoiled because we have no memory of having to do that. For you, I suspect your parents don't a memory of having to do that. My folks do have a memory but they didn't have to fear their own government as much as other countries because we had the Constitution to provide the checks and balances. If we in the US aren't careful, that will end. What will be interesting is how Poland's basic rules of society evolve over the decades. Other countries will also be interesting to watch. /BAH |