Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 20:29 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > > > >> If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how > > >> great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy > > >> would make more sense. > > > > > > I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of which > > > is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s > > > they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G). > > > > Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem to > > avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... :-)) > > You British twits added the extraneous "U"s in a pathetic attempt to > make yourselves look witty. It didn't work. Where do you think the name 'English' came from you loony ? You clowns removed the Us. Graham
From: Homer J Simpson on 4 Oct 2006 20:44 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu(a)4ax.com... > No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs. > Which animals to eat and things like that. Except the ideas are as nutty as a Bush policy. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To the best of our modern scientific knowledge, there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treyf) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. 21 Yet these may ye eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth; 22 even these of them ye may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after its kinds.
From: Ken Smith on 4 Oct 2006 22:19 In article <mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4(a)4ax.com>, Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>news:eg0hcc$h85$2(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >>>>Clinton was successful. >>>> >>>>Bush is a failure. >>> >>> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. >> >>9/11 was Bush's failure. >> >How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in >office the 8 years before that? He was in office for just about 8 months adn for just about 8 months, he had the Clinton admins advice for going after OBL and ignored it. Clinton tried to get OBL and failed Bush did not try. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2006 22:22 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:39:50 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Keith wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the >> >> >> wild west, "Blazing Saddles". >> >> > >> >> >I've never watched it. It's far too tedious. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes, >> >> usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a >> >> nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are >> >> just a framework to hold things up. >> > >> >I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny >> >and nothing else. >> >> More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists; >> some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of >> Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in >> noire) humor you may not get. >> >> What humor meets your standards? > >Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the >stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At >least there's a decent chance of that. I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff. You should laugh more... it might cheer you up. John
From: mmeron on 4 Oct 2006 22:37
In article <452410F5.543F2B32(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >> >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >> >> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >> >> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >> >> > >> >> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >> >> > >> >> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >> >> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >> >> history if you don't like it. >> > >> >But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. > >That strikes as being wholly unacceptable. > I'm sure it does. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |