Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2007 07:54 In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>> >>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real or >>>electronic. That's for sure. >>> >> >>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >> >> >>/BAH > >How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read first-class >mail? During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read. Any sensitive words were literally cut out of the letter. My uncle married a Tunis who came from a town called Whitehall. So his letters would read that he was still in Whitehall which was code for a certain area on the African continent. Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. The news reports have not specified which mails are in question nor any facts about this news bite from CBS. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2007 07:55 In article <459E8054.9D880CA2(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: >> >> > >> >> >> When you use your wireless telephone, >> >> >> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >> >> > >> >> >Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real >> >> >or electronic. That's for sure. >> >> >> >> Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >> >> all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >> >> couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >> >> filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >> >> Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >> > >> >I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >> >> A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >> then embellish it. > >Mostly so in fact. > > >> The point is that I'd like to know when >> anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >> never be overheard; everybody, especially those who like to >> gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >> notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >> >> >> >It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land line >> >tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >> >> I don't understand this logic. > >That tap would have needed a warrant though. And the tap gets one; it's the law. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2007 07:57 In article <b5WdnSyWgZDHOAPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(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: >>>> > >>>> >> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>> >> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>> > >>>> >Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>>> >real >> or >>>> >electronic. That's for sure. >>>> >>>> Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>> all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>> couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>> filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>> Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>> >>>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >> >> A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >> then embellish it. > >Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood has >historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." > >> The point is that I'd like to know when >> anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >> never be overheard; > >I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation that >it will not be overheard. > >If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has been >issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and white. > >> everybody, especially those who like to >> gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >> notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >> >>> >>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>>line >>>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >> >> I don't understand this logic. > >The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >see how that is different. And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 6 Jan 2007 08:04 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Hey, did you know that a McDonald's in Cornwall had to close because they > > simply weren't getting enough customers any more ? > > Not really surprising in Cornwall. Full of old age pensioners.... The point is that it traded ok for years but demand dropped. That's not just down to pensioners. > > There's hope for sanity yet. > > Maybe. Personally I think of McDonalds as a choice in the same manner as > (for example) Sayers. I don't know Sayers ! > I find it hard to think of food as "good" or "bad." If > you ate McDonalds three times a day every day then fair enough, but I would > say the same of some one who ate nothing but lettuce three times a day every > day. Well.... I can think of McDonalds as providing fairly indifferent and not very tasty food. Their rolls in particular taste to me like cardboard. > My view is that educating people and then giving them the choice is the only > solution. That makes sense too. > I rarely eat at McDonalds (I think the last time I did was in > August), but for example, when I drive to Glasgow next week and I stop off > at a service station is having a Big Mac a "bad thing?" As long as the > choice remains (for example, I may choose to have the worlds biggest big mac > meal but no breakfast or tea that day), then I don't really see what problem > any one else should have with it. It's just a shame that such places can't sell healthier food. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Jan 2007 08:06
JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > > >It's a damn good idea. I've been banging on about it myself for some time. > > > >Trans-fats just make you overweight > > No. YOU shoveling hog slop into your face perpetually does that. I don't eat slop. Hog or otherwise. Graham |