Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 4 Oct 2006 23:45 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:tOmdnf6_-qawlbnYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4522F755.6FBE3BED(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> >>> > That's not my recollection. >>> >>> Ok, it is my recollection though. >> >> Fair nuff ! >> >>> >> You need to stop reading too much implied criticism where there isnt >>> >> any. >>> > >>> > There's been *loads* ! >>> >>> In my posts? >> >> A misunderstanding it seems. > > Possibly. The joys of the text based USENET. :-) Yes, let's do stick to getting offended by the *ex*plicit insults. There are way more than enough of those in this thread to go around. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 00:07 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452441CC.FAAAF315(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > Keith wrote: >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> >> > And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets >> >> > ? >> >> >> >> I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit? >> > >> > There is no need to 'submit' >> > >> > You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world. >> >> It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his >> way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on >> what >> is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. > > Have you seen this ? > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm No, I hadn't. Interesting thesis. I do hope PBS or BBCAmerica picks up the program, I'd like to see it. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 00:08 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:43:48 +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: >> >> >> >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; > >Well it is very British. > > >> it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I >> Love Lucy" > >In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond. > > >> , nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite >> comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff. > >I find that dull. > > >> You should laugh more... it might cheer you up. > >Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days >though ( see thread ). > Beg to differ. The world is wonderful, and with a bit of conscious effort one can learn to appreciate it. A rational creature could do no less. John
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 00:11 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-9EC767.19185804102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >> Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >> sweat, no warrant, nada. >> > Plenty of sweat. Any half-way sentient defense attorney is going > to try and suggest you were acting as an agent of the cops in a rather > blatant attempt to circumvent the rights of my poor, misunderstood > client who killed those 25 people because he overdosed on twinkies. > Might actually make the case. Seen it happen often enough. What, overdosing on Twinkies? *That* can't be pretty. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 00:24
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45242CC2.DD3FAE5A(a)hotmail.com... > > > Gordon wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>>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? Well, if you're going to play that ridiculous game...what party was in office for 12 years before that, and 20 of the past 24? Surely *they* deserve a lot of the blame too, with such an extended stay in power.... The Republicans need to stop trying to blame everybody else. Condoleeza Rice said she was unable to recall having had a meeting with the longtime anti-terrorism "czar" (I can picture his face, but his name escapes me at the moment) in July 2001, when that meeting has actually been *verified* to have taken place, and has been *verified* to have included his plan for continued action to protect us from al Qaeda. She was so completely uninterested in terrorism, that she couldn't even remember having been briefed on the issue. Clinton may not have succeeded in taking out bin Laden, but it's quite clear that the current administration took their eye off the ball in a way that has proven to have been far more dangerous. To attempt to lay that entirely in the laps of the Clinton administration is just simply not tenable. Eric Lucas |