Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 8 Jan 2007 19:50 On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:29:53 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >In article <enqp0r$8ss_012(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <459FA66F.2CB0CFEC(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: >>>> >> >>>> >> >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. >>> >>>Your taps don't need warrants any more though do they ? >> >>Yes, they do require warrants. Perhaps you should stop >>confusing tapping with monitoring. >> >>/BAH > >So if you don't tap, how do you monitor? They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, and those text strings the COMPUTER feels MIGHT warrant further inspection get human ears, still without any names or source or destination info. IF the human listener agrees with the computer that actual conversation monitoring is needed, THEN an instant warrant is issued by a duly appointed authority on the spot. AT THAT TIME, monitoring begins, and it is with a warrant. Therefore, no MONITORING (read unwarranted listening by humans of a SPECIFIC individual) occurs UNTIL sound bytes have been deemed worthy of ACTUAL monitoring. Maybe one of these years you'll finally get it.
From: MassiveProng on 8 Jan 2007 19:53 On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:34:28 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >No harm if one of them is being tailed by the police who overhear it either. >That's a public street. If they are talking in their home, it's illegal for >the police to do it. It's a public phone service, dumbfuck. By your own logic, you fail. One driving one's car is a private event. Just because it is on a public roadway... Oooops... Has the anvil lump on your head healed yet, dipshit? Bwuahahahaha!
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 22:24 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > >No, you are going willingly to the slaughter. You have been tricked into > >thinking there is a threat worthy of giving up your rights over and then > >tricked into thinking that giving up your rights will make you safe. > > But I haven't given up my rights. You've just had them removed without you being consulted. > I tell you what. I'll post > my list of what I've read in the last few years. You read it > so you can learn my basis. Then you can pick holes in facts > rather than wishful thinking that no national threats exist. No threats at all... ? I'm sure there are some. Are they being blown hugely out of proportion for political ends. You bet ! If you browsed the web I'd advise you to look at the truly excellent 3 part - 3 hour BBC series called the Power of Nightmares ( the rise of the politics of fear ) which catalogues government action to keep their public quietly compliant over many decades culminating in the ultimate 'Muslim Threat'. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22power+of+nightmares%22&search=Search Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 22:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Did you know that the original idea of Crisco btw was to make candles. It > >only got sold as a 'food' as an afterthought. > > No, I didn't know that. Did you know that we used to chew candles > because gum was too expensive? That sounds vile. Were they made of tallow ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 22:44
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ? > > Yes. People bring magnifying glasses with them so they can read > the labels. Do they ? I've never seen that. It seems to be an odd way to go about avoiding being poisoned. > >I doubt it's possible for say a prepared meal to list every single damn thing > >in it anyway. > > It's the law over here. It's better to list peanuts than to be sued > into bankruptcy by a family who has a member who died from eating > the product. Sure we have warnings such as 'may contain traces of nuts' to cover that but I've looked at some labels and they clearly can't list ever single damn thing. > >If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be fine > >but all I'm aware of is its negatives. > > Did you examine the science that have, all of a sudden, concluded > that transfats are poison? No. You are basing your decisions on > the latest dietary fad. A few months ago it was nn-carb. Some months > it was low-carb and other months it was high-carb. I no longer > what these terms means since they became sound bites. I don't like fads myself. I've been aware of this business about trans-fat for ages though. It's not some fad any more than the connection between smoking and heart disease and cancer. > >> What do you mean by "totally natural product?" > > > >Something that once grew in a field maybe ? > > Belladonna grows in a field. So does digitalis sources. > Both of these are bad and they grow in a field. Your criteria > isn't effective. Do you want to ban all of these poisons? You're intentionally misinterpreting my words as usual. And no, I don't want them in my food either. Graham |