Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Jan 2007 23:42 On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:38:25 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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 Probably made with Crisco. A lot were, I gather. ;) Jon
From: Ken Smith on 8 Jan 2007 23:50 In article <entm2m$8qk_002(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not >>truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could >>be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get >>the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like >>reasonable. > >How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with >emergencies? That isn't the point they are, basically, claiming the right to open any mail on a whim even when there is no emergency. Tey could be dealing with 1000 emergencies per second and it wouldn't change the point. > Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? >Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? The "reasonable expectation" would work perfectly well to solve this. It is the same standard as is used all over the place in the law. It works very well. >> >>>ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every >>>new method people use to transport deadly materials? >> >>No, all that I or any others want is that nothing else be snuck into the >>law under the mask of "national security". > >Until specifications can be identified from experience, there has >to be an "other" category in the law. It takes no experience at all to say "reasonable expectation". The term always covers what is currently know of the likely problems. > The methods used to make >messes are no longer limited to local geographical areas. That has been the case for a very long time. Ever since aircraft became common, messes could get around the world in mere days. People didn't give up there rights when the Wrights did their flights. >>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. This only means you don't know about the rights you have given away. > 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. I have never said there are no national threats. There are today, there were in the past and there will be in the future. In the real world merely getting out of bed carries a risk. You have to assign priorities to the risks so that you know which ones to worry a lot about and those you can place lower on the list. The greatist long term risk to the nation comes from within. Today people are basically selling their grandchildren into slavery. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 8 Jan 2007 23:52 In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: [...] > They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. > > THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, Did you just contradict your self? It sure looks like it to me. In order to connect "THE COMPUTER", you need a tap. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 8 Jan 2007 23:54 In article <oop5q296ar51h8rgahllt1jn532fqj8sb0(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >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. It doesn't start the clock on a patent, does it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 8 Jan 2007 23:57
In article <45A25C74.A2593FAD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be fine but >all I'm aware of is its negatives. They keep better. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |