Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Robert Latest on 5 Oct 2006 05:46 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:17:25 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in Msg. <32k7i2pl7v7qbk55scm4r6sa1k4tum6211(a)4ax.com> > And I still stand by the content of those two messages. The camps in > Yuma are still there ;-) Feel free to stand by them, but all they say is that if members of some group X are not outspoken against crimes committed by other members of the same group, all group X members should be presumed criminal and be rounded up in camps. What constitutes such a group, and how membership is determined, can of course be invented at will. Anyway, maybe I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "camp" thingy because a grandparent of mine was murdered in one some 60 years ago. Maybe I'll warm to the idea if we call them something other than "camp". robert
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 06:17 Robert Latest wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:17:25 -0700, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote > in Msg. <32k7i2pl7v7qbk55scm4r6sa1k4tum6211(a)4ax.com> > > > And I still stand by the content of those two messages. The camps in > > Yuma are still there ;-) > > Feel free to stand by them, but all they say is that if members of some > group X are not outspoken against crimes committed by other members of > the same group, all group X members should be presumed criminal and be > rounded up in camps. > > What constitutes such a group, and how membership is determined, can of > course be invented at will. > > Anyway, maybe I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "camp" thingy because a > grandparent of mine was murdered in one some 60 years ago. Maybe I'll > warm to the idea if we call them something other than "camp". The treatment of Japanese Americans was shockingly bad anyway. Why did they have to be deprived of their property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_relocation We were much nicer to our enemy aliens. " At the outbreak of war there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens in Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain's enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 16 were called before special tribunals and were divided into one of three groups: 'A' - high security risks, numbering just under 600, who were immediately interned; 'B' - 'doubtful cases', numbering around 6,500, who were supervised and subject to restrictions; 'C' - 'no security risk', numbering around 64,000, who were left at liberty. More than 55,000 of category 'C' were recognised as refugees from Nazi oppression. The vast majority of these were Jewish. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6651858.shtml?sectionId=1&articleId=6651858 Graham
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Oct 2006 06:25 Robert Latest wrote: > get wiped off the face of the planet should they try anything stupid. > That period is commonly referred to as the "Cold War", not "Peace". > > robert Brruahahaha... wiped out ;-).... with what?? Atom? France can tear both (US junkies and Russian Vodkabottles) apart at once. Unfortunately only with the single-way atom solution, too :-| Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Oct 2006 06:25 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > The jury is still out on that one. Its a hung jury. I hanged them > myself. ;-) Hang 'em lower. :-) Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: YD on 5 Oct 2006 06:52
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:13:35 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:4523D85F.43BBD99C(a)earthlink.net... >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my >>> guess is janitor ;-) >> >> >> Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility? >> > >It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and >explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work >status. > >Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not >claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth, >does his job matter? > >Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is >in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed >of yourselves. > It's just a bunch of obnoxious bitter old men and has-beens with no real control over much of anything anymore. They've transferred their lives to this ng. Their only way of one-upping is to degrade those not espousing their POVs to below their level with name calling and ridicule with no substance of fact. Makes them look like school-yard bullies or teen-age gangs hanging out on street corners. Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it going too. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail. |