Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 08:09 In article <eo5lfa$gtn$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>> The >>>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>>person on a pogostick was legal. >> >>But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >>be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. > >Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to >shoot one. > >[.....] >>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. > >There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless >wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a >way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. > You still are not considering the consequences of your demands in the case of what will happen when there's a national threat. The Patriot Act #1 and #2 are the first two tries to figure out how to protect the nation without suspending the Constitution. If you hogtie all methods of dealing with new technology, there will only be one solution left. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 08:12 In article <e14dq2lrf4csajui0dav1bot1lcqcag9ua(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:35:06 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) wrote: > >>In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[....] >>>> The >>>>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>>>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>>>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>>>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>>>person on a pogostick was legal. >>> >>>But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >>>be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. >> >>Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to >>shoot one. >> >>[.....] >>>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. >> >>There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless >>wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a >>way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. > >Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. I see a few people noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, executive and judicial. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 08:15 In article <8764bdrqlm.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <45A26418.B3E5B20A(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >How about food in restaurants ? I've just disovered it may be in some >> 'Indian' >> >food for example but there's no way of knowing. >> >> You ask. There was a lady who went to eat a restaurant and >> ordered pesto sauce because the waitress said there wasn't any >> nuts. Pesto sauce is pesto sauce because of the nuts. > >Typical BAH bullshit. Pesto does not need to contain nuts. Apparently, it does here. >As long as you're crusing herbs, it's pesto (simply meaning >'crushed' nothing more). The best parts of the best pestos >are the cheeses. The recipe she ordered had nuts in them. Why order something you know has nuts? That was my point. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 08:17 In article <45A726F9.64B0EC39(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Phil Carmody wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >How about food in restaurants ? I've just disovered it may be in some >> > 'Indian' >> > >food for example but there's no way of knowing. >> > >> > You ask. There was a lady who went to eat a restaurant and >> > ordered pesto sauce because the waitress said there wasn't any >> > nuts. Pesto sauce is pesto sauce because of the nuts. >> >> Typical BAH bullshit. Pesto does not need to contain nuts. >> As long as you're crusing herbs, it's pesto (simply meaning >> 'crushed' nothing more). The best parts of the best pestos >> are the cheeses. > >Green pesto contains *pine* nuts. Yes. Thank you. Those are the nuts she was allergic to but she ordered the dish anyway and ate it. This one is still on my mysteries of life list. /BAH
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 08:32
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eo7uvq$8ss_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >> >>I used to do that. >> >>With broadband it's not necessary. > > <shrug> I was in the biz; we used sound pattern differences for cues > to prevent messes. Time and technology have developed significantly in the last few decades. |