Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 08:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. After all the lies he's told and laws he's broken, who in their right mind would ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 08:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > The recipe she ordered had nuts in them. Why order something > you know has nuts? That was my point. Who is this lady btw or is this some invented story ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 08:42 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Did she come to any harm ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 08:40 In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>the old ways. > >No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to the >situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true about >it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death between two civilizations. I call this war. It is European-style thinking that has limited the description between two countries. Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of people groups. Until you understand this, I guess you will continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is not a simple conflict. > >The US can't send troops against this new enemy and force them to >surrender. We are not doing this. > They don't have a capital city to bomb. Basically "the tools >of war" are useless against them. This makes it far better to not refer >to it as a war so people don't get confused about what is going on. So what do you call it? > >The real deanger to the US is not from a small group of people outside who >wish to destroy it. There exists a mindset that considers anything having to do with Western civilization an abomination. This mindset requires, by religious edict, to destroy it and all products of that civilization. >They have no chance at all of doing so. I can think of a half dozen ways to trigger a complete disintegration of current trade and economical practices. > The US is >far to strong to be fell in such a way. The real threat is an internal >one where the US commits suicide by giving up the things that make it the >US of today. This is NOT about only the US. I wish you could broaden your objectivity a little bit more. /BAH
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 09:00
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6617a$45a169c9$cdd08444$3914(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> <snip> >> And there isn't really a difference between monitoring everything one >> person says and monitoring everything every one says - other than scale. > > From a legal standpoint I wish you'd give this some more > thought, more along a political science line. I will try but the analogy you use is far from ideal. > Consider strangers on a busy street, say in London or NYC, > unknown to one another, overhearing one another's > conversation as they pass by. > > Probably no harm no foul in that. No, this is not the same thing as sampling every single conversation for "key phrases." > Overhearing, or even overt or covert listening has no impact > unless and until the information has a use not compliant to > the wishes or benefit of the individual speaking. Not the issue. The issue is about the right to privacy and the requirements of prior approval to monitor someone's communications. > Where your personal wishes are concerned, you'd prefer no > third uninvited party ever overhear or listen in on your > conversations whether on the street or on a telephone. But > there are other realities in play. > > The premise in the laws as written usually aren't entirely > honest. Where they say that the government may not listen in > on your conversations without either your permission or a > proper warrant, the real consequence, this is realpolitik > at work here, is that when the government does listen in > they're not permitted to use the information they acquired > against you. A democratic government is ultimately accountable to the electorate. A government official (in the UK at least) who authorises an illegal activity are themselves subject to the rule of law when the illegal activity is brought to light. Given the fact elections are held every four - five years it is probable that a new government will be in place before long. > When they overhear something that sounds like a violation > of laws they are, in the US anyway, permitted to go get a > retroactive warrant. In the UK they may do this, but they first have to demonstrate the legal grounds over the initial information. If the agency were acting legally from the outset then the warrant is issued. If they were not (as has been the case in the past athough the last one I can recall was about 1999 and pre-IOCA / RIPA guidance) then either the Police Complaints Commision or the defence lawyers can take legal action. > Generally speaking the police, and government in general, > isn't held accountable for lying to you, but you can be > held accountable for lying to them. > > None of this is intended to be equitable. The state always > has an advantage. > > Just as we've agreed that airport security is designed more > to give people the appearance of security without any real > substance, I maintain the anti-wiretapping laws are established > for precisely the same reason and very much to the same effect. > > The FSU had a constitution that read much like the US > constitution. Laws alone don't mean anything. No, but without laws nothing else means anything. > In the eastern block in the 1980's they instituted anti pollution > laws. Of course the polluters were government entities with > inadequate budgets so they were unable to meet the requirements > of the new laws. > > They were fined under the new laws. So the money went from one > pocket into another within the same government. But what they > were attempting to achieve was the appearance that they were > aboard the anti pollution movement along with the rest of > Europe. As far as it went, that worked at the time. > > The fact that you believe yourself immune from wiretap because > there are strict laws against it in the UK means the laws have > met their intent. You are mistaken in thinking I believe myself immune from wiretap. If some agency wishes to break the law to gather information on me then no law will protect me. In that instance I am no more immune to torture, wrongful arrest and detention and the like. I feel I am immune to information collected illegally being used against me - wiretap or otherwise. The issue which sparked this debate was not so much does this activity take place but is it legal and legitimate. While a security agency may well break the law to gather information, this debate becomes the realm of conspiracy theory. It is illegal, even in the US I suspect, for police agencies to torture a confession out of a suspect. Using your line of reasoning, it would be false to assume you are immune to this simply because of the law. While I do not disagree with this, it is a sorry state of a democracy where the law enforcement agencies are not bound by the laws they try to enforce. > Perhaps this once the US is more honest in our crookedness. Perhaps. Personally, I feel the nation which has assumed the authority to carry out regime change and institute "democracy" in other nations really does need to hold it self to the highest standards of human rights and democratic freedoms. I am sure not everyone agrees with me. |