Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 5 Oct 2006 11:24 On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:51:29 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: [snip] >>But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >>sweat, no warrant, nada. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >And it can be thrown out. Not in Arizona it can't. You must be a Democrat, you're so ignorant. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 11:40 On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:58:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential >>candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. >> >>/BAH >OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation. Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France, specifically. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 5 Oct 2006 11:43 YD wrote: > > 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. Bitter? Are you sure? In truth, we enjoy watching morons prove their stupidity, day by day, and hour by hour. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 11:46 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eg32g6$okg$3(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very >>negative effect on us? > > Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so > I don't need to respond to this. Yes you do. Hollow threats are worthless. >> Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the >>Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own >>leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff. > > So, basically you are saying that a lack of credibility of the treat is > the problem. If the threat was believed it would be effective. They're crazy, not stupid. They know that *we* wouldn't be stupid enough to nuke anything, because the threat is too diffuse. It has long been acknowledged in global politics that nuclear weapons are useless against such a diffuse threat. In fact, this issue came up right after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the USSR. > I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe, > would work on many of them. So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100 million people? The threat of imprisonment is only as good as the likelihood that a criminal will be caught, tried and convicted. That means we'd need to drastically balloon our court system to try all of the terrorist criminals. Oh, you say you want to hold them for life without a trial? That's *certain* to get *us* nuked. In short order. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 11:45
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:47:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by >> >> >>> the west. >> >> >> >> >> >> Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? >> >> > >> >> > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However >> >> > sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. >> >> >> >> That's the point at which they've won. >> > >> >Looks like they won in that case. >> >> --- >> A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war. > >Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon. --- Trying to set up another straw man? --- >Is that what you want ? --- Nope, but since you state that that's the only way Israel can win, it seems that if you don't want Israel destroyed, that's what _you're_ advocating. In reality, though, your preferred "solution" would be to see Israel ("The Real Demon" according to you) destroyed, and yet you pretend to advocate non-violence. How can you reconcile that hypocrisy? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |