Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 08:41 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep514s$8qk_001(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Rb2dnXdKuZ0ahCjYRVnysQA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ep2aoe$8ss_005(a)s898.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ep070n$tuf$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <eovot5$8ss_011(a)s944.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <45B293DB.DEAE84AD(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the >>>>>>> >> >> >> US >>>>>>> >> >> >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists >>>>>>> >> >> >> will. >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to >>>>>>> >> >> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she >>>>>>> >> >> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >What has where they're visiting got to do about it ? Have they >>>>>>> >> >been >>>>>>> >> >visiting extremists ? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Yes. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >Which ones ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you find out for yourself? That way you might stumble >>>>>>> across what these idiots have been announcing and saying, too. >>>>>> >>>>>>Because I'm not going to make any assumption about whom you had in >>>>>>mind. >>>>> >>>>>I don't have Kerry's nor Clinton's itenerary. The news has mentioned >>>>>Syria, Afghanistan, and I don't recall if one of them stopped in >>>>>PLO territory. I would expect Hillary to stop. >>>> >>>>You said they met with extremists. Now it comes out you had no evidence >>>>for that. That they stopped in some places is all you have as fact. >>>>All >>>>the rest is something you assumed. >>> >>> Do you consider Syria to be moderate and, thus, not a problem? >> >>Irrelevant. If, for example, they met with US military officials in >>Afghanistan does that mean they met with extremists? > > Who else did Clinton meet with? Which NATO people did Clinton > meet? It was a made up example. Your bias presents itself with every post. You constantly avoid questions you dont like answering, while presenting your own questions as the gold standard. > I listened to the President of Afghanistan make a speech several > years ago on CSPAN. The assumption of the audience was that > he wanted the US to leave (this was the start of the anti-Bush > nonsense) and was asked a trick question during his Q&A session. > He did not fall for the trick and made it perfectly clear that > they did not want the US to leave any time soon. He gave > a short lecture about how much time it takes to build infrastructure > and get an economy going if the goal is self-sufficiency. Of course the president of Afghanistan doesn't want the NATO troops to leave. Without them his government would collapse in seconds. The Taliban were not beaten by the US. > Even if everything worked perfectly, and this never happens on > a farm, it takes years to get land into production and processing > infrastructures built and established. > > I don't understand how people^Wcity slickers think that all > this can happen overnight at the wave of a wand when it takes > many growing seasons to achieve maximum production. > > If the land has laid fallow, just getting rid of the unwanted > plants takes many seasons. Fertilizing cycles takes more. Irrelevant.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 08:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep51pu$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <UNOdnfbDoKbweSnYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eonuch$8qk_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45AF76BD.DD7EB5F5(a)hotmail.com>, >> >> >><snip> >>> >>> Sigh! So you don't like my use of the word civilization either. >>> >><snip> >> >>Part of the problem is you have an almost arbitrary definition of words. >>These words often have a different definition in more common use, but you >>stick to the word fitting your meaning. >> >>In addition, you seem obsessed with giving complex concepts single word >>definitions - this is flawed. > > Naming things was part of my job. I do it as naturally as breathing. OK, try to realise that this works better with software than concepts. >> >>Still, I doubt you'll change and I suspect you like tilting at windmills - >>the verbal confusion just helps create more windmills. > > This is all bullshit on your part. I have asked you for nouns to > use in this thread and everybody has blown smoke across the > request. Ha. You demand a noun to use and anything else is "bullshit." You are insane, aren't you? When you are discussing concepts, you need to use a multiple of words. Try to explain general relativity in a word. > I understand why you do this. Your comment above > shows the reason; you won't have to think about the real problems > if you keep requesting that I produce a simple word for a complex > description. Talk about turning things round! No one else wants a single word - that is what *you* are demanding fruitcake.
From: Winfield Hill on 23 Jan 2007 08:48 Winfield Hill wrote: > Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>>>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>>>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>>>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>>>>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >>>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! >>>>>> >>>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still >>>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only >>>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's >>>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. >>>>> >>>>> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. >>>> >>>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now >>>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. >>> >>> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 >>> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. >> >> Merry Christmas, Win. :) > > Happy New Year Michael :) > > With this post we're only three away from breaking the > 12500 post BARRIER. I know we can do it! Now at 13950, still going strong!
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Jan 2007 08:44 In article <ep40mt$fib$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ep2l1n$8ss_003(a)s889.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>So you are telling me that the green bean pickers are getting >>minimum wage? > >Yup. That would explain why a 12 oz can of green beans costs $1.29. /BAH >
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 09:02
T Wake wrote: > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote > > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >>> We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not > >>> those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're > >>> actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. > >> > >>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by > >>the US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. > > > > Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. > > Sadly, there are some in this thread who feel "winning" is more important > and are more than happy to throw away every value and standard in order that > more enemy get killed. If it were possible to 'win' such a 'war' using military force then presumably some at least might accept that compromise but this is one 'war' that can never be won. I'm forever amazed that otherwise apparently sensible people can't see that. Graham |