Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 07:17 In article <ep4lnt$rtg$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >On 2007-01-20, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> Please measure the miles between Israel and the Mediteranean. > >0 > >> Note the number of miles between Israel and the Suez Canal. > >about 120 at closest approach, 140 from Beersheba, 160 from Tel Aviv > >> Now consider that Iran does its atomic bomb testing on >> Israel soil. How long do you think the Canal will be closed? >> You may assume that Iran doesn't "miss" and take out the >> core of Egyptian commerce with the same single attack. > >at that range? a couple of months. Possibly, if all political winds blow exactly the correct way. I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about 3 months reserve. I don't know what other Europeans countries have. I found a book at the dump that lists all the coal reserves and stuff (I have not figured out what the stuff means). The Portuguese would have to dust off their old knowledge about how to get around the African continent. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 07:18 In article <45B61A02.F39FA8D7(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> > >> >>JMF was using a VT05. His screen would duplicate on my black >> >>and white TV two rooms over (about 25 feet). I warned him >> >>to tell me when he was going online and then I'd turn my TV >> >>off. >> >> >> > You should have "warned him" to repair the emissions issue, or the >> >FCC would do it for him. >> >> They didn't exist then > >Oh yes they did. Not for computer gear at that time. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 07:19 In article <87fya1he8b.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> > You should have "warned him" to repair the emissions issue, or the >> > FCC would do it for him. >> >> They didn't exist then. > >Oh, dear. The 20th century all a blur to you? > >The FCC predates your very existance. Unless you actually are >as old as your senility indicates. Sigh! The FCC emissions rules did not include VT05s. Is that sentence better? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 07:23 In article <GJydnV29I7-YpSvYRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ep55jg$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <vMednUyO_cVojSvYnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><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. >> >> I know that. So I asked for word to describe certain concepts. >> All I've gotten so far is smoke and mirrors and rotten bullshit. > >You must be reading your own posts then. > >>> >>>>> >>>>>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? >> >> You are the one who says I must use a different word. So I asked >> you for a word to use when I write these posts. So far, >> you have not provided one. > >Actually, you have been given several options of multiple words to use. Did >you ignore those posts? No, I haven't seen them. >Several people have responded with terms which are >better, but you demand a "single word." You demanded the word, not I. > >> Could this omission be due to >> the fact that I am using the correct words? > >There is no omission and you are not using the correct words. [emoticon waves hand and watches the smoke waft away] /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 07:37
In article <45B61D27.BE19A06E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> >When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found the >> >people guilty of terrorism? >> >> So, the only time the people, who have an intent to destroy Western >> civilization infrastructure and population, can be held in jail >> is after they have been convicted. > >Of course not. They can be remanded for trial if a criminal charge is brought >against them. What if there isn't enough evidence that satisifies your legal definitions? > > >> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. > >Who were these people ? I don't remember. I remembered the incident because it pointed to a chink in legal systems that wouldn't prevent a mess from being made. > > >> If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation >> is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist >> is innocent until proven guilty. > >That is indeed the rule of law. Of our (Western civilization) laws. > > >> But, wait! He hasn't made >> any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your police do >> manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue >> his plans to make a mess. > >No - the police can object to bail where there's a public >risk and a judge may not be willing to grant bail anyway. And what about judges who have a political agenda and are very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making plans? This is a problem that needs to be solved. > > >> If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then >> you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your >> life-style. > >It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police have >powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without charge >subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must >indeed be released or charged. IMO, 30 days isn't long enough. > >Any longer was rejected by Parliament. I understand that. I don't think 30 days is long enough. All these people have to do is include a contingency plan that allows a 30-day delay. I don't know what the correct thing to do is. Our legislators over here don't appear to be even thinking about this problem. /BAH |