Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 09:57 In article <ep7p9v$8qk_005(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >>In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. It's >down to >>the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more serious cases >whether >>bail will be offered. > >What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >threats by these terrorists? In that case, chances are he is right. In England, however, the person is still likely to be remanded (held) pending the trial. The trial will happen soon there after. Bail is less frequent in the UK than in the US. On a serious charge, the judge is not as likely to offer it. > >> >>Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand pending >their >>trial. > >But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >is a likelihood of guilt. I think London escaped a mess by the >skin of their teeth. If the police don't have enough evidence, the person is not very likely to be in front of the judge in the first place. The police don't go around arresting people at random. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 10:00 In article <7539e$45b764bc$4fe7370$11158(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [.....] >Unless they're held under conditions not acceptable to some >of our "friends" they'll continue with their program from >jail. This is simply false and I believe beneath you. The things that have been objected to by myself and others are things like torture of prisoners. You appear to be arguing that prisoners must be tortured to prevent them from continuing in their effort. Please tell me this isn't true. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 10:03 In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >This is not adequate. These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything you hoped to defend. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7j3g$8ss_004(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. You have replied to them in the past. >>Several people have responded with terms which are >>better, but you demand a "single word." > > You demanded the word, not I. You wrote: (in news:ep55jg$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com) 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." You wrote: (in news:ep55jg$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com) "I know that. So I asked for word to describe certain concepts." This not *me* demanding a single word, it is *you*. I have said the word you use is wrong, as it would be if you used "banana" instead. You demand an alternative word, then accuse me of demanding it. You are showing more and more kooksign in each post you make. As lots of people have told you, this is a difficult concept and trying to shoe horn it into a single word for soundbite purposes is flawed. Accept the fact you can not have a "single word" and move on. >>> Could this omission be due to >>> the fact that I am using the correct words? >> >>There is no omission and you are not using the correct words. <snip trivial attempt at appeal to ridicule>
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:28
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ep7rfc$bn4$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <GJydnV29I7-YpSvYRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>Actually, you have been given several options of multiple words to use. >>Did >>you ignore those posts? Several people have responded with terms which are >>better, but you demand a "single word." > > I even suggested "Anticrimeeffort" if she really needs to make it one > word. And now she claims that no one made any suggestions and the whole idea of a single word was my idea. Revisionist madness. |