Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 18:16 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > Nonsense. > > I have to ask this. Are you by any chance a Muslim? LOL ! All Americans seem to think that not to consider Muslims contemptible devious plotters and liars must mean you're a Muslim yourself ! Americans are *very* dangerous. And that's now majority UK thinking AIUI. Most Britons see the USA as a danger to world stability and peace. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 18:21 unsettled wrote: > I'd like to see a > law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings > are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including > fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. I can entirely agree with you here. It would also discourage frivolous charges/indictments. An innocent person can have their life wrecked by false charges and it shouldn't happen. It's possible to claim compensation here but far better to avoid the situation in the first place. Graham
From: MassiveProng on 24 Jan 2007 18:38 On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:48:46 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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? > >Neither did they exclude them ! They were if you like 'unintentional' >transmitters. I business perhaps, but in residential settings there are NO RF/EMI emitting devices "excluded".
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 19:07 Eeyore wrote: > unsettled wrote: >>T Wake wrote: >>>Nonsense. >>I have to ask this. Are you by any chance a Muslim? > LOL ! > All Americans seem to think that not to consider Muslims contemptible devious > plotters and liars must mean you're a Muslim yourself ! T Wake must have a lot of insight into a culture one is led to believe by his "Britishness" is completely alien to him because he answers frequently, thoroughly, and authoritatively to all issues about Islam and the many middle eastern mentalities. The question, then, is a natural one. Perhaps he isn't but one of his parents is, or somesuch. He must draw all this wisdom from somewhere, after all. Or do you think he's just talking through his hat? Is he a loser like you, making believe he knows more than he does? Tell us, dumb donkey, which is it? We have an announced presidential candidate, Obama, here in the US who has been trying to cover his early childhood upbringing as a Muslim. "Sleepers" on usenet are not unusual though they are so rare that this is the first one as a presidential candidate. We have an excellent example of one who has been around physics newsgroups for years, Claude Masse. You don't have any idea about "all Americans seem to" this or that. Hell, you can't seem to spend a day understanding the most elementary discussions in this thread, let alone understand an entire nation and culture over an equal period. > Americans are *very* dangerous. And that's now majority UK thinking AIUI. Most > Britons see the USA as a danger to world stability and peace. You're certainly fucked up enough to really believe that sort of thing and also to think an entire majority in your nation believes as you do. You're a classic loser who turns to usenet to help you to make believe you have any sort of a life at all so you hardly know what most Brits let alone Americans think let alone any actual form of reality. I'll now return to leaving you to your self imposed misery. Civil discourse is appropriately engaged in with civil people, which leaves you out.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 19:13
MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:39:48 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>More to the point she speaks from a perspective of the things >>she knows and assumes that for the most part they are right. >> >>Not that that will diminish your personal need to draw blood >>at every opportunity. > She is wrong, period. Did I say otherwise? > As far as "things he knows" FCC guidelines and restrictions as well > as their modus operandi are not among "things she knows". > > I wasn't attempting to "draw blood" with my replies, I was > attempting to instruct. Are you now telling me you also post as Phil Carmody? That's who I was replying to. snip |