Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 08:24 In article <45B61DBC.34732159(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about >> > an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened >> > 36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your >> > bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications >> > and information issue. >> >> It is a shame you think I am bashing America. I think America has a lot >> going for it and should be prepared to live up to the high standards. > >I agree. We will never live "up" to your standards because those standards are based in a political philosophy different from ours. You keep insisting that we do everything perfectly while you all set back and watch us do the mess cleaning for you. > > >> Your comments seem to imply America is a barbaric nation, where suspected >> criminals are denied their rights and convicted prisoners are treated in an >> arbritrarily cruel manner. But I am the one bashing America. > >Curious isn't it. Americans actually seem to proud of their 'rougher edges'. See? The thing you need from us you describe as inelegant and crude and not acceptable in polite society. Make up your mind. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 08:27 In article <45B7614D.A323D015(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Of *COAL* ! Yes, child. If no oil is delivered, then your country will have to use its coal reserves. Right? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 08:28 In article <45B76309.BDEA8089(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: >> >> 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. > >Ah. You're trying to wriggle off the hook on that account now ? > >I think the relevant rules ( CFR47 part 15 subpart J ) came into force in the >early 80s, the issue having been formally first addressed in 1976 in FCC docket >20780. >http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JLSCCJCfxXwJ:www.conformity.com/0502/050 2historical.html Very good. Now look up the first production dates of VT05s. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 08:49 In article <ru2dnXYbBez24CrYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ep7jd1$8ss_006(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45B64130.D6F8E740(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or aid/abet >>>one. >>>Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report >> knowledge >>>of such things. >>> >>>That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. >> >> Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail >> before they are tried in your country? > >Anyone who is arrested _may_ be released on bail, however if they are >considered a danger then it is unlikely. Most people charged under the >various Prevention of Terrorism Acts we have had over the years have been >refused bail. > >Are you worried that a guilty person may be offered bail? Is it worse if a >guilty rapist is offered bail? It's a similar problem. Take that guy who goes after boys. He can get out because the judge allowed bail. I don't trust judges' descretions any further than I can spit. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 08:58
In article <45B766DF.30E71DA6(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: >> >> "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? > >Then they won't be charged in the first place. Exactly. You people came very close to having a big mess in your laps. Doesn't that small window of time bother you? > > >> >> 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. > >That's why we can make a valid claim to have better standards than some other >countries, yes. But there exists another culture that disagrees. Not only does it disagree but your standards are against their religious beliefs. Now, how do you allow them to have their religious freedom when their religion says your ways must be eradicated from the face of the Earth. > > >> >> 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? > >Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. A lot of them are elected. > Ours seem to >be very rational and level-headed. Just wait. > >In a very serious case I think the Home Secretary could over-rule bail in any >case. What if that case has to do with my notion of danger which your opinion is overblown, lies, and a figment of my imagination? It is your popular opinion that these don't exist because the world disapproves the actions the US is taking. > > >> 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. > >Hasn't been a problem. yet. It only takes one time to destroy London. > > >> >Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >> >> I understand that. I don't think 30 days is long enough. > >As I said, it hasn't prevented any prosecutions here. I am not worried about prosecutions. I am talking exclusively about preventing unrecoverable messes. > > >> All these people have to do is include a contingency plan that allows >> a 30-day delay. > >What a strange idea. 30-day delay of what ? Killing everybody in your Underground for example. > > >> 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. > >I know. We're way ahead of you. Sadly, you are way behind. And your neighbors across the Channel are even further behind. /BAH |