Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 09:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >> > 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? Hey Granny, we don't have any coal reserves any more. We import coal now. The genius Thatcher saw to that by shutting the mines. Did she mention that in her book too ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 09:59 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: > >> >> 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. Irrelevant. Interfering equipment has always been the one at fault. Even if unintentional. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 10:04 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Having been in meetings where these FCC issues were > discussed and hearing how DEC decided what we going to do > with VT05s might give me the idea that I know what I'm talking > about. You mean DEC *were* aware of the prblem after all ? That's not what you previously suggested. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 10:08 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: > >> > > >> >> 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? Any possible 'messes' were nothing to do with the absence of relevant law to deal with them but simply the fact that the plotters were unknown to the police or security services ! There is ample law available in the UK to hold terrorist suspects if there is supporting evidence. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 25 Jan 2007 10:10
In article <epad2s$8qk_001(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <45B766DF.30E71DA6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >>> 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. Unfortunately, you appear to be part of that other culture. >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. There are people who claim that their religion makes taking drugs ok. The US hasn't exploded because of them. You seem to be looking for an excuse to commit an outrage. You should claim that they kicked some puppies. [....] >>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. Cases such as you suggest are not taken to court on the basis of your opinions about them. They are taken to court on the basis of the facts the reponcible parties in the UK have. This means that if you are right an the person arrested is a real threat, they will be held and if you are wrong and there is no threat, they may not be arrested at all. This is as it should be since obviously you don't have the power to investigate and arrest in the UK. [....] >>Hasn't been a problem. > >yet. It only takes one time to destroy London. My neighbor has a gun. He might shoot me some day. Should I shoot him first? There is also the risk that I will be killing my neighbor who would not have ever shot me. I consider this latter far mor likely than the former. You seem to be saying "fire away" because he *might* be a threat. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |