Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 07:48 In article <45B946A9.FB9C416(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: >> > >> >> You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western >> >> civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking >> >> them. You have an invalid assumption. >> > >> >And you keep thinking the answer is to lock up ppl on *suspicion* alone ! >> >> So far, until methods can be created to deal with this catefory of >> people, yes. > >The category known as *suspects* ? > > >> England extended the minimum holding time. > >To a period long enough for the police to search for and find sufficient >evidence to convict. > > >> That's not going to be an adequate change. > >It's worked just fine so far. > > >> There will have to be more as new methods of attack are created and carried >> out. > >What have terrorist 'methods' got to do with investigating a crime ? Sigh! They include the 30 day retention time in their plans. > > >> >That's unacceptable in a civilised society. >> >> You mean, a Western civilized society. > >No, any decent civilised society. Which, by your definition is the Western. Take a look at what constitutes a "decent" civilized society when the extremists are in charge. That is what they intend the world to have; these politicians are expansionists. The West, who has dropped that tactic, is going to have to deal with it. /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 26 Jan 2007 07:59 On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:13:29 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Damn nuttin! > >Say what you mean man, I'm not a mind reader. The discussion >you snipped is pasted in below. Nowhere does it say *anything* >about what a imaginary designer might be able to do! > >How many times will it take for you to understand? What part of the word "make" do you not understand the meaning of?
From: MassiveProng on 26 Jan 2007 08:01 On 26 Jan 2007 14:02:37 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: >> On Thu, 25 Jan 07 13:31:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >And you people are talking about the wrong decade. >> > >> >I was using VT05s in 1972; IIRC, Hastings was typing on his >> >breadboard in 1971. I'm still pissed off at him for not >> >asking me about the keyboard layout. >> >> The FCC had emission regs on ALL radiators since the fifties. > >I'm unable to find evidence that it didn't have them since the >mid-late 30s. RF wasn't a new field back then. They took over >a previous authority's mantle, and knew what they were dealing >with. > Cool. I should have said "at least" since then.
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 07:59 In article <45B94793.F24C904C(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: >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > >> >> >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >> >> > >> >> >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >> >> >> >> These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days >> >> is too long?! >> > >> >It is for someone who's innocent ! >> >> Your laws do assume innocence until proven guilty...right? Thus >> all are innocent. Are you willing to wait until a mess is made >> and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? > >Are you trying to suggest that there would be suspects who were simply allowed >to continue do their evil deed ? Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What makes you think that he will stop his plans? > > >> What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that >> is what was messed up. > >You overestimate what a few ppl can achieve. You're quite obsessed by the >curious idea that our society is so flimsy that it'll fall over if anyone so >much as huffs and puffs at it. I don't share your fears. A very small huff and puff happened in New Orleans. It's infrastructure is still in shatters. It doesn't seem that anyone knows how to rebuild it without calling in the US Army. One passenger boat sinking in (I think) the Red Sea caused a riot and shut down a port. I am assuming that all welfare, upper-middle class neighborhoods will be in the same situation. Noone knows how to fix stuff nor cope with stuff that breaks. /BAH
From: unsettled on 26 Jan 2007 08:08
MassiveProng wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:13:29 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>Damn nuttin! >> >>Say what you mean man, I'm not a mind reader. The discussion >>you snipped is pasted in below. Nowhere does it say *anything* >>about what a imaginary designer might be able to do! >> >>How many times will it take for you to understand? > > > > What part of the word "make" do you not understand the meaning of? I understand the word "make". That's what you're doing at present. |