From: unsettled on
T Wake wrote:

> I may be wrong, but it doesn't matter any more. You no longer wish to debate
> and appear to have reverted to argumentative combinations of insults and
> sarcasm.

I've merely grown weary of reading constant baseless
pontification and smug superiority. You argue and
write quite well, unfortunately lacking substance.

From: Eeyore on


unsettled wrote:

> T Wake wrote:
>
> > I may be wrong, but it doesn't matter any more. You no longer wish to debate
> > and appear to have reverted to argumentative combinations of insults and
> > sarcasm.
>
> I've merely grown weary of reading constant baseless
> pontification and smug superiority. You argue and
> write quite well, unfortunately lacking substance.

It doesn't lack substance at all, it just goes right over your head.

Graham


From: MassiveProng on
On Fri, 26 Jan 07 12:15:54 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us:

>In article <gpnir29u35mv9n1tgfa9blk3ks9d1kadah(a)4ax.com>,
> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Now read the regs on gear manufactured for non-home use.
>


What part of ALL radiating devices do you not understand?

If anything, the business/commercial class was LESS tolerant of
emissions.
From: unsettled on
T Wake wrote:

> If you feel that a Muslim has a special privileged insight into Islam that
> no none Muslim can have, then fair enough.

Islam is a religion with cultural trappings. The view from
inside is rather different from that on the outside.

> I disagree. As an example, when I
> was at university I was friends with a professor of comparative religion who
> was not a Muslim himself but was highly regarded, by Muslims, for his
> knowledge of the subject.

I guess if you read a extensively about horses, perhaps
spent a lot of time with them, you will know what it feels
like to be a horse, to think and act like a horse, and to
argue that your understanding about being a horse is on
an equal footing with that of an actual horse.

You realize both renditions are quite good fiction

From: Eeyore on


unsettled wrote:

> I guess if you read a extensively about horses, perhaps
> spent a lot of time with them, you will know what it feels
> like to be a horse, to think and act like a horse, and to
> argue that your understanding about being a horse is on
> an equal footing with that of an actual horse.

Whereas in your case you've been studying clowns.

Graham