Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Jan 2007 17:49 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > What part of ALL radiating devices do you not understand? > > > > If anything, the business/commercial class was LESS tolerant of > >emissions. > > Sigh! And we weren't selling to the business nor commercial class > at that time. Who mentioned anything about "selling"? Is there no pathetic attempt at a wriggle that you won't try? Maybe your computer kit was blue. Perhaps the law doesn't apply to blue boxed. Try that one, it's probably more believable than your previous attempts. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 17:55 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:b3d4f$45bbcff5$4fe72dd$25434(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:45BBC61A.51BF754C(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >>>>> >>>>>I did question what we mean by "insane". >>>> >>>>Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or >>>>divine/ultimate >>>>being. >>>> >>>>Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? >>> >>> >>>If you ask me. Yes. >> >>Since that is the default human condition, the definition >>might ought to be reversed if we accept that "insane" >>equates in some way to "abnormal" or "aberrant." > > > If religious beliefs are the default human condition [*] then it could be > argued that non-believers are insane. > > I dont agree that religious beliefs are the default human condition though. Google religion gene (no quotes) 2,790,000 hits The top one is an article in New Scientist. "Genes contribute to religious inclination" "Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time. "Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147 So it seems to me that they are. > >>This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into >>degrees of insanity. > > > Not something I can provide as I tend to think of insane and not insane. > However, I have nothing against differentiating insanity into different > grades and can see the logic behind saying the insanity of someone who goes > to church every Sunday is different from the insanity of someone who > prevents their children receiving chemotherapy for cancer on religious > grounds, which again is different from the insanity of some one who kills > innocent people on the grounds of their religion. > > -- > > [*] If "religion" is the default human condition, it fails to answer why > there are so many mutually exclusive religions and why over the spread of > human history there have been so many religions which wildly differ in their > practices and implementations. If religion provides some other function > (social, power, control etc) which is the default human condition then it is > another matter entirely, but surely then the "other function" which is the > default human condition. > >
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 17:56 unsettled wrote: > The simplicity of your approach to international politics > prevents you from considering the larger long term picture. The simplicity of *his* approach ! ??? It's the simplicity of the typical US approach to foreign relations that renders you so accident prone. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 17:58 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d7bcf$45bbcd8d$4fe72dd$25382(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:86f93$45bbbd7e$4fe72dd$24906(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > >>>It does to me. Both sides were begging the US to enter on their >>>side, right from the beginning. The US attempted to remain >>>neutral, however munitions manufacturers illegally sold to >>>the Brit side, eventually forcing the issue. > >> OK. I am I reading your post correctly here. Both sides were asking for >> help but your country refused to help. When some people broke the law and >> helped one side by selling munitions your government, the resulting >> attack by the Germans (in 1915) made your Government change it's mind and >> join the war (in 1917). > >> It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved >> Europe asked for help. > > The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never > withdrew their request for help. > > Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out > of the war. > > The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and > we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. OK. You might want to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_1#Entry_of_the_United_States to clarify matters a bit. Anyone reading the Wiki article is likely to come away thinking the US did it for American foreign policy reasons. >> My recollections from my school days may be a bit vague but I seem to >> recall the US objected to the German submarine warfare, and when it was >> resumed in 1917 (along with German attempts to get Mexico involved) that >> tipped the balance. > > That's what solved the internal disputes in the US. You're > not saying that your government didn't ant us to help, are > you? Not at all. That is a very different thing to what I am saying. I am saying the US did not enter the war soley because a European nation was asking for help. If the Lusitania had not gone down, and the Zimmerman telegraph not been publicised, would the US have got involved? If they wouldn't have, then it was not the requests for help they responded to but the attack (and potential future attacks). To me there is a difference. You may think otherwise. >>>No it isn't. Russia/SU was always European. > > Take a few minutes to look at a historical map from before the > SU breakup. The part of the SU that's in Europe is tremendous. > If I recall correctly, it is the largest European nation at > the time. Two thirds of the USSR's land mass is outside Europe. For example see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Soviet_Union_Administrative_Divisions_1989.jpg As the Urals are the "border" of Europe and Asia there, it seems most of the Soviet landmass is outside Europe. Granted the part of the USSR that is still inside Europe is larger than any other "single" European nation it is not larger than the nations which make up the EU, EC or any other European grouping. Is NATO european? Is the UN Asian? >> But refering to it as a European power in the context of BAH's statement >> is. When she talks about Europe (and uses the term "you" towards the >> Europeans posting in this thread), I doubt she includes Cold War USSR in >> that category. > >> I may be wrong, and if she clarifies matters I will reconsider. > > See above. She has differentiated between "formerly free Europe" > and the soviet block, but not distinguished the soviet block as > not being part of Europe. I will wait until BAH can speak for herself on this matter. >>>>But even at the shocking use of Cold War USSR as being a European power, >>>>when did Europe ask the US to get involved? >>> >>>Stalin insisted on the subdivision of Korea. What the hell >>>did the US want with another Asian nation to look after? > >> BAH stated the US got involved in Korea when Europe asked for Help. What >> on Earth does Stalin subdividing Korea show about a European nation >> asking for help? > > Stalin was the head of a European nation. I won't argue on > her behalf, but in this context of Stalin being an important > part of Europe in that day I agree with her statement. Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he ask for the US' help in the Korean war? >>>>That was the claim. Your post talks about the background to the >>>>separation, not the request for US/UN involvement. BAH claims the US got >>>>involved when Europe asked for help. >>> >>>That's right. At the close of WW2. Did you read the Wikipedia >>>article? > >> Yeah, but I think I missed that bit. I read the bit where Truman went to >> the UN to get UNSC approval for the action. > > There are two strange aspects to that. The first is that the US > didn't want to "go it alone" precisely because we were there as > a consequence of one of the "unfinished WW2 messes" that BAH talks > about. The US could have allowed all of Korea to go to the Russians. > Even more strange is the fact that the SU, knowing that this > request from the US was in the works, created an artificial > row in the SC so that they could walk out and not participate > when it came time to vote on the Korean matter. One might make > the case that the Soviets couldn't openly approve of the US > involvement in this "police action" however they approved of > it by absenting themselves and purposely allowing the vote to > favor the US proposed resolution. That is certainly one way to look at it. It is very different from saying the US only got involved because a European nation asked for US help, and as the Soviets supported the North Koreans it strikes me as an unusual definition. I would be interested to see any other claims that the US involvement in Korea was because a European nation - the USSR - wanted their help there. > It wasn't long till it was the SU's turn to chair the SC, > so at that time they returned to the SC, took the chair > without comment, and continued as though nothing had > happened. > >> It is a long document so I may have overlooked the European request for >> help. Can you point it out to me please? > > Stalin got us into Korea in the first place. And then helped > the Korean War happen, see above. First off, Stalin never forced the US to agree to a split surrender of Korea so I still don't see how he got an apparently unwilling US into Korea. Then saying he "helped the Korean war happen" is radically different from saying the US got involved because the Soviet Union requested their help. If Stalin did help the war happen, then that was something he did to help the US (who requested UN approval for the conflict) rather than the US doing something because Stalin wanted their help.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:04
unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > >>It does to me. Both sides were begging the US to enter on their > >>side, right from the beginning. The US attempted to remain > >>neutral, however munitions manufacturers illegally sold to > >>the Brit side, eventually forcing the issue. > > > OK. I am I reading your post correctly here. Both sides were asking for help > > but your country refused to help. When some people broke the law and helped > > one side by selling munitions your government, the resulting attack by the > > Germans (in 1915) made your Government change it's mind and join the war (in > > 1917). > > > It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved > > Europe asked for help. > > The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never > withdrew their request for help. > > Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out > of the war. > > The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and > we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. It still doesn't mean you saved us though. By about 1916 IIRC it became clear that the German war machine was bogged down and would make no further progress. Defeat was just a matter of time for Germany. Their best option was to hold out and hope for decent terms of surrender. Graham |