Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 28 Jan 2007 09:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <87zm84ytis.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >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"? > > I did. We manufactured those TTYs. But you are irrelevant. And whoopy-doo - you mentioned something irrelevent. Only the FCC is relevant. They're the ones who make the rules. And their rules mandate conformance of behaviour, no matter whether things are bought, sold, or made at home. > >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. > > Perhaps you should try to learn how the biz worked in the late > 60s and early 70s. When will you get it into your senile old skull that this isn't about "the biz", as you so-cutesily like to call it. It's about RF emissions. 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: Phil Carmody on 28 Jan 2007 09:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > It takes a century or more to get out from underneath a conqueror. Explain how the Estonians managed to do it twice in less than a century then. Oh, no! Surely not another groundless assertion from the BAH the senile? 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 28 Jan 2007 09:58 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <6896e$45bbfe26$4fe70dd$26560(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:28b51$45bbebe7$4fe70dd$26119(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>You really are stupid. >>>> >>>>The Russians didn't collapse till 1917 and a peace treaty >>>>with them wasn't concluded till 1918, which allowed Germany >>>>to move all her troops to the Western Front and against you >>>>lot. >>>> >>>>So it wasn't clear that Germany was down and ready to collapse >>>>in 1916 for any number of reasons. The US entered the war in >>>>April 1917 and the war didn't officially end till the Treaty >>>>of Versailles on June 28, 1919. >>>> >>>>Yes, we saved you both times. >>> >>> >>>Hard to say you saved Britain in WWI. There chances are that a renewed >>>German offensive would have allowed them to retake Europe but it is unlikely >>>they would have made it across the channel (if that was even one of their >>>aims in WWI) >>> >>>An armistice would have been reached. The difference would have been France >>>and the low countries. >>> >>> >>> >>>>If Germany had been on the verge of collapse, the war would >>>>have been over much sooner after the entry of the US into >>>>the mess. >>> >>> >>>A year isn't long. >>> >>> >> >>In an earthquake 15 seconds is forever. >> >>The US sent a LOT of people into battle. A year and a half >>is a long time *if* Germany was on the verge of collapse as >>Eeyore claims. > > > A little technical detail worth mentioning. I've heard before the > claims that, would Germany have managed to conquer France and the low > countries, in world war I, it still would have been unable to conquer > Britain. Well, even before the war Germany had larger (and mostly > more adnvanced) industry than Britain had, its steel production was > far larger, and it managed to pretty much match the rate of the > British naval buildup, while maintaining far larger land forces. > Would the western fron have collapsed, you would have Germany with > pretty much all the industrial resources of Europe at its disposal, > and without the need to maintain some 150 divisons in the field. It > could've then easily outbuilt Britain (talking about naval buildup > here) by a 3:1 or 4:1 margin and within few years Britain would not > have stand a prayer. I'm sure these observations are correct. Germany was coming into its own in big ways in a time period when expansionism still had a good name.
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 10:05 MassiveProng wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:01:00 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >> >>krw wrote: >> >> >>>Metal cases are more expensive than plastic. QED. >> >>Depends on quantities. >> > > > Also depends on the maker. > > Over there, they facilities are geared toward mass production. > In the US, most things of that nature are short run, short quantity > customs. The same rules will typically apply, however. > > If I were over there, and I designed a case as was mentioned. They > could build THAT case just as cheaply as those they build that are of > poor electrical quality. The differences just simply are not even > worth mentioning. I'm really glad to hear that you're ever so much more brilliant than an entire overseas industry. Why haven't you told them?
From: ���hw��f on 28 Jan 2007 10:24
The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> pinched out a steaming pile of<pan.2007.01.28.13.34.41.98896(a)hell.corn>: >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:31:59 -0600, unsettled did the cha-cha, and screamed: > >>>>Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? >>> >>> The two are not mutually exclusive. >>> >>> In my experience, most zealots err on the side of "inhumanity" and if >>> you use that a definition of evil, they are evil. (www.godhatesfags.com >>> - are they zealots or simply evil?) >> >> Most fags are zealots of a sort. > >So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their >sexuality is in any way rational? > Try as you might; you cant fix stupid. FYI HTH |