Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 1 Feb 2007 08:27 Big Bertha Thing features Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/features.html 6K Web Page Astrophysics net ring access site Newsgroup Reviews including sci.space.policy Features, hyperbole and blurb, on the Pastures package and the quest. From Pastures Software Package Documentation. (Particle Structure Results Program in Fortran 77.) Sub-atomic Mesons, Baryons and Leptons Classification System. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997 Distribute complete and free of charge to comply. Big Bertha Thing language The purest form of the english language is contained in the dead sea scrolls. There is not a lot of it, even there. Pure english language is a bit like house dust, all dead skin. The living bits of the english language are anything but pure, borrowing from a dozen drunken, pilaging, barbarian invaders, with not one good intention between them. (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997. To comply with my copyright, please distribute complete and free of charge. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 08:24 In article <e5843$45c09a43$4fe73f1$10006(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <c9250$45bf73b5$4fe7196$2143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>>>>>>making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>>>>>>each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>>>>>>a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>>>>>>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >>>>>>haven't they? >>>>> >>>>>You have to read her comment *very* carefully. >>>> >>>> >>>>Damn! And I really worked on that post. >>> >>>Sorry. >>> >>>The difficulty lies in the distance between the "mistaken >>>assumption" bit and what it is that's mistaken. >>> >>>See if this rewrite suits your idea as I think it does. >>> >>>[rewrite of BAH theme] >>>In a historical context, war has been defined as two highly >>>organized groups, each funded and supplied by recognized >>>governments, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each >>>other. More recent wars carry forward the same concept >>>with the adoption of WMD's and other distance killing. >>> >>>I'm trying to address the mistaken assumption that conflicts >>>of any other nature have to be treated as criminal and apply >>>a country's criminal law to each individual. Formal warfare >>>has progressed far beyond our earlier definitions and must >>>grow to include the new realities. >>>[end rewrite of BAH theme] >> >> >> Yes. That will do. I was never allowed to make a writeup >> personal. Thank you. >> >> Now, for your opinion. Is this lack of recognition of a new >> kind of conflict not the crux of the matter? I'm not just >> talking about these guys in this thread, but the so-called >> politically correct attitude that is pervasive. > >I think it is a symptom, not the cause of anything. I didn't mean to imply cause. I'm thinking about it being the one thing to tweak and most everything else will fall out as a result. > IMO >it represents one of a number of imaginary Maginot lines. >It might be fun to try to identify and list as many as >possible. I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will have those problems reading :-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 08:27 In article <45C092F5.2E70F419(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. >> AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any >> position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the >> Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to >> spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources >> to lead and do most of the supplying. > >It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it wasn't >happening in Europe either. Are you trying to tell me that Germany isn't in Europe either? For the past week, I've been getting told that Russia isn't in Europe; now you want me to believe that Germany isn't. What about Poland? Is that in Asia? I really wish you people would get out a map and not use it for toilet paper. There are days when I wish that Truman just shrugged.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 08:28 In article <45C0A3FD.EE76A9C9(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >>I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. >> >>AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any >> >>position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the >> >>Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to >> >>spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources >> >>to lead and do most of the supplying. >> > >> > >> > It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it wasn't >> > happening in Europe either. >> >> Europe victimized some of her own > >FDR agreed to it too. Child, FDR was dead and buried. <snip> /BAH
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 09:00
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <e5843$45c09a43$4fe73f1$10006(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <c9250$45bf73b5$4fe7196$2143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>>>>>>>making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>>>>>>>each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>>>>>>>a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>>>>>>>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>>>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory > > now, > >>>>>>>haven't they? >>>>>> >>>>>>You have to read her comment *very* carefully. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Damn! And I really worked on that post. >>>> >>>>Sorry. >>>> >>>>The difficulty lies in the distance between the "mistaken >>>>assumption" bit and what it is that's mistaken. >>>> >>>>See if this rewrite suits your idea as I think it does. >>>> >>>>[rewrite of BAH theme] >>>>In a historical context, war has been defined as two highly >>>>organized groups, each funded and supplied by recognized >>>>governments, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each >>>>other. More recent wars carry forward the same concept >>>>with the adoption of WMD's and other distance killing. >>>> >>>>I'm trying to address the mistaken assumption that conflicts >>>>of any other nature have to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. Formal warfare >>>>has progressed far beyond our earlier definitions and must >>>>grow to include the new realities. >>>>[end rewrite of BAH theme] >>> >>> >>>Yes. That will do. I was never allowed to make a writeup >>>personal. Thank you. >>> >>>Now, for your opinion. Is this lack of recognition of a new >>>kind of conflict not the crux of the matter? I'm not just >>>talking about these guys in this thread, but the so-called >>>politically correct attitude that is pervasive. >> >>I think it is a symptom, not the cause of anything. > > > I didn't mean to imply cause. I'm thinking about it > being the one thing to tweak and most everything else will > fall out as a result. > > >>IMO >>it represents one of a number of imaginary Maginot lines. >>It might be fun to try to identify and list as many as >>possible. > > > I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them > and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum > benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. > > I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will > have those problems reading :-). Naw, I've heard this expressed many times and in many ways. It is a logical direct head on approach that rarely works if the target is human behavior. Look at this thread for the classic example of emotionalism superseding logic. Dr. Spock's products. Who knew? |