Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 11:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >> > >>> The standards do not use the word 'unplugged'. > >> > >>What word meaning unplugged do you find in your standards then? > > > > If you knew anything about the industry, you would know. > > > > The words I chose were quite sufficient, and quite literal. Powered > >off means powered off, not some off the top of your retarded little > >brains' bullshit standby mode creeping in. > > Powered off is not the same as unplugged. No matter how you want > to squirm, techs would read 'powered off' in the procedures and > just hit the power button, then take the base-line measurement. You are completely wrong. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 11:44 In article <-eednbXNsMeHwF7YnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epv914$8qk_001(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Je6dnSM7i4LLCF3YnZ2dnUVZ8saonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:epq281$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <a_WdnXJGRKBVMiLYRVnytwA(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:epnqqm$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <MvidnQbxmY5PSCHYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm still working on the original problem; I haven't solved it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>While you are doing that you can remind us what the purpose of the >>>>>Geneva >>>>>convention is (in your opinion) >>>> >>>> It was an argreement among countries about the rules of fighting >>>> were when they were fighting each other. Boxing, or any sport, >>>> does the same thing. This is a Western idea. >>> >>>Do you feel a nation, which is at war with a nation which is not a >>>signatory >>>to the Convention is bound by the terms of the convention? >> >> No, not when it creates weakness. > >Wow. > >So the rules only matter when you are winning? > >Don't you ever wonder why the US signed up to a document which is binding >even if the "other side" are not signatories? > >>>>> and what European country asked the US for >>>>>help in Korea. >>>>> >>>>>That would be an excellent start. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>So in reality, when Truman went to the UN to request support and a UNSCR >>>to >>>justify the conflict, this was actually an unnamed European nation >>>requesting US help? >> >> The UN was created to deal with problems that would cause another >> world war. If Truman had not gone the UN, the UN would have been >> as pitifully weak as the League of Nations. It was not in US' >> best interests to constantly keep bailing out Europe whenever they got >> their wooden heads wedged. > >Glossing over the current US' administrations attitude towards the UN, this >is a massive none-answer. > >Which European nation was really asking for help when Truman went to the UN >to ask for a resolution and commitment by other member states? > >Remember, the US was not the only UN member nation which put boots on the >ground in Korea. Remember that, if the US didn't go, nobody would have. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 11:47 In article <mjd6s2dfqhcfoni7hf6tnlhaq4l0ceho8d(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Feb 07 12:40:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>You people sure seem to have to think in absolutes. > > Like you and your stove. I would have been superstitious about the stove, except another bit god I know can't use his modem when his stove is plugged in. /BAH
From: T Wake on 2 Feb 2007 11:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epvpp6$8ss_008(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <-eednbXNsMeHwF7YnZ2dnUVZ8tWnnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epv914$8qk_001(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Je6dnSM7i4LLCF3YnZ2dnUVZ8saonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:epq281$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <a_WdnXJGRKBVMiLYRVnytwA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:epnqqm$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <MvidnQbxmY5PSCHYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm still working on the original problem; I haven't solved it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>While you are doing that you can remind us what the purpose of the >>>>>>Geneva >>>>>>convention is (in your opinion) >>>>> >>>>> It was an argreement among countries about the rules of fighting >>>>> were when they were fighting each other. Boxing, or any sport, >>>>> does the same thing. This is a Western idea. >>>> >>>>Do you feel a nation, which is at war with a nation which is not a >>>>signatory >>>>to the Convention is bound by the terms of the convention? >>> >>> No, not when it creates weakness. >> >>Wow. >> >>So the rules only matter when you are winning? >> >>Don't you ever wonder why the US signed up to a document which is binding >>even if the "other side" are not signatories? >> >>>>>> and what European country asked the US for >>>>>>help in Korea. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would be an excellent start. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>So in reality, when Truman went to the UN to request support and a UNSCR >>>>to >>>>justify the conflict, this was actually an unnamed European nation >>>>requesting US help? >>> >>> The UN was created to deal with problems that would cause another >>> world war. If Truman had not gone the UN, the UN would have been >>> as pitifully weak as the League of Nations. It was not in US' >>> best interests to constantly keep bailing out Europe whenever they got >>> their wooden heads wedged. >> >>Glossing over the current US' administrations attitude towards the UN, >>this >>is a massive none-answer. >> >>Which European nation was really asking for help when Truman went to the >>UN >>to ask for a resolution and commitment by other member states? >> >>Remember, the US was not the only UN member nation which put boots on the >>ground in Korea. > > Remember that, if the US didn't go, nobody would have. > Now, snipping aside, which European nation asked the US for help? I know that if the US hadn't gotten their knickers in a twist no one would have got involved. What does that have to do with anything? Is this a BAHMisdirectionAttemptT?
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 11:58
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially > >> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying > >> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know > >> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who > >> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. > > > >Would you care to explain for us who don't live there > >what it is that happened in Boston ? > > It's too long to explain. Magic incantations are: gorilla marketing, > Turner Broadcasting; the Cartoon channel and some movie about > hair (I haven't figured this one out yet); Boston temporarily > shut down. Completely failing as ever to say the word bomb and hoax. I've heard elsewhere about this now. The police in Boston acted correctly. I hope whatever nitiwit thought this one up goes to jail. Graham |