Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 3 Feb 2007 14:05 On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:48:59 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Phil Carmody wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>> >>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: >>>> >>>>>Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before >>>>>developing his steam engine. >>>> >>>>That straw man ought to be below someone posting from a .edu address. >>>>If it expands, it will pushes, and if we can trap it so it >>>>can only push in one direction, and we can use part of that >>>>push to cause the mechanism to reset is a _theory_. It does not >>>>require knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. >>>>So your straw man is self-quenching - congratulations. >>>>And, just for reference, you're history is incorrect, it wasn't >>>>Watt. Hmmm, .edu's ain't what they used to be. >>> >>>The only person who developed Watt's engine was, >>>Ta Da! Watt >>> >>>Watt's engine relied on an outboard condenser. >>>Ta Da! Thermodynamics! >> >> >> God, you're stupid. It also relied on the quantum electrodynamics >> and strong nuclear force. That is irrelevant. One does not need >> an inverse square law theory of gravity to realise that the higher >> you aim your arrow, the further it goes. You model the behaviour, >> you prove your model. The Greeks had already modeled the motive >> power of steam. Watt is possibly the most commonly over-credited >> person in history. > > >Once again talking out of both sides of your mouth. >You're the clown who, just a few posts back, claimed >first the theory, then the practice. Watt didn't put forth, nor advance the theory. He merely implemented it. Can you even see the difference? >Now, caught out you've completely reversed your >argument while continuing with insults to cover >your lack of knowledge and logic. You show no points where this has occurred. You merely blather on that it has. Where's the beef, dipshit? >You've time and again demonstrated you're not worth >the clock cycles it takes to download. You could not even likely calculate the number. Any clock cycles you put on your computer is a waste of them as well as the power it took to toggle them.
From: MassiveProng on 3 Feb 2007 14:07 On Sat, 03 Feb 07 13:51:07 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >:-)) > > ><snip> > >/BAH Can you be any more retarded, twit?
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 14:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq1u5g$8ss_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <9c9e$45c38013$4fe768e$12122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>They [Muslims] can't even buy >>>>>>shoes unless the shoe has been approved by the clerics (I think >>>>>>those are the people who do this work). >>>>> >>>>>Really? I can find no example of this being true. Can you support the > claim >>>>>that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear? >>>> >>>>Of the three Abraham-based religions, only Christianity doesn't >>>>have rules about living styles. >>> >>> >>> More obfuscation. Did you take a course in not answering the question >>> btw ? >>> >>> Can you support the claim that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear >>> ? >>> >>> Graham >>> >>http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/072.sbt.html > > Thank you. I can't get out today to check the blurb; but I'll trust > your judgement. > This creates an interesting quandary. It appears from this, that you (BAH) had no idea where (if anywhere) in the Koran the requirement for shoes to be approved by a cleric existed. That alone raises the question of why *you* were so convinced the rule existed - was it simply something you heard in the past and assumed it was true? Now, the secondary quandary is that you *assume* the link supports your argument, without going there or checking. For all you know it could be nonsense or it could be something which unsettled thinks is relevant but still doesn't support your argument. Can *you* provide any evidence that the Koran dictates what shoes people can buy? Are the strictures laid down in that link any more prohibitive than those in the Old Testament?
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 14:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq22e9$8qk_002(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C36FC0.9975B959(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >Rationing continued after the war btw. >>> >> >>> >> I know. That is another point of evidence that England couldn't >>> >> shake the socialist type of governing. >>> > >>> >It has zilch to do with socialism and everything to do with a shortage >>> >of >>> >food you nitwit. >>> >>> There wasn't a shortage after the war was done. >> >>Yes there was. >> >> >>> >Did you know that health actually improved during the period of >>> >rationing > btw >>> >? >>> >>> Do those stats exclude everybody who died from bombs and bullets? >>> >> >>I said *health*. Do you not understand ? > > Yes. I understood. So why did you mention deaths from bombs and bullets? > I also understand that stats can be misinterpreted. > You moved a large part of your population from the cities to the > countryside. Really? Do you mean children? Large parts of the UK population were moved into the military as well. > That might also have more to do with *health* than > your implication that a government controlling your food purchasing > creates healthier conditions. So what are you arguing against? We have previously determined you make up your own interpretations of statistics in the past, so I assume you are doing the same here.
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 14:19
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87d54sghml.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:epvepo$8qk_023(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> > In article <45C1F6C2.699C14D3(a)hotmail.com>, >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>>How about an example ? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Food coupons. >> >>> > >> >>> >I think you misread. You were talking about freedoms. Do you mean >> >>> >the >> >>> >freedom from Food coupons was suspended? >> >>> >> >>> I consider being told what I can buy and when I can buy it >> >>> a loss of choice. Freedom involves each individual making choices >> >>> and coping with the consequences of those choices. >> >> >> >>I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> > >> > I have. >> >> Didn't the US institute rationing? Or doesnt that count? >> >> > It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> > to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >> When do you think WWII finished? >> >> Rationing ended in 1954, I am fairly sure the second world war finished >> _after_ the 1920s. > > BAHmaths. 3=6. 9=30. > > I didn't know about bananas - I was about to volunteer 1953. > One lives and learns. Some people just live. I think most people would accept 1953 as the end of rationing unless it was a question on mastermind or the like. I very much doubt BAH will respond to explain why she thinks rationing lasted for three decades after the war, which is a shame as it could be bloody entertaining. |