Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 3 Feb 2007 14:19 On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:24:40 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor >> >> there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 >> >> Sep] seriously." >> > >> >Several other cities also had the 'suspicious devices' planted yet no action >> >was taken about them. >> >http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/31/mass_suspi >> cious_devices_called_a_hoax/ >> >> That supports my statement that only a few politicians are >> taking this threat seriously. > >You could also say that the reaction in Boston was an over-reaction. > I agree. The most they should be able to charge TN with is illegal sign affixment. Funny how they look the other way when elections occur.
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 14:31 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87irejdu1g.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <87ps8sgifg.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >What nations do you think are "not dealing" with Iran? >> >> >> >> Bush has given Europe the job to deal with Iran's stubborness. >> >> They are the ones who have been bitching that the US doesn't >> >> know how to do this stuff. >> > >> >In what way was that supposed to be an answer to the question >> >asked? >> > >> >I should probably expect as an answer to my enquiry something >> >like "milky way!". >> >> In case you haven't noticed, the old "Free European" countries >> now hide behind acting as a conglomerate when the task is >> politically incorrect. > > Are you on mind-altering drugs? If the answer (if we ever get one) to this is "no" there is a good argument for getting her some.
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 14:37 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > 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. I can find no such suggestion in the link. It does say Muslims mustn't wear one shoe for sure..... Volume 7, Book 72, Number 746: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "None of you should walk, wearing one shoe only; he should either put on both shoes or put on no shoes whatsoever." > 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? They are certainly very odd. Even dictating the order in which to put your shoes on and take them off ! Volume 7, Book 72, Number 747: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "If you want to put on your shoes, put on the right shoe first; and if you want to take them off, take the left one first. Let the right shoe be the first to be put on and the last to be taken off." Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 14:39 T Wake wrote: > 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. She's been on this tack before. ISTR she had the idea that Margaret Thatcher ended rationing. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 14:40
MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >T Wake wrote: > >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > 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. > >> >> > >> >> To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor > >> >> there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 > >> >> Sep] seriously." > >> > > >> >Several other cities also had the 'suspicious devices' planted yet no action > >> >was taken about them. > >> >http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/31/mass_suspi > >> cious_devices_called_a_hoax/ > >> > >> That supports my statement that only a few politicians are > >> taking this threat seriously. > > > >You could also say that the reaction in Boston was an over-reaction. > > > I agree. The most they should be able to charge TN with is illegal > sign affixment. Having seen the things now, I'd certainly say it was an over-reaction. > Funny how they look the other way when elections occur. Not sure which way that would work. Graham |