Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 3 Feb 2007 15:17 MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > 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? In reality - his invention was an serendipity. He was doing a bodge job, and it turned out to be better than the original. 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 3 Feb 2007 15:37 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>You've time and again demonstrated you're not worth >>the clock cycles it takes to download. > > > LOL ! You've turned into another BAH. Good one! That's coming from a habshi clone.
From: Phil Carmody on 3 Feb 2007 15:38 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > <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. Fool. > 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? More BAHssumptions. > 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. I couldn't find anything on that page that connected shoes and getting approval from a cleric. So I think it's a red herring. > 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? Why look at the OT, when the NT has examples? Very many Christian sects have guidelines regarding head-wear. The largest have historically had the blokes-don't-women-should view. That's based on the gibberings of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Some sects maintain these rules strictly to this day. That chapter also forbids blokes from having long hair, for reference. 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 3 Feb 2007 15:43 MassiveProng wrote: > Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the > unsettledTard is not correct either. I get mine from reasonable sources on the internet, with the appropriate URL displayed in close proximity. Your definitions, on the other hand, are unique.
From: Phil Carmody on 3 Feb 2007 15:51
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45C4E4E4.F06F7B1B(a)hotmail.com... > > > > > > 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. > > Ah. > > Amazing grasp on reality. I missed that too. Had to search for it. Message-ID: <eii3t5$8nc_007(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> <<< > There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing from > WW2 ended in the 50s. It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. >>> On planet BAH, /rationing did not end in the UK/. Wow. Amazing _alternative_ reality she has a grasp on. I know schizophrenics with a better grasp on real reality. (As long as they keep taking their pills.) 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./. |