Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:36 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:beaai2tet0okr4oqelvdlgalvns8oanpc5(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:49:11 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301(a)clgrps13... >>> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>> message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and >>>> the Brits should have made a deal? >>> >>> The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused. >>> Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad. >>> >> >>No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to >>his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it >>may >>have gone differently. > > --- > It certainly _would_ have. > > Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. > Really? And you can prove that, how?
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:41 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-FB48B2.19023404102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <3v-dnToicYfirLnYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am >> not >> for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely >> indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get >> listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_ >> representative. >> > I would argue with this (yet again, my friend). Good. Without reasonable argument, USENET would be boring and occupied by nothing but Cranks. >They are only > representative of what a certain segment of the population, and a > relatively small one at that, is willing to listen, read or watch. The > evening news hours get only about 25 million on average out of around > 300 million people. Cable gets less. 1/10 people ins't representative. It is not just news programmes - however the viewing figures in the UK are broadly parallel. My comments were about the combination of TV, Radio and the Press. Between them, these organisations can generate more audience interest than will vote in the next election (in the UK at least). This (IMHO) make them _generally_ representative of opinion. I concur that very few, if any, people will agree completely with the talking heads - but vocal minorities are the big bugbear of democracy. > If anything BIG declines in TV News veiwership over the years, at > least in the US, would indicate that the representative view is probably > elsewhere or why would be people be leaving in droves? Probably the same over here. Without using the media (TV, Radio, News and to an extent the Internet) to judge public opinion, what else is there? Worryingly, the political parties use the same sort of methods to judge what policies will be acceptable to the people. >> Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that >> goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be >> messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security >> measures. >> >> When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over. > > .. or just beginning... In my mind, it will be over and the Enemy has won.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:42 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45244A13.A94DCCB9(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the >> >> > British public will defend them. >> >> >> >> Hopefully. >> >> >> >> I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day. >> > >> > I think you mean political debate. I doubt the public would stand for >> > it. >> >> Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am >> not >> for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely >> indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get >> listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_ >> representative. >> >> Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that >> goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be >> messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security >> measures. > > That idiocy infuriates me. We are no safer for it at all. Not at all. But we are more inconvenienced and, worrying, people are more accustomed to the rules and regulations. >> When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over. > > Where have you got your view of current public debate here from ? > TV, Radio, Newspapers, Internet chat groups, public opinion polls etc.
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 16:43 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:58:01 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:58:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >> wrote: >> >> >>A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential >> >>candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. >> >> >> >>/BAH >> >OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation. >> >> Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France, >> specifically. > >You're being very very silly. > >Graham I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you save someone's life, they will hate you forever." John
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 16:43
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4524ABEE.A857925C(a)earthlink.net... >T Wake wrote: >> >> When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over. > > > You don't have a driver's license? Did you miss the word "have" in my post? I _choose_ to carry a drivers licence. I _choose_ to drive. Choice. |