Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:09 In article <7uedneQg-LX8IFnYnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq22n6$8qk_005(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45C37833.3475050F(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: >>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>>> >> >> >message >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> Why is it that so many Americans seem to believe in perpetual >> motion >>>> >> >> >> devices / free energy / cars that run on water btw ? >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Habishi isn't American. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> And he got his training in England. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Do you have any evidence for this ? >>>> >> >>>> >> He said so. >>>> > >>>> >When was this ? >>>> > >>>> >>>> Best estimate is about two years before Franz Heymann died. >>> >>>You talk in riddles as ever. >>> >>>I suppose it was too much to expect you to name a year and some context ? >> >> I gave you an estimate of the year. Franz and I were trying >> to get habshi to test his ideas. That's when habshi told >> where he went to school. I can't recall the name of the school-- >> Cambridge is what pops up but I can't say if that's the right one. > >He was lying. That is possible. Since the guy has no imagination, I figured he couldn't make that one up. /BAH
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 08:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4jg2$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <leOdnWnR65RrVFnYRVnygQA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq23td$8qk_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <87d54rfki2.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>> In article <87lkjggic8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>> >> Saddam broke a long tradition which was Arab didn't attack Arab. >>>>> >> I think this is going to be viewed as a crucial point in world >>>>> >> history. >>>>> > >>>>> >Which event are you referring to here? Which particular Arabs >>>>> >did he attack and when? (It's not obvious from the context.) >>>>> >>>>> When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. >>>> >>>>That's what I assumed. You do realise that you've just brought >>>>up another example that weakens your own argument from about >>>>half a dozen posts back? >>> >>> I'm sure all kinds of facts contradict each other in this case. It >>> is a complicated issue and isn't going to be solved with a >>> STOP, RESET, RESTART procedure. It's also clear that this group, >>> who keep trying to prove me wrong, doesn't have any idea how >>> these Muslims live, think or believe. You are making conclusions >>> based on zero knowledge. >> >>I am not sure where this mini-rant is going, but I think you are (once >>more) >>either missing the point or trying to re-direct. >> >>*You* said that the existence of Israel prevented the nations in the >>middle >>east from attacking each other. We now have two examples of when they did >>attack each other and Israel was certainly in existence at the time. > > Let try to do a rewrite so you understand...If there was no Israel, > the Muslim countries would be spending all their time and resources > fighting each other. > > Do you understand now? I understand, but I don't agree. Also, that is not *just* a rewrite. It fundamentally redefines what you said. However, this is unimportant at the moment. Previously you have claimed that the Islamic nations are united against the west in their drive to enslave the world into Sharia law. It strikes me that your argument now reduces to the simple solution being "remove Israel." I am sure that is not a conclusion you would favour and it certainly isn't one I would favour.
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 08:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4k0j$8ss_008(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eq2gbn$2bi$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epvr4c$8ss_016(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <epvis8$gav$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[....] >>>>>>If the trial had happened etc, people would have "seen justice done". >>>>> >>>>>There wouldn't have been a trail. It would have been delayed and >>>>>the center of Washington's attention for two decades. There were >>>>>other things that needed serious attention. >>>> >>>>What makes you say that. Trials seem to happen all the time in the US. >>>>Nobody is supposed to be above the law, so how exactly do you not see a >>>>trial? >>> >>>The Nixon problem would have been used to delay work on anything >>>else. >> >>Nonsense. You seem to think that the US can't think about two things at >>once. > > It can't. Did you miss the zipper mess of Clinton's administration? > It is odd that you have a lower opinion of your nation than the people who get accused of being "anti-US."
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:11 In article <45C4C7E2.566BDE9C(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: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Why is it that so many Americans seem to believe in perpetual >> >> >> >> >> motion devices / free energy / cars that run on water btw ? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Habishi isn't American. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And he got his training in England. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Do you have any evidence for this ? >> >> >> >> >> >> He said so. >> >> > >> >> >When was this ? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Best estimate is about two years before Franz Heymann died. >> > >> >You talk in riddles as ever. >> > >> >I suppose it was too much to expect you to name a year and some context ? >> >> I gave you an estimate of the year. > >That's totally meaningless to someone who doesn't know Franz Heymann. Did that >not occur to you ? Sure. But you have said you can use Google. I gave you an incantation. > > >> Franz and I were trying to get habshi to test his ideas. > >As if he would ever do that ! This omission (not doing one's own work) was the topic of that half-year in this newsgroup. > > >> That's when habshi told where he went to school. I can't recall the name of >> the school-- >> Cambridge is what pops up but I can't say if that's the right one. > >There's a Cambridge Mass too. Son, that is a town; it is not a school. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:13
In article <45C4C73C.E6D08004(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: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> So, if it's on its own circuit, how can the stove affect the >> >> >> wiring of the plug of the radio? >> >> > >> >> >You clearly don't understand how RF energy propagates. It doesn't matter >> >> >which circuit it's on. >> >> >> >> Exactly. And it can't be the house wiring. >> > >> >Of course it can be. >> >> Then explain why I did have the same effects with the stove >> that was replaced. > >Which stove is this now ? Was it the same model ? Did it also have a >microprocessor in it ? Sorry, my fingers did their usual miss-the-most-important-word error...it should have a 'not' in that sentence. /BAH |