Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 08:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4lqo$8ss_014(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <q4mdnV0Qn8jWV1nYRVnyvAA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq22tf$8qk_006(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>Is this an answer to the question, > > Yes, it is my answer to the question. You people keep needing > a yes/no world. These problems will never fall into that > category. I wasn't asking for a "yes/no" answer here, but remember how you and unsettled "agreed" that myself and others made long posts instead of short answers - it is nice to see you do exactly the same. Now, nothing you have said says which European nations you think are "not dealing" with Iran. You just throw in misdirection as you see fit. It is like you refusing to say which European nation asked the US for help in the Korean war.
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 08:32 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4m88$8ss_018(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <GvGdnRVWH_9oV1nYRVnyjwA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq22g5$8qk_003(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45C37018.10BD636(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: >>>>> > >>>>> >> 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. >>> >> >>Re-read your post here. > > Yea. The sentence is missing a not. Cool. Problem with the stove seems quite obvious then.
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 08:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <RdSdnUfAQ6IlQlnYnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><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? > > > The health data of those people would have been removed from > the stats because their cause of death wasn't disease. For any given injury that doesn't cause immediate death, those who were unwell aside from their injuries were less likely to recover. >>>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? > > > Yes. > > >>Large parts of the UK population were moved >>into the military as well. > > > Exactly. > > >>>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? > > > It is a thread drift. > > >>We have previously determined you make up >>your own interpretations of statistics in the past, so I assume you are >>doing the same here. > > > Eeyore is laying groundwork for justifying going back to rationing. > He prefers being told what to do and having to be responsible > for any decisions. (Another "not" missing there) The socialist utopian bundling blanket. > This is one of the reasons he cannot see the current world > situtation with Islamic extremists as a threat to his lifestyle. > Eeyore is not the only one. It appears that a large number > of people think in the same manner. > > /BAH >
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 08:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4mlg$8qk_001(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <RdSdnUfAQ6IlQlnYnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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? > > The health data of those people would have been removed from > the stats because their cause of death wasn't disease. > >> >>> 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? > > Yes. Ok, then I think "large part" is the wrong phrase to use. A large part of the children who lived in cities at risk of German attack were moved. That is different than a "large part of the population." >> Large parts of the UK population were moved >>into the military as well. > > Exactly. > >> >>> 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? > > It is a thread drift. You are arguing against thread drift? >>We have previously determined you make up >>your own interpretations of statistics in the past, so I assume you are >>doing the same here. > > Eeyore is laying groundwork for justifying going back to rationing. Really? I would be surprised if he actually was. The people were healthier, under rationing, than in the 1930s. The NHS was brought in to keep people healthy when rationing ended. There is no reason to think that the introduction of rationing would make people healthier now. (Especially true if you use WHO definition of "health") > He prefers being told what to do and having to be responsible > for any decisions. Really? Is this just an ad hominem or did you come to this conclusion as the result of specific posts? > This is one of the reasons he cannot see the current world > situtation with Islamic extremists as a threat to his lifestyle. I abhor being told what to do, yet can not see the current world situation with Islamic extremists is a threat to my lifestyle in the sense you mean. I feel the measures being taken by frightened people to prevent an imaginary "thing" happening are a threat to my lifestyle. > Eeyore is not the only one. It appears that a large number > of people think in the same manner. Well, the wisdom of the masses is a double edged sword.
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:43
In article <zoWdnQv5c6KzfVnYnZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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. You may have to wait a while. I will try to find the reference in Thatacher's book. I had to converve body energy to clearing after the snowstorm. One odd, and annoying to me, thing in books written by politicians is their idea of what needs indexing. /BAH /BAH |