From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:45 In article <45C4C1AC.DA5CCCF0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>> >> >>>>You people sure seem to have to think in absolutes. >> >>> >> >>> Like you and your stove. >> >> >> >>I would have been superstitious about the stove, except another >> >>bit god I know can't use his modem when his stove is plugged in. >> >> >> > >> > If he is on a modem, he is hardly anything even close to a "bit god". >> >> Then you've never met one. > >His assesment sounds spot on to me. If you dismiss the minimalists in the computing biz, you will always overlook the real bit gods. They are dying off and we don't seem to be breeding enough replaements. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 08:50 In article <9lk9s2t50t9i9iinqcefji61rihs9o4jpc(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Feb 07 12:11:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>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. >> >>/BAH > > > Isn't this where we're all supposed to say "BAHahahahahahahahahah!"? > > You sit in front of that thing ALL DAY. Check the date-time stamps. Your fantasyland has a clock tick bug. > I doubt there are any days >where you get out. I get out about once a week. > > Are your groceries delivered? No. I have to know what I'm going to be out of two weeks in advance to have somebody else do the shopping for me and it costs $20/hour with the clock starting at the time the shopper leaves her house and gets back to her house. It wasn't worth all the energy to train them. /BAH
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 09:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45C4C1AC.DA5CCCF0(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>You people sure seem to have to think in absolutes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like you and your stove. >>>>> >>>>>I would have been superstitious about the stove, except another >>>>>bit god I know can't use his modem when his stove is plugged in. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If he is on a modem, he is hardly anything even close to a "bit god". >>> >>>Then you've never met one. >> >>His assesment sounds spot on to me. > > > If you dismiss the minimalists in the computing biz, you will always > overlook the real bit gods. They are dying off and we don't seem > to be breeding enough replaements. > > /BAH I was told that http://www.ts1000.us/ had a coding contest in 2006. That's using the old Sinclair "doorstop" computers with 1K memory which also held the OS and a basic interpreter. I don't know how much space was left for programs, but it wasn't very much. A contest puts one in mind of the period when these were new and such contests were common.
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 09:01 In article <aK2dnURuwa_HQ1nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. >> > >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. The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. Their peoples are now getting exposed to Western media. These people see stuff they would like to wear or use or buy or make. Now they are the ones who are making the decisions and not the clerics. The clerics who are sensitive to loss of this kind of oversight power, recognize, rightly, that Western civilization is encroaching into their territory. The most normal decision is to decide to destroy the threat to their power. The one advantage that these people have is they do not insist on instant gratification; they think in centuries, not minutes. >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? It is based on everything I've read. It is based on how long it took for the Ottoman clerics to "approve" Western civilization innovations, e.g. printing press. > >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. Unsettled has passed most of my rationale tests. We don't agree on a lot of things but he has his feet planted in reality. > >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? I suspect that the Jews who are very strict have similar rules of living styles. The difference is that they haven't blown up trade centers for the purpose of forcing the rest of the world to their adapt to their living style. /BAH
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 09:08
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4ntj$8qk_004(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Rationing ended in 1954.I was alive and I remember it. I am intrigued as to what the book could say though. > 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. Yes, although there are lots of annoying things about politicians. |