Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 09:11 In article <45C4C3AE.2427F1EB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Trying to explain the restrictions of the sale would >> be impossible. > >That's why the standards exist. That is the theory; reality has an annoying habit of not obeying rule written by humans. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 4 Feb 2007 09:21 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. Are you really so thick that you think that the Cambridge in England is a school? You really don't have the first clue about anything, do you? I love the attempt to patronise with "son"; who says the Americans don't do irony? 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: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 09:17 In article <45C4C4B6.116AE672(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: >> > >> >>Powered off is not the same as unplugged. >> > >> > You're an idiot. Test benches have power supplies to power circuits >> >so that they do not require their internal AC fed power supply. All >> >the circuits of your petty little stove would have been tested before >> >even being assembled into the stove. >> >> If the stove was not tested after assembly, the procedures have >> another bug. > >No. You are making no sense. Do you honestly believe that, if each part passes the test, the assembled item doesn't need to be tested? Which word, electtic, magnetic or field, do you not understand? /BAH
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 09:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Thanks. Now, about that secondary quandary. If one reads the web page carefully it discusses the fact that the prophet wore sandals with two straps. (Did you folks miss that?) To the western mind that doesn't mean much, but to the Muslim it is the model to be followed, IMO a directive. >>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. Historically that's not exactly true. When Jericho was captured the Jews killed all the inhabitants without mercy, even though many begged to live a life of slavery instead of death. But, if we look at your statement in modern day context, it seems the older the religion the less interested it is in converts. Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of what was going on wasn't very pretty. Luther was born in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of Christianity at all, their great reformer should be coming along any time now. The conditions happen to be ripe. Funny how that works. In the meantime the west needs to hold the Muslim radicals at bay. IMO "winning the war against terror" won't be so much by our hand as it will be Islam's internal reforms. If you look at things as I do, you might see that Ghandi nearly pulled it off for India and Pakistan. I think his legacy has worked to keep those two from destroying one another. We, that is in some generation after me, will see this particular "war on terror" conflict end. Then, after a short period of peace (at most, a few generations,) the emergence of the next variation on large scale human dissent.
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 10:56
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4p08$8u0_001(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Your two sentences are no more applicable to "Islam" than any other religion. > 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. You are still focusing on the extremists. Oddly, I find I agree with bits of what you say here, but it really is applicaple only to a very small minority of Islamists. It is also applicable to an equal proportion of Christians and Jews (and probably Hindus, Jains etc). > 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. So you made "shoes" up to show how absurd the concept was - that is fine, but please say so. You make a sweeping statement based on Turkish approval of a printing press hundreds of years ago. Are you labouring under the belief that all Moslems abide by the extremist directives? Do you know there are Islamic television stations now? >>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. Do you understand the authority fallacy? >>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. The vast majority of Muslims have not blown up trade centres. For each extremist there are over a million "moderates." There are Christians who commit acts which can best be described as terrorism to encourage others to adapt to their living style. All religions have strictures on what people can and can't do. What they can and can't buy. Why do you think Islam is better or worse for what it's strictures are? |