Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq78r8$8qk_002(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <J7udnR8smt-TQFjYRVnyhwA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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." > > I just know how people work. Based on the evidence presented in this thread, I strongly beg to differ.
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Feb 2007 11:57 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Stupid Phil Carmody lied when he wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>>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. > >> > >>Christianity doesn't concern itself about eating nor sanitary habits. > >>It doesn't establish a lifestyle nor daily habits as part of its > >>catecism. > > So Christianity has never concerned itself with fasting and > > abstinence? Odd, as such things seems to crop up in the decisions of > > the Council of Jerusalem, and in the synoptic gospels. > > BAH Christianity doesn't concern itself > Lying Phil Christianity has never concerned itself They're still, right here, in 2007, in the religion's tracts in black and white. Or does your Christian bible not have a New Testament in it? Did you tear that bit up in order to make a nest for winter, or something? Find me the bit in the Catholic bible that says that you are permitted to dismiss the book of Matthew, for instance. I'm sure for a towering intellect such as yourself, that's a simple challenge. Now go away and don't post codswallop to usenet until you find the appropriate papal edict. 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: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 12:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq78ue$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[......] >>>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>>code simply moves bits without error. >> >>Now that Windows is the most common OS, > > Except Windows isn't an OS. What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? What about a Windows Vista machine?
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 12:09 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <eq764a$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] > >>having to clear the funnel every 5'. I'm deathly afraid >>of ice these days. > > > http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.aspx?c=2&p=46633&cat=2,51676&ap=1 Thanks, that's excellent pricing. I had looked locally to find prices 3X those on the web page. My frugality overcame my fear of slipping. At these prices those lines no longer cross before I get to them. BAH, since you don't have WWW handy, the page is a vendor who sells slip-on over the shoe/boot device with hardened metal points sticking downwards to grip ice providing needed traction. These don't compete with normal clean friction surfaces, but do make the best possible compromise and at a reasonable price.
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 12:46
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45C682ED.9CCF819D(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> >>>>>Western fashions come and go at the drop of a haute couteur >>>>>hiccup. All through Islamic history, the clothes people wore >>>>>were dictated. Some had political reasons like banning >>>>>the styles that was dictated by your predecessor but others >>>>>seems to keep the infidels' influcence away from the the pure >>>>>Mulsim. That's control, serious control. >>>>> >>>>>And that's just textiles and shoes. >>>> >>>> >>>>If I point to a webpage with a picture of an Islamic Arabic cleric >>>>wearing >>>>sandles which do not have two straps are you happy this falsifies your >>>>claims? >>> >>>There are blasphemers in all religions. >> >>Blaspheming clerics ? >> > > > It also creates the situation (often used by theists to counter the argument > that religion is cause of suffering), where the rules are open to > interpretation by the individual. > > The argument says Islam is a religion of "serious control" and I am saying, > if I can find a picture of an Arabic, Islamic, Cleric wearing sandals which > do not have two straps doesn't it falsify that claim? The example of control > BAH made was about shoes, unsettled modified that (as he often has to do > when BAH starts talking nonsense) into sandals (not a major shift though) > and I am now curious as to how this can actually be an example of "serious > control" if I can find pictures of Islamic Arabic Clerics wearing footwear > not in accordance with the extract from the Koran. > > Would it be better if the picture is from a Taliban-era Afghani cleric? Or > are these claims un-falsifiable? I think this is one of those which can produce no definitive agreed on outcome even with both (all?) sides being completely straightforward and honest. To a great extent that's because in every human population are rule breakers who can be pointed to as examples. I think any viewpoint can "prove" validity by finding examples inside Islam. I consider the anti-Zionists within Judaism a close parallel. Speaking of "rules"..... I can't go back into google and find anything in this thread because of its size and google pukes out what it wants to rather than what's asked for. So I'll insert this reopening of a former part of the discussion particularly between the two of us a while back about the Geneva Conventions. A local friend handed me a stack of magazines recently that had made the rounds. A number of issues of a small magazine called "The Week" was in the stack. I open one now ad again in odd moments and read. The November 17, 2006 issue has an article which specifically addresses some of the things we were discussing earlier. Without looking in depth, I had simply assumed that the USA is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. That's essentially true, however it turns out there were some protocols added in 1977 relating to "wars of self-determination" and civil wars. Under the 1977 protocols combatants are required to carry weapons openly and to distinguish themselves. If captured otherwise they're not considered POW's. So far, so good. However there were some amendments added which held that those ununiformed people are considered POW's if they're fighting "against colonial domination" and "alien occupation" and "racist regimes." These are claims made by virtually every terrorist in history. "Some 160 nations have ratified the 1977 accords to varying degrees, but the US did not." (This Week, Nov 17, 2006, p13) The article addresses a number of the issues that have been discussed in this thread. http://www.theweekmagazine.com/ It seems, from the issues I've looked at, to be politically as neutral as they come while reporting facts. In this discussion I'm not supporting any aspects pro or con the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, however one begins to better understand the sort of case that the Bush administration deemed to be the guiding light. There was no existing treaty or law to which the detainees are subject, although it seems the US courts have wrested control and are making new laws to control the gap. Strictly speaking that's extralegal too, but they find a way to include whatever they want. There's a fine argument to be made that we have two legislative branches in the US, the judicial one cannot be further appealed short of modifying our constitution. |