Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 12:49 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45C6AA1C.A402BE2E(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>>>>>>>>>to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What >>>>>>>>>was being >>>>>>>>>rationed in 1975 ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I found it. whew! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, >>>>>>>>Harper-Collins; >>>>>>>>1993; page 44. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >>>>>>>>controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >>>>>>>>restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >>>>>>>>could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency >>>>>>>>measure' >>>>>>>>at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >>>>>>>>governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >>>>>>>>investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>/BAH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, >>>>>>>and >>>>>>>economic growth initiative. >>>>>> >>>>>>Interesting comment. >>>>>> >>>>>>In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under >>>>>>Thatcher) and it >>>>>>marked the time when outsourcing also started to take serious hold. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the >>>>>damage already done though? >>>> >>>>Labour had been very protective of manufacturing industry whereas >>>>Thatcher's >>>>approach was to let 'the market' do its thing. She believed that 'the >>>>market' was >>>>the only important factor in the economy and distanced government from >>>>any >>>>long-term strategic thinking about industry. >>>> >>>>So, if it was cheaper to get stuff from abroad whether outsourced or >>>>simply >>>>imported from foreign suppliers, that was what went. >>>> >>>>Heck, we now even buy stuff like locomotives from the USA and ships from >>>>Italy, >>>>France and Germany, our own industry in those areas now being a minute >>>>fraction of >>>>what it once was. >>>> >>>>Thatcher also believed strongly in the service economy. As such, the UK >>>>is now >>>>regarded as being 'post-industrial'. >>> >>> >>> So you are saying that her cutting these said controls was a bad >>>thing for the value of british pounds sterling? >>> >>> Would it have been better to have retained it? >> >>I'm not sure what effect it would have had on the value of the pound. >> >>I'm confident that the loss of many key industries is bad for the UK >>economy though. > > > The value of the pound cuts both ways, thanks to BAH's heroine the UK is > dependant on imports for many, many things and as a result fluctuations in > the exchange rate have a massive impact. > > Prior to Thatcher, this was not as significant. > > I am not saying if this is a good or bad thing though. The legitimate question is, did Thatcher have a solid basis for making the changes that were made? The world has been changing. We in the US are equally "post industrial". There's not a single TV manufacturer remaining here, for example.
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 12:55 Stupid Phil Carmody lied when he wrote: > 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? Christianity evolves. The books don't. > Find me the bit in the Catholic bible that says that you are > permitted to dismiss the book of Matthew, for instance. BAH Christianity doesn't concern itself Lying Phil Christianity has never concerned itself > 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. Your point, you provide the evidence. You're required to provide evidence of modern practice. You never have and you never will, lying Phil.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 13:08 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq7b01$8qk_001(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ofudnc8fItCCn1vYnZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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.htm > l >>>>> >>>>> 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. > > Christianity doesn't concern itself about eating nor sanitary habits. Really? Eating fish on a Friday springs immediately to mind. Are you so used to Christian doctrine you no longer realise it is there? > It doesn't establish a lifestyle Homosexuality? > nor daily habits as part of its > catecism. Daily prayer? As I said, your two sentences were no more applicable to "Islam" than any other religion. Have you ever been to a Catholic church service? >>> 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. > > If you have a billion Muslims and a million are intent on making > a mess, that is a minority. A million are a lot of people. So what? It is still a vast minority of that faith and you are seeking to demonise the faith based on the actions of the tiny minority. If I argued all Christian nations behaved like the people who blow up abortion clinics you would (quite rightly) laugh at me. If I said all Catholics were bombers and all Protestants drilled holes in peoples knee caps you would also laugh at me and explain how they were small minorities and did not represent the normal people of those faiths. Can you see the double standard? >>It is also applicable to an equal proportion of Christians and Jews (and >>probably Hindus, Jains etc). > > No, so far there haven't been Christians in today's society who > have the same goal. Only because the goal you claim is arbritrary. There are Christians who use terror to achieve their goals. > However, those few who do are paying attention > and taking lessons from the mess-making Muslims. >> >>> 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. > > Not Turkish, Ottoman. Clothes were very important w.r.t. determining > who was in charge. What nonsense are you coming up with now? First off, there is no ruling on what shoes may be worn. Secondly, where do you think the Ottomans came from? As a hint the first line of the wiki entry reads: "Ottoman Empire (1299 to 1922) was a Turkish state" and for it's origins it reads "The core of the Ottoman Empire, the Kayi tribe of Oguz Turks, was part of the westward Turkic migrations from Central Asia that began during the 10th century." Look like Turks to me. Now, please, let us get back to the shoes. Wont anybody think of the shoes. >> >>Are you labouring under the belief that all Moslems abide by the extremist >>directives? > > They have to listen to their clerics and religious leaders. There is > no other option. It is obey or be dead. So if I demonstrate an example of an Islamic cleric wearing sandals that do *not* have two straps are you happy that your original claim is falsified? If I can demonstrate an example of Islamic people doing things which are contrary to the letter of their holy book are you happy that this additional claim is falsified? I really do not know where you get this idea that Muslims have to obey their religious leaders or die from. I suspect it is a sign that you have not met more than a handful of Muslims and have never been to an Islamic country. >> >>Do you know there are Islamic television stations now? > > Yes. Have you noticed what is said on those broadcasts? On the ones I have watched, yes. I have even read the transcripts of Islamic Arabic TV stations broadcasting programmes about modernisation and becoming more western. What have you noticed being said? Do you watch all channels, 24/7 or have you come to a sweeping conclusion that because you heard of an extremist broadcast on one, they all do it because in Islam everyone is the same? As an aside, do you remember a few months ago saying how Islam banned televisions? >>>>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? > > Yes, I'm learning how to spot it 1000 miles away. Oh, how I wish that was true. >>>>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." > > How do you know that? Mathmatics mixed with hyperbole. There really are not many extremists, even in Taleban-era Afghanistan, most people were just "normal" people going about their daily lives. >> 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? > > The strictures haven't kept up with progress. It is 300 years behind. > That is what this fight is all about. Does the Shariah get updated > to reflect today's level of technology or does all the stuff that > isn't currently approved by the Shriah get destroyed? This is not unique to Islam, although you seem to have a hatred only of Islam. Have the Christian strictures kept up with progress? Remind me again why people from the Irish Free State travel to the North for Abortions. What was the outcome in the US about stem cell treatment? Blimey, in Christian nations they are even trying to re-define the "meaning" of science so their religious nonsense can be taught in schools to unsuspecting children. Now, the question does remain, why do you think Islam is worse than Christianity? You have obviously grown up with Christianity so you assume the strictures it has are "normal" which makes Islam wrong in your eyes. To me, all the monotheistic religions are insane. > That is the fight. It is also known as a conflict of two civilizations.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 13:11 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C739A7.2021E282(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >unsettled wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >You may to be interested to know that I concur with the view that the >> >behaviour of religions is related to their age too. >> > >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >Yes. I've been thinking that it's time for some kind of 'reform Islam' >> >that >> >takes them into a modern forward-thinking technological era instead of a >> regressive >> >agrarian tribal/fuedal one. >> >> And that is exactly what I've been talking about for 15,000 posts. > > You've been doing a jolly fine job of hiding it ! Those riddles you're so > fond of > obviously don't help. > > >> What we are seeing is the struggle between modernization and >> keeping things at the status quo. Those who do not want to change >> are trying to destroy the cause of those who want to mondernize. >> >> Modernization means including Western civilization's progress. >> >> Until WWI and the final breakup of the Ottoman Empire, there was >> no WEstern civilization influcence to tempt most Muslims. Even >> those who were the first embassadors to Europe in the late >> 1800s could not understand most of the European lifestyle. >> There was no way they could send back explanations for certain >> things like entertainment, science, art and medicine. > > I'm increasingly convinced that many Muslims, even those living in the > west now > here in fact, still don't fully understand our culture actually. That may > explain > why they react so badly to bits of it. I suspect they may take bits of it > too > 'literally'. See the business about the Dutch 'cartoons' for example. Danish :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy > The other thing is that I think they're unused to thinking for themselves > as much > as we do. Blimey, does this include Muslims who were born in the UK? What about people from other religions who convert to Islam?
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 13:12
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq7bq8$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <2srcs2douj8ck4ojlg9fsvio58o83hf97c(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Sun, 04 Feb 07 15:56:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>In article <45C34470.DCB07DFF(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >>>>> >>>>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>>>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >>>> >>>>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being >>>>rationed in 1975 ? >>> >>>I found it. whew! >>> >>>Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, >>>Harper-Collins; >>>1993; page 44. >>> >>>"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >>>controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >>>restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >>>could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' >>>at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >>>governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >>>investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >>> >>>/BAH >> >> >> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and >>economic growth initiative. > > They were rationing the amount of money anyone could have, > especially businesses that could have expanded outside the > country. Not really. |