Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 17:19 T Wake wrote: > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:87hcu08fjs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>> >>>>So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? >>>>If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a >>>>document 1200 years old? >>> >>>Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to >>>evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to >>>Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." >> >>What's the Koran got to do with this? >> > > > As an aside, the same could be said about the Bible. From the wonders of > wiki: > > Christianity regards the Bible, a collection of canonical books in two > parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as authoritative: written by > human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore the > inerrant Word of God.[43] > > (Source 43 reads Catechism of the Catholic Church, Inspiration and Truth of > Sacred Scripture (�105-108); Second Helvetic Confession, Of the Holy > Scripture Being the True Word of God; Chicago Statement on Biblical > Inerrancy) > > Despite this, Catholicism has evolved. As it is supposed to, along with the rest of Christianity. If religion doesn't serve humankind, then what good is it?
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 17:21 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>>So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? >>>If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a >>>document 1200 years old? >> >>Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to >>evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to >>Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." > > > What's the Koran got to do with this? > > Is you a bit fick or summin? Cite one, cite the other, they're all alike. You can't follow the discussion? No surprise there, Phil. Is you a bit fick or summin?
From: Helmut Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. on 5 Feb 2007 17:44 On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:19:22 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >If religion doesn't serve humankind, then what good is it? Religion, contrary to widespread beliefs, is solely there to nourish the priests. Humankind? Phffft...! Feed me, feed me! That is the sublimal message from your preacher. w.
From: Eeyore on 5 Feb 2007 18:20 Ken Smith wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I'm not 100% certain what your pigtails are. There may be no direct equivalent. > > What would you call: > > -------- > / !==== > ----------------------------- ! > ----------------------------- !==== > \ !==== > --------- > > if it was molded onto the wires directly and you needed to get one from an > electrician supply house. What's on the other end ? The equipment or a socket ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Feb 2007 18:32
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > MassiveProng wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >MassiveProng wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> > >> >> >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. On a short term day-to-day basis I'm sure it's relatively benign. In the long term it's very different. Look at the difficulty in getting kids to study science now for example. I'm sure the kids are right to tend to avoid it since they've seen so many 'scientific' jobs disappear. Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of manufacturing, he's barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? Graham |