Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 17:47 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452577B2.729A2190(a)earthlink.net... >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:45244F75.8EAF5664(a)earthlink.net... >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:kurtullman-556EC5.17113404102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... >> >> > In article <HPWdnXZeKd_lvLnYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, >> >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying >> >> >> how >> >> >> great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the >> >> >> analogy >> >> >> would make more sense. >> >> > >> >> > I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of >> >> > which >> >> > is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s >> >> > they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G). >> >> >> >> Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans >> >> seem >> >> to >> >> avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... :-)) >> > >> > You British twits added the extraneous "U"s in a pathetic attempt to >> > make yourselves look witty. It didn't work. >> >> Other way round really. > > Really? Look at some historical texts and get back to me. Not sure about spelling, but I've read some very well-researched serious scholarly linguistic articles that say that the British English accent at the time of the American colonies was very much closer to the current New England accent than to the current variety of British accents. It seems speech in the "colonies" was and is much more conservative than speech in the mother land. I don't remember what their evidence was, there are obviously no audio tapes to compare. However, I do remember them being pretty certain of their evidence--it was really much more than just speculation. It may have had to do with several isolated societies in North Carolina Appalachians that have almost exactly the same accent as New England. This is part of the reason I get so amused when Brits look down their noses at US pronunciation and lexicon, and act like they're the only ones entitled to call themselves "speakers of English". (No, let's not start *that* pissing match again.) Some linguists even interpret the shifts in England as related to blueblood Londoners putting on airs, and that accent subsequently catching on in other parts of the country. I suspect this last part is a bit of a stretch, but the whole thing is an interesting thesis. I find it fascinating to think about how people spoke in the past, and how language has evolved. Puts a whole new perspective in the various new inner-city lexicons and pronunciations that have developed, even in my lifetime. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:50 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways? >>That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every >>person in the country than is terrorism. > > 3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3 > million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents. > 3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many have died in car accidents in that time? That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. That is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by anyone's standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal risk in life. Amazing really.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:51 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452571FE.EB618D6(a)earthlink.net... >T Wake wrote: >> >> Really? What did Teacher set as the victory condition? This is USENET, >> despite all the hard talk and macho strutting all people are doing is >> typing >> words. How can any one win or lose a "tauntfight" like that? > > > Endurance. > Aha. The mad, the unemployed, the social misfits, (and so on) are the victors then. Wonderful.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:52 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:45257252.1B92CFF9(a)earthlink.net... >T Wake wrote: >> >> Ouch. You cutting wit has shamed me. I do apologise. >> >> However, as you feel able to invade our newsgroup with crossposted >> bullshit >> (and imply your rules are more acceptable) I must bow to your masterful >> double standards. > > Yawn. If you spent less time trying to sling insults, you may get enough sleep to read through a full post. >> Based on the frank and honest response, I see it really is a case of you >> having nothing better to defend your position than a collection of >> logical >> fallacies wrapped up in schoolground taunts. > > > Not true: I have NEVER taunted a schoolground. > Aha. Interesting take on the grammar. Well done. Keep up the good work.
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 17:50
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:24:14 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >Second what?....... > > > > >:-) > --- -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |