Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:07 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452573BD.DAD71895(a)earthlink.net... >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:4524ABEE.A857925C(a)earthlink.net... >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed >> >> over. >> > >> > >> > You don't have a driver's license? >> >> Did you miss the word "have" in my post? >> >> I _choose_ to carry a drivers licence. I _choose_ to drive. >> >> Choice. > > > Do you personally know anyone who doesn't carry some form of > identification? > Yes. Are you struggling with the word choice?
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 18:07 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:54:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential >> >> >candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. >> >> > >> >> >/BAH >> >> OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation. >> > >> >Correct. I didn't really give a damn before. >> > >> >Graham >> >> So, seriously: why do you care now? > >America is now threatening my way of life. > Bizarre. How? John
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 18:08 In article <4525804F.F6F78193(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > In article <4525683A.3582AE66(a)hotmail.com>, > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to > > > be > > > done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck. > > > > > What ought to be done? Why is government better able than the free > > market (including the free market of getting donations to support > > private research like that done by MDA, St. Judes, etc.) > > Because Government can prioritise according to need rather than profit. They don't. They prioritize according to their profit, ie, how many votes it will get or how much to their PACs or re-election funds. Otherwise you wouldn't have the rather strange of allocation of resources you see sometimes at the NIH and other federal programs. > > Many recent US drugs are simply replacements for perfectly good older ones so > that > they can get new patent protection and not because of any actual need for > them for > example. Not true. In my specialty, for instance, it has been shown many times that if a person doesn't respond to one antidepressant, they might to another kind from the same family. Then you go on to other antidepressants of other kinds. Same has been seen in heart medications and other kinds of medications. Me-too is, and pretty much always has been, bogus. > > > Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:08 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-947FC7.16500405102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <aI2dnQoQOZz18rjYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> news:eg32m7$okg$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >> > In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w(a)pipex.net>, >> > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > [....] >> >>A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing >> >>to >> >>die for their cause you know? >> > >> > Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc. >> >> Yet all the nasty old men who encourage the bombers refuse to do it >> themselves. >> > > Nice to know there are some constants through out history and across > religions, area of the world and cultures. (g) Yep :-) Some things never, ever, change....
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:10
"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. > Done. What was your point? As an aside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster) implies that the letters were removed for the US audience. Shall we follow the example back to Saxon languages and see where we can head from there? |