Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:31 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-CFDA3C.17424205102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <XfadnZaf6qZr57jYRVnytw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:kurtullman-AA4E60.15244905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. >> . >> > In article <KsmdncSVMpRtxLjYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > There are two different things going on here. One is what you >> >> > can >> >> > do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we >> >> > were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom >> >> > or >> >> > spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. >> >> >> >> Doesn't make it "right." >> > >> > Makes it legal. To paraphrase Shark on CBS.. "Right is God's >> > problem." >> >> Well, maybe. However, injust laws are still injust. > > But injust is subjective. I find it sorta hard to believe that your > definition of an unjust law and mine is going to be congruent that > often. I agree. However the "justice" of the situation depend (IMHO obviously) on how the balance of treatment takes place. If I speak to you, and you record my conversations for your use and onward transmission without my knowledge is that right? You may think so, but the inversion might not sit so well (or it may). Personally the acid test (for me) is if it is something you would be happy with other doing to you, about you or against you, then it is more likely to be fair (not always the case 'cos some people are mad...). For once, I am having trouble expressing myself in text over this. > Doesn't make you wrong and me right (well actually as far as I am > concerned it does, but again is subjective). I agree, it makes me right..... :-)
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 18:33 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > >> > The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist. > >> > >> It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London insurgents > >> or > >> terrorists? > > > > Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way. > > But they were organised. An organised group of 5 ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 18:34 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > driving a car is vastly more of a threat to society than is terrorism. Especially in the USA ! Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:35 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:r3fVg.8959$GR.3051(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > > 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. It has the potential (and that dreaded "ring of truth") however the reality is possibly very, very far from the case. Both sets of languages have had an equal time to "evolve" into their current form. The US has been much more influenced by immigrant linguistics over that period than England has, so I am inclined to doubt the validity of the claim. I suspect both languages are equally distant from the English spoken in (say) 1775. > 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". We are. You should have your own language. > (No, let's not start *that* pissing match again.) Oh please. > 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. Languages evolve all the time. Welsh is a good example.
From: Homer J Simpson on 5 Oct 2006 18:36
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:OMydnTZT299zHLjYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> Before Hitler - no holocaust. >> >> After Hitler - no holocaust. > > Wow. Before [Insert anyone who lived between 1930 - 1945] no holocaust. > After [same person] no holocaust. So you see no connection between Hitler and the holocaust? |