Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:18 T Wake wrote: > Planes to the US are becoming a joke now, all because of four domestic > flights being taken over. How many flights take off each day? Taken over ? I don't think a single one has been 'taken over'. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:18 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ZjgVg.51695$E67.45514(a)clgrps13... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net... > >> 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? > > The USA's Leading Causes of Death > > We have here the 20 leading causes of death for the population of the > United States in 1998. These are the freshest such statistics available > from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. > > Rank Cause # of population affected > > #1 - Heart Disease 724,859 > #2 - Malignant Neoplasms (Cancerous Tumors) 541,532 > #3 - Cerebro-Vascular (Stroke) 158,448 > #4 - Bronchitis, Emphysema, Asthma 112,584 > #5 - Unintentional Injury 97,835 -(1) > #6 - Pneumonia & Influenza 91,871 > #7 - Diabetes 64,751 > #8 - Suicide 30,575 -(2) > #9 - Nephritis 26,182 > #10 - Liver Disease 25,192 > #11 - Septicemia 23,731 > #12 - Alzheimer Disease 22,725 > #13 - Homicide and Legal Intervention 18,272 -(3) > #14 - Atherosclerosis 15,279 > #15 - Hypertension 14,308 > #16 - Perinatal Period 13,428 > #17 - HIV 13,426 > #18 - Congenital Anomalies 11,934 > #19 - Benign Neoplasms (Benign Tumors) 7,933 > #20 - Hernia 6,635 > > 1 - 43% traffic-related > 2 - 57% by firearm > 3 - 66% by firearm > > > In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were > tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol > consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, > 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor > vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) > and illicit use of drugs (17,000). I see terrorist attack doesn't make the top twenty then :-) That war on tobacco really needs to get started soon.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:19 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > 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 ? > > Yes. > > Is there a minimum number before you can become organised? > > Apart from that, who recruited them? Who trained them? Who equipped them? > Who encouraged them? You can't conceive of the idea they did this on their own ? Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:19 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:_jgVg.51696$E67.39198(a)clgrps13... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:FbOdnVmGg9Q_E7jYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > >>> So you see no connection between Hitler and the holocaust? >>> >> >> I see a connection but the same connection can be said about many people. >> Your example was meant to imply that Hitler was the sole driving force >> for the Holocaust. This is not the case. > > It appears to have moved Germany from desire to action. > Not Hitler alone and not Mein Kampf alone.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:21
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:7mgVg.7738$TV3.4969(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:p62dnVv9ou9UFbjYRVnyig(a)pipex.net... >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:r3fVg.8959$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. > > Yeah, I know, those were all *exactly* the same response I had when I > first heard the thesis. But I do remember that the evidence was > convincing. Dammit all, I wish I could remember where I read/saw that. I > don't expect you to take my word for it, but to me, it really was more > convincing than I've managed to convey. It would be interesting to see it. >>> 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. > > Yep, that's what I find so fascinating. So, did Welsh get all the extra > consonants that would otherwise have gone with the vowels ("u") you > English stole? :^) > Yes. It is even funnier listening to their conversation because all the modern words are in English. So you get "bable bable Television bable bable microwave cooker bable bable" and so on. |