Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Oct 2006 20:38 John Fields wrote: > My reference to not speaking English as a first language was a > euphemism for being conquered, which was related to an earlier post > by Graham stating that had the US not become involved in WW2, > England and Germany might have teamed up to fight Russia after > Germany double-crossed Russia. In my opinion that would have been > suicide for England, as depleted as it would have been, when Russia > came rolling in to get Germany. > > So yes, the question was loaded, but it wasn't Monday morning > quarterbacking. Monday morning quarterbacking would have been more > like: "If only Germany had done thus and such, she would have won." What things do you write about. My dear, your insights of the Human history is reduced to a period of 7 years, yes? C'mon, let's get some million years back..... Best regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: And how does Na.. shi.. Time relate to 'Jihad need Scientists'?
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 20:40 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:sMSdnbsYYP59D7jYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net... > > I see terrorist attack doesn't make the top twenty then :-) That war on > tobacco really needs to get started soon. It has, thankfully. Most major cities in the US ban tobacco use in public places, and several states are considering state-wide bans. Still perfectly legal at home and in most places outdoors, but at least I can eat dinner in a restaurant without smoke making me physically ill. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 20:42 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:ZN2dnYGSaZz1DrjYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <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. Kind of like reading a Korean/Japanese/Chinese chemistry patent. A lot of stuff that looks like Martian (for all I know), interspersed with chemical names. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 20:48 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> > >> >> Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact > >> >> the idea was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. > >> > > >> > What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? > >> > >> Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at > >> weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local > >> soldiers. > > > > I can see the logic in that. > > Possibly. It is wrong though. If you were a local civilian caught up in it, > how would you feel being arrested by Military Police? I'd have thought they would only have the right to arrest soldiers. I imagine they might detain civilians until the regular police could arrive. Graham
From: YD on 5 Oct 2006 20:55
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:43:07 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >YD wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:13:35 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >news:4523D85F.43BBD99C(a)earthlink.net... >> >> Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my >> >>> guess is janitor ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility? >> >> >> > >> >It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and >> >explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work >> >status. >> > >> >Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not >> >claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth, >> >does his job matter? >> > >> >Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is >> >in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed >> >of yourselves. >> > >> >> It's just a bunch of obnoxious bitter old men and has-beens with no >> real control over much of anything anymore. They've transferred their >> lives to this ng. Their only way of one-upping is to degrade those not >> espousing their POVs to below their level with name calling and >> ridicule with no substance of fact. >> >> Makes them look like school-yard bullies or teen-age gangs hanging out >> on street corners. >> >> Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it >> going too. > > > Bitter? Are you sure? In truth, we enjoy watching morons prove >their stupidity, day by day, and hour by hour. Positively so. All you have left is posing as powerful know-it-alls on the internet. Ever tried to figure what you look like to those outside of your tight little circle of cronies? - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail. |