Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 11:52 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:JBhVg.11615$6S3.10431(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "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. > I agree. I am a non-smoker. I think the War on Tobacco ha a long way to go before it matches the billions mis-spent on the War on Terror. (Have they banned the Haunted House rides at theme parks? Or is it only a certain type of terror?)
From: Kurt Ullman on 6 Oct 2006 11:54 In article <6KuVg.13910$7I1.13144(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Yeah, I hate Ohio drivers, too. > Nothing compared to those jerks from Michigan...
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 11:53 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:46:48 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Keith wrote: > >> In article <45244E9E.D8DD822E(a)hotmail.com>, >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> > What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ? >> >> Successful missile test? > >How about proof of American sailors being trigger happy dickheads ? > >The simple fact that you can make a joke out of the mass slaughter of innocent ppl >is one reason why the rest of the world looks at the USA in incredulity. --- Hell, we can make a joke out of anything, even a sad little donkey like you. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 11:57 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-C56BCA.11171106102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <n3mci2p9ah579tq4d38b7emv85ksafipu1(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus >> >then ? >> >> --- >> From: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707 >> .stm >> >> "The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned >> it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air >> missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner." >> >> I think the airplane's pilot should have had the good sense to heed >> the Vincennes' warning. > > It is sorta the height of moral equivalancy to suggest that an > accident "Accident"??? That's rich. The missiles were fired on purpose. To imply otherwise is revisionism. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 11:58
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg57l7$8ss_011(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"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. > > So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden > have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000? > 3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion? So you are saying spending billions trying to prevent the _possibility_ that UBL will increase the number he kills is more justified than spending that money preventing the _certainty_ that the other 20 causes of death will kill _more_. Your logical conclusions are interesting, yet amazingly fallacious. You are arguing that it is more important to deal with a tenuous risk than actual ones. And you call that "mess prevention." The milk is spilling on the floor, but you would rather re-fit the bathroom incase the pipes leak. Amazing really. > After the first choice, Bin Laden will be the least of > the world's problems. Which was the first choice? |