Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Oct 2006 07:49 In article <kurtullman-F089CF.08100906102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <4525DA2C.7CFA4E5E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> > So, you don't carry anything else?........... >> > .........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for >> > the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services? >> >> You really don't know much about the UK do you ? >> >> Medical services are free. >> > You pay for them through taxes (among other ways). They ain't free no >matter what the politicians tell you. Since health care costs per capita are lower in every western nation, people in those countries are paying LESS.
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:03 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:01:33 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:47:30 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon. >> >> --- >> Trying to set up another straw man? >> --- >> >> >Is that what you want ? >> >> --- >> Nope, but since you state that that's the only way Israel can win, >> it seems that if you don't want Israel destroyed, that's what >> _you're_ advocating. >> >> In reality, though, your preferred "solution" would be to see Israel >> ("The Real Demon" according to you) destroyed, and yet you pretend >> to advocate non-violence. >> >> How can you reconcile that hypocrisy? > >I have *never* said any such thing. --- You're a liar. --- >The answer is for Israel and the Palestinians to come to a peaceful accord. Nothing >else will ever work. End of story. --- Well, I see you're finally coming around. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:07 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:06:55 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >> Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >> >> argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >> >> disagrees with you. >> > >> >Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. >> >> --- >> If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your >> door because of your antics here. > >Thankfully, the UK isn't yet run by a bunch of crooks like the USA is. --- They're all politicians, so they're all crooks. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 12:13 >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and >> >> mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats. >> >> >> >> /BAH >> > >> > >> > Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news. >> >> All politics is local. The subject we were talking about >> is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning >> for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet >> with their voters, they don't have to describe what they >> are going to do about the national threat. The one running >> for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor >> didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he >> leaves the meeting. >> >> It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our >> national security. Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a message to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your political opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with the political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't learn to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on our worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies. Another perspective type of statistic for you. In 2000, 88,000 children were victims of sexual abuse. The statistics I saw said a 300 % increase in sexual predation of children from 1980 to 1990. Just to WAG some numbers, let's say the problem started at zero and increased linearly until now, passing through the 88,000 data point at 2000. I think you will probably agree with me that this *vastly* underestimates the problem, since it ignores any incidents before 1980. Integrating over time, that means that 570,000 kids have been sexually abused by adults since 1980. That's compared to 3000 people dying at the hands of terrorists in that same time period. That means that a child born in 1980 had a 200X greater chance of being molested than he had of dying at the hand of terrorists by 2006. And yet you deny that sexual abuse of children is no more than a smokescreen issue, blown out of proportion to avoid dealing with "real" issues like the imminent threat that terrorists are going to destroy your home, your computer, your technology, and make you be Muslim....despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that that is even a remotely credible scenario. I think you have that just a little backward. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:13
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:08:36 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> >> >> >>> Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and >> >>> the Brits should have made a deal? >> >> >> >> The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused. >> >> Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad. >> > >> >No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to >> >his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may >> >have gone differently. >> >> --- >> It certainly _would_ have. >> >> Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust. > >The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies. --- So what? What I said still stands. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |