Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 13:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg820j$8qk_003(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <p6adnUf13uDVN7vYRVnyrg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg57vi$8ss_013(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45253CB2.A36CCD05(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ? >>>>> >>>>> Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to >>>>> alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it >>>>> alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist. >>>> >>>>Tell me more about this threat you perceive. >>>> >>>>What exactly is it that you're afraid of ? >>> >>> Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will >>> take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel. >> >>Then we need to have a War on Faith Schools in the west. We can add a War >>against the Arts and Humanities departments as well. > > Your facetious answer so you can ignore the issue is noted. There is no issue to ignore and I was being serious. You have created a phantom fear (or mess to use your quaint terminology) which you want to defend against. The west is already throwing away knowledge. Look at the debates over teaching creationism in schools - the court rulings tried to overturn accepted definitions of science to enable it. That is scary madness. We have the same problem in the UK so don't think I am being anti-American here. In the UK science departments are closing all over, just so more students can study arts and humanities. The Islamic extremists don't have to attack us, we do it to ourselves. Stop being frightened of the invisible monster under the bed and fight the real problems.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 13:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eg82da$8qk_005(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get Usma >>Bin >>Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions >>solving the problems which _are_ killing people? > > If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and > they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the > problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist. > I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents. > Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos > on the roads. This is heading far out into the leftfield of logic. It is true there are Islamic extremists who would like to create a Taliban like state out of the western hemisphere. In a similar vein, there are Christian extremists who would like to see an overturn of western decadence. Only one Islamic nation was as even slightly as extreme as you describe - the Taliban in Afghanistan. The worst the current crop of exported terrorists look for is the imposition of Sharia law (ala Iran). Can you remind me which Islamic nations don't have cars? Your posts advocate through implication the killing of those you deem a potential threat to the US. This is one of the most circular lines of reasoning imaginable. Critically, the threat of Islamic extremists destroying Western civilisation is farcical. How could they do it?
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 13:48 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:926fi2t3afahiclgk82ntu0lodlr7pqu20(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:25:15 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w(a)pipex.net... >>>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:efvu0c$8ss_002(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>> Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find >>>>> the ones were posted by thoughtful people. >>>> >>>> Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read >>>> posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of >>>> pointless to me. >>> >>> Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't >>> give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten >>> physical violence and assault. I have learned a lot from the few >>> *reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those >>> I >>> don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I >>> disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad >>> that >>> everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the >>> slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of >>> violence instead of healthy discussion. >>> >> >>Sadly it is what passes for normal debate on USENET most of the time >>though >>:-) >> > Said the retard that claims to be so smart, yet makes posts where he > claims that someone's uncle was molesting them. > > "Daily treats" he called them. > > Yep. You're right up there at the top of the heap, T Weak. Yeah, sorry. I just assumed your uncle was giving you daily treats. Do you have a different term for it?
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 13:50 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:h06fi2h5leoluq39o9cmq8k7jf23eqiug8(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:17:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w(a)pipex.net... >>> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:efvu0c$8ss_002(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>> Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find >>>> the ones were posted by thoughtful people. >>> >>> Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read >>> posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of >>> pointless to me. >> >>Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't >>give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten >>physical violence and assault. I have learned a lot from the few >>*reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those I >>don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I >>disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad that >>everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the >>slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of >>violence instead of healthy discussion. >> > > There have been no threats made in this thread, dumbfuck. Yes there have, both implied and actual. You have assumed all threats involve physical violence. As always, each post you make breaks another irony meter and highlights _just_ how thick you are. Keep up the good work, sir.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 13:53
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:4b6fi2ts3kabetgp7c3sopigg48eu7nke6(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:22:31 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:f7vdi2pcfgnpdem7c3d1auv1jujf9dmald(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:21:48 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>>news:vgdci29a8p13kfhhs2i6rnm9b36duq7r72(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:06:03 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>>>>news:regbi2dpkrf103e4opion58ooto1lmft2c(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is you, fuckhead, that is incredulous. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, I suspect it is he who is incredulous at your idiocy. I think >>>>>>the >>>>>>word >>>>>>you wanted is "incredible", as in "not credible". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. It was said just fine. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing you say carries any credence either. >>>> >>>>Ooh, such a big word. Did you have to look it up? Bet you had a little >>>>lie >>>>down afterwards, didn't you? >>>> >>> I'd bet that I used the word many more years ago than you ever did, >>> and in these groups too. >> >>Well, maybe in SED but I bet you didn't in sci.physics. Also, I bet I used >>it before you did, more importantly I bet I used it in its proper context >>before you first did. >> > You'd lose. I used it before Usenet. Back in the seventies. Yeah, but you still didn't know what it meant. In the seventies I was busy fighting terrorists so may not have used it in print, but I certainly did know what it meant and how to use it. So, actually, you'd lose as there is a fair chance I used it in school in the 1960's. > If anything, all you did was abuse it... like you do Usenet. Hahahaha. Nice one. You are a funny guy. It must be a bit of a shame knowing you will never grow up though. |