Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 7 Oct 2006 15:36 On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >You are possibly one of the more idiotic people who posts on USENET. I am >surprised you aren't a regular on sci.physics along with all the other >semi-literate cranks. Do you have some theories of your own on the mass of a >photon or two-way light speed or any of the other crankbait topics? You're an idiot. It is well known how stupid you are in that group as well. I have read there for years and posted there as well. You are an idiot. > >Actually, I probably know the answer to that. Again, you do not *know* anything. > You don't have any ideas of >your own. Sure. My ideas are practical, however. Yours are closer to that of the idiot, "Gravity Physics".
From: JoeBloe on 7 Oct 2006 15:38 On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:16:52 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:jv4fi2dv8pn3rk9ii4b82fh6g89ikgcao2(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:05:23 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>news:sludi21v218aau83uue1nhpk001333skb4(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:26:17 +0100, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>Sadly, you are a... >>>> >>>> Sadly, you are still no more than an idiot. >>> >>>IKYABWAI. >>> >>>Even being an idiot I am orders of magnitude above you. >>> >> Only on the idiot ranking board. > >Yeah, you aren't even very good as an idiot. > The higher you are on the board, the more of an idiot you are, idiot. That would make YOU the more idiotic. Got clue?
From: JoeBloe on 7 Oct 2006 15:43 On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:57:34 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:16:32 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:6JQVg.14045$7I1.5221(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>> news:jt4fi2hpqhls5ujcahaasrq2jvcle25rhe(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:59:40 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has >>>>>been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have >>>>>furthered the current mess? >>>> >>>> >>>> You're an idiot. >>> >>> Ya gotta love his nuanced and repetitive view of the world, ladies and >>> gentlemen. >> >>He has made a lot of posts, he must be getting to the limit of words he can >>use. This explains the repeating cycles. >> > >But he regularly changes his nym, and gets to start afresh. > That doesn't make him any less an idiot.
From: mmeron on 7 Oct 2006 16:16 In article <eg827f$8qk_004(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <5dfVg.62$45.46(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >>>>>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >>>>>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >>>>>> > >>>>>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >>>>>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >>>>>> history if you don't like it. >>>>> >>>>>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >>>>> >>>>>Graham >>>>> >>>>Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. >>> >>>The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that >>>the extremists are already doing this to themselves. >>> >>It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee >>of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side >>from "dubious elements". > >This is premature viewing and we won't know until 10-80 years from >now but... > >It seems like they are not purifying but self-emolating. Bah, you need some sense of scale. Check out how many Russians were eliminated by Stalin, and how many Chinese by Mao. No, they're most certainly ***not*** self-emolating. They're "cleaning the ranks". > Isn't there a difference? This self-emolation as part of their >ritual practice is what seems odd. There is nothing to seem odd, since they're not doing it. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: John Larkin on 7 Oct 2006 16:24
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine your >> assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what >> political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the >> other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are the >> future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble. >> >> Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with actual >> mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing >> claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying it to >> all of Muslim society. > >The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as traitorous >in the USA. Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too. You say so much about the USA and you know so little. John |