Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Oct 2006 13:16 Lloyd Parker wrote: > > It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing the > ship was calling HIS plane. So, what plane did the pilot think they were calling? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:41 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452A8401.BA13C0FF(a)earthlink.net... > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing >> the >> ship was calling HIS plane. > > > So, what plane did the pilot think they were calling? An Iranian F14, apparently.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:43 <panteltje(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1160410839.674787.75410(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > So, in short this could in one case boil down to: > I am happy chopping heads of jihadists, while you are pissed about the > blood on the veils, > in the same time, I score higher. Well, this pretty much encapsulates your brilliance in one fell swoop.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:46 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:39uki29uo6jlepu681cjpmh3blrqlilc3e(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:00:20 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:mujii25168dj6fm841h5qqvck8bdva1fb7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:11:51 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what >>>>> >idiocy America's up to next. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> All you're trying to do is avoid having to account for yourself in a >>>>> way which won't cast you in a bad light. >>>>> >>>>> How much do you weigh? >>>>> >>>>> How much do you make? >>>>> >>>>> How much do you laugh? >>>>> >>>>> Who would you like to see dead? >>>>> >>>>> Are you willing to answer even just _one_ of the questions? >>>> >>>>Why the heck should I ? What's it got to do with anything ? What gives >>>>you >>>>the >>>>idea you even have any right to ask such intrusive questions ? >>> >>> --- >>> I have the right to ask anything I want to, just as you have the >>> right to be devious. >> >>Is refusing to answer being devious? > > --- > I refuse to answer. Is that being devious? Not at all. In my opinion.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:49
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:lkuki2lbh586tq7ibc7k1ajd4gtmcokueq(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:e5mii2lk999fcil32t1rtv0ad6qfnrjhdj(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:780gi25ruponn590krd8cgvvt9p3catitk(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It is ok, it was an imaginary elephant. In the real world, imaginary >>>>>>>things >>>>>>>cant hurt you. As an aside, I know what imaginary numbers *are* and >>>>>>>I >>>>>>>also >>>>>>>know there is no way *you* are juggling them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I say again. You *know* nothing. >>>> >>>>Repetitive sycophant. >>> >>> The void between your ears is astounding. >> >>Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up >>with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to >>have done with all your others. > > --- > Now, now... > > I seem to recall that when you first started posting here you were > of the opinion that a calm and rational debating style was best. > Now, however, you seem to be more and more slipping into the > quagmire we love which you initially denounced... > > For shame... ;) I try to limit my descent into the pit to replies to two people. As long as the person I am talking "with" is reasonable, I hope I remain reasonable. Anyway, did I denounce the quagmire or did I say it wasn't an effective debating style :-) |