Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 15:51 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452D4866.DFF255AD(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up >> > China's and fUSSR's messes. >> >> Really? Where do you get that from? > > I suspect he's getting at N. Korea's supposed 'client state' status with > the > aforementioned. Aha. Thanks (BTW "she" :-) ).
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 15:52 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452D492E.40D2D864(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >> > Sit back and watch, Johnny Stupid. >> >> Watch what? Watch America posture and moan for a while then complain that >> the UN wont assist them? > > I've concluded that the USA is beyond being rationally reasoned with. The nutters who post here are not the "USA." They are just nutters. In the same manner as Habishi is not India (or the UK). > At least we can all laugh when it blows up in their faces ! Sadly, the explosion is likely to cover more than "their" own faces.
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 15:54 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > John Fields wrote: > > >> 19/08/1939 Germany and USSR sign a trade treaty. > >> > >> 23/08/1939 Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact in > >> Moscow. > > > > A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the words > > mean ? > > If trade treaties and non-aggression pacts are an alliance, then there are > some interesting global alliances. You're telling me ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 15:57 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> In the UK we are toying with ID cards to fight terrorism. Pure, > >> unadulterated nonsense. > > > > They would certainly be quite useless against terrorism. > > Yet that was the initial reason they were suggested. Fingerprinting / > recording Biometrics of people will not prevent terrorism either. Why would a potential terrorist be afraid of having his identity confirmed FFS ? It's not like he's making a secret of it in the first place. Until the Police / State Security can read your brain, all these ideas are so much wasted time. Graham
From: Daniel Mandic on 11 Oct 2006 16:02
John Fields wrote: > As much as he'd like to believe otherwise, Graham's vocabulary > encompasses a rather limited subset of the English language, and his > use of it and its subtleties is rather like connecting a > one-trick-pony 1200 baud modem to a T1 line. Hmmmm, but 'its subtleties' refer to a person or ppl, rather (maybe not in your case) than to a language. English itself consists of nothing. The living word makes a language... There is a difference. Therefore it's called 'American' and 'English' today. Seldom I read outstandingly English, written in and probably by American :) . You see... it's difficult. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic |