Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 01:23 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:25:44 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >Daniel Mandic wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >> >> > I get: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml >> > >> > Do you a cite to disprove it? >> >> Konrad Zuse > >Not electronic though. > Also far from the first, idiot!
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 02:20 JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >Daniel Mandic wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: > >> > >> > I get: http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml > >> > > >> > Do you a cite to disprove it? > >> > >> Konrad Zuse > > > >Not electronic though. > > Also far from the first, idiot! The first stored-program electronic computer was British. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 02:22 JoeBloe wrote: > You have no clue as to what is going to happen. I'll bet you don't either. Graham
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 02:27 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:31:48 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >I say sort of because the delivery method limits the amount of material and >the detonation methods so it could be viewed as a big deal. In other words... the only capacity N. Korea has to deliver such a payload compares with what a bottle rocket is capable of lofting.
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 02:30
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:54:32 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:47:11 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >That 'alliance' - it wasn't an alliance in fact - didn't last long anyway. >>> >>> --- >>> Trying to split hairs again? >>> >>> It most certainly was an alliance, since they signed a trade agree >>> ment and a non-aggression pact: >> >>So what ? >> >> >>> 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 ? > >--- >OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a >non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? > He probably thinks it's like them saying "We don't like you, but we'll be nice and sign this agreement..." |