Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 13:05 JoeBloe wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > > >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on > >business if you want to meet up. > > It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. > > I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity > to use oxygen. I'd watch it if I were you. That could be seen as a threat. Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Oct 2006 13:38 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >JoeBloe wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on >> >business if you want to meet up. >> >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >> >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity >> to use oxygen. > >I'd watch it if I were you. > >That could be seen as a threat. Especially given that new law that applies in the US, about threats made under pseudonyms, discussed elsewhere in sci.electronics. :) Jon
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 13:51 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on > >> >business if you want to meet up. > >> > >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. > >> > >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity > >> to use oxygen. > > > >I'd watch it if I were you. > > > >That could be seen as a threat. > > Especially given that new law that applies in the US, about threats > made under pseudonyms, discussed elsewhere in sci.electronics. :) It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html I suppose US ISPs etc wil have to amend their AUPs and T&Cs. Graham
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 14:16 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:33 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:14oqi297a2fr8b4fgkpbkm0p3nnq61kq12(a)4ax.com... >> You guys? >> >> You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >> you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >> you were wrong? > >Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >points against Eeyore? > >I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up in >military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of the >US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. --- Missed this the first time around, sorry... The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 14:20
John Fields wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > > >> You guys? > >> > >> You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back > >> you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if > >> you were wrong? > > > >Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some > >points against Eeyore? > > > >I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up in > >military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of the > >US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. > > --- > Missed this the first time around, sorry... > > The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her > military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. Always ? Graham |