Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 16:45 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:3u15j21btvei36mv6lv9c3bf88mrd8h9lc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:00:19 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:21r2j2tfeudvkq7qcbqofvib941jqm0nsh(a)4ax.com... >>> It's hard to give up the cop >>> business after doing it for so long. >> >>Police are accountable to the people they police, right or wrong. The US >>is >>accountable to no one. It is not a global police force. >> > > "Police" is just a word. Force is what allows people and nations to > act. China, Russia, India, and Iran are "accountable to no one." No, they aren't. Police is more than "just" a word. It creates a concept that what the US does is by definition "right." Words are very important, for example if people described the US as World Bully does that fit with your view of the actions? Using force to make other nations act in the way America wants them to is, and should always be, unacceptable. It doesn't matter if America has their (other nation) best interests at heart.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 16:48 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:nh55j2d6u74av3gafqgi0oak3t0qd18acd(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:51:08 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from >>using the >>Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." > > > My intent is not to annoy. If you get annoyed, that's your problem. It would be interesting to watch you in court with that defence. > Get a clue, you stupid fucks. You don't have any so this is a bit redundant.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 16:49 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:df55j2l9e2oo3kqfltihfvdehckdarn529(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:38:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: > >>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. :) >> > > Since it isn't a threat to begin with, dipshit, it has no bearing. Really? "I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity to use oxygen." Carries an implied threat.You can wax lyrical about how it's not a "threat" but the reality is, it was. That said, I find you about as frightening as a garden gnome so you really will have to try harder if you want to either impress or intimidate me. If you want to do neither, why do you keep pretending you can beat me in a fight?
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 16:52 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:6955j2dg0mf9mfo3ca7432l3tvcu61flgr(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:57 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>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. >> > Wrong again, dumbfuck. Nope. I was correct. It was a threat.
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 16:53
John Larkin wrote: > It's the countries we saved, specifically France and Britain, that are > the most rabid critics. Nothing to do with the war. We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that need criticism. You might stop to think which 2 European countries had most to do with early N America whilst your at it. Graham |