Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:18 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:dv55j293gh0oo1v5847v59fi7mn0tq8g4c(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:44 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:r8u4j2hmpu3rasu0p0se9mked9nn6g0cjq(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >>> >> >>Only when our interests collide. Which has not been the case for all our >>"wars." >> > No... ALWAYS, and you spelled "coincide" incorrectly. Nope 1. Your always is incorrect. Nope 2. I meant to say collide. Your understanding of the written word, and the idiosyncrasies of language, is appalling. You really are not doing very well are you.
From: MooseFET on 15 Oct 2006 17:19 T Wake wrote: > "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? I think you may have hit on exactly why JoeBloe's post could not be rated as a threat. If I stated that I was going to shoot you with my N-ray gun, it could not be taken seriously and thus would not rate as a threat. Basically JoeBloe by stating that his post was not a threat is telling you that you can safely assume that no such threat could be taken seriously.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:20 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:je65j29mbcn1rb6iggvjo22d2tg5s5vdeu(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:28:43 GMT, "Sorcerer" > <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_b> Gave us: > >>Hmm... a moose-sized > > > Top posting Usenet retards should also get ignored. > > Announcing filter file edits are nearly just as retarded as top > posting. I am surprised you and Androcles don't get on. You have a similar writing style and a similar approach to logic. Androcles, however, is an embarrassment on the UK at least you are a foreigner.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:22 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:vh45j2tlovkq8ttgl53r2v9ei9kvq16cj3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:46:46 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >When does Bush get impeached ? >>> >>> Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >>> >>> >When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >>> >>> Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >>> >>> But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>> We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. >> >>Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be >>concerned about it. > > --- > But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up > the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't, > knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life > accordingly. While, in the main, I agree. For some people there is the moral imperative to do what is "right" despite the futility and the personal cost. In a democracy people are supposed to be able to affect things. I mean, it is the effect on the west of a small group of Islamic extremists that has got everyone's knickers in a twist here.
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:23
JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:02:44 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? > > You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a > US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any religion that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem or other. Graham |