Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:49 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4532ACA3.FC31F3DC(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> why do you[JB] keep pretending you can beat me in a fight? > > It's the only way he knows of 'winning an argument' suince his mental > capacity > is too feeble to do it the normal way. Very true. But I doubt he is even capable of winning a physical fight.
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 18:01 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote: > >> > >> > The 650,000 are simply casualties of war and have nothing to do with > >> > vengeance, Nazi style. > >> > >> So, Dubya's real motivation for ordering the carnage was to get personal > >> revenge for the time Saddam thumbed his nose at Dubya's dad? > >> > >> Thanks! That helps clear things up a lot! > >> > >> But that cavalier attitude "Oh, they're just casualties of war" - is > >> just so totally wrong it makes me want to puke. > > > >It appalls me that anyone could dismiss those lives with such a casual > >disregard. > > --- > And you are prepared to cry for how long for them? You are truly disgusting. You can be sure I'll remember this along with US forces atrocities in Vietnam 'til my dying days. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 18:13 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:40:03 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:17:57 -0700, JoeBloe > >> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> > >> ><snip> > >> >I know my rights, and the law you twits keep spewing on about will > >> >get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. > >> > >> Actually, I hope you are right about the Supreme Court on this > >> subject. > > > >You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to harass or threaten > >other ppl ? > > No, I just think that the kinds of name calling I see around here is > pretty minor (bothersome, yes) compared with the costs of allowing > some central, highly authoritarian system to jail folks with the final > and ultimate willingness to kill folks over it (by this, I mean that > if the local police come out to arrest you, for example, and you > refuse to accept their authority, the ultimate place where increasing > the level of refusal and insistance ultimately much culminate in the > willingness of authorities to apply the ultimate force to achieve > their authority.) > > I would rather a free expression forum, even if that means people go > around making threats. The place I'd draw the line would be when they > make "credible threats." It would be the credibility of that threat > that would trigger, for me, the willingness to get authorities > involved. > > That's how I see it, anyway. How about the harassment / online stalking ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 18:15 JoeBloe wrote: > No, it was not in any way, shape, or form a threat So you admit to 'saying things' you don't mean then ? Graham
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 18:17
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:58:17 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:qro2j296rl564bdlctcfvhmdo4cr42cpo1(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:22:04 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>T Wake 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. >>> >>>The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! >> >> --- >> Not the most important one of all, the one with us, LOL! > >Wasn't important at the time. --- Lack of vision, perhaps? --- >When America got French assistance for it's >independance we[tinw] were fighting the French for domination of the rest of >the world. > >I dont think I have ever heard the American War of Independance described as >the "most important of all" before. --- The most important loss, to you, it turns out. By losing, you lost all of our resources and the chance to expand your empire by gobbling up most of the New World. By winning, we fought and bought our way from ocean to ocean and have become the most powerful nation on the Earth. Pretty important war, ISTM. --- >> And probably not the two world wars, without our help. > >No way of knowing. Prior to the US overt involvement in WWII the Germans had >shelved their plans to invade the UK. --- What is it you don't understand about world domination? The only reason he left you alone for a while was because of your policy of appeasement. In the end, Hitler's plan would have been to gobble you up along with the rest of the world, and if you didn't resist, so much the better for him, --- >It is equally possible that the UK >would have been able to establish a treaty of some sort _or_ that Germany >would have decided to invade once more. In any way, the US "help" cost the >UK so much (lend-lease terms) it was almost a pyrrhic victory. --- A victory nonetheless, and I'm sure there was dancing in the streets when it was over. What were the terms, BTW? --- >As far as WWI goes, well, waiting three years until the great European >powers have decimated their armies _then_ joining in, well that is help. --- You seem to forget that we were neutral and wanted to stay that way, and squabbles you got yourselves into were really none of our business. --- >Certainly shortened the war by a good few months. --- And certainly changed its outcome in your favor, wouldn't you agree? >Not sure it was "won" though as an Armistice is a truce not a victory. --- Call it what you like, it was the cessation of hostility. --- >What I said still stands and your counter examples only support it. The US >military is ten times the size of the UK's and was in WWII. In WWII the US >domestic economy was intact --- Well, FDR was just bringing us out of the Great Depression, so thankfully the timing was right. --- >and the country had seen no conflict on it's >mainland. All the production facilities were still in place and all the >agriculture was functioning normally. Trying to score points by saying the >Army that country produced was more effective (eventually) than the one the >UK produced is strange to say the least. The very fact that the UK could >still field an effective combat force is something to be proud of. --- Definitely. And I'm sure us getting into the fray did wonders for your morale and allowed you to get your "stiff upper lip" back, -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |