Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 18:18 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4532B29A.14416965(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ? I think that sometimes people are a bit too sensitive. Without wishing to put down people with genuine problems (being stalked online by real nutters), I think the current knee jerk legal reactions are over the top. I would rather risk having an idiot try to insult me under a pseudonym than have the government interfere in my life more than they already do.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 18:20 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:22:09 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >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. You are only about three orders of magnitude off on the count. It is a HUGE problem, dipshit, and your blindness to that fact is almost as appalling as the DonkTARD's obvious US hating attitude., considering that you would wish for us to consider you intelligent, and knowledgeable. you just shot that premise all to hell, chucko. Pull that one out from between your cheeks and chew on it.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 18:21 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:23:26 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >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. All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be a crime. I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that?
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 18:24 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:58:17 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >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, Simply not so. Hitler didn't want war with Britain in the first place. Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 18:24
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4532B1D6.86F08520(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> MAD only works when the parties are sane > > LOL ! What a brilliant concept. It was good while it lasted. At least with the US and USSR being governed by reasonably sane people, the prospect of nuking another country was almost zero. Now, people are suggesting the US will go to war with a country which will have no way of properly defending itself without resorting to nukes. If NK does detonate any type of nuclear weapon against America, will the US restrain its response? Will the American public allow the nations military to continue to fight a conventional war? If I thought the US would invade, I would hope they would. (If that makes any sense). |