Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 20:03 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > T Wake wrote: > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>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. > >> > >>Pretty blatant one if you ask me. > > > > > > I've warned him about this before. > > > > Prohibited Activities. You may not use the Service in a manner that violates > > any applicable local, state, federal or international law, order or > > regulation. Additionally, You may not use the Service to: > > > > Invade another person's privacy, stalk, harass, or otherwise violate the > > rights of others. > > Post, transmit, or disseminate content that is illegal, threatening, abusive, > > libelous, slanderous, defamatory, promotes violence, or is otherwise > > offensive or objectionable. > > > > http://www.cox.com/policy/ > > > > Graham > > > it seems like you play a two sided street. No. I don't go round threatening ppl. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 20:04 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > 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 > > > and what part did the UK play in this? was it something > to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing > on our shores? Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an English town? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 20:06 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:37:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > > >And just keep in mind that we've been responsible for the killing of 650,000 > >Iraqis since we afftronted their sovereignty. > > Total bullshit. So you're saying that American university researchers came up with total bullshit are you ? Graham
From: Frank Bemelman on 15 Oct 2006 20:09 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:ged5j2h9n9pajnnp1hqgklgbceri0lucev(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:19:39 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >>> >>> > 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. >> >>Not even accountable to the International Court in fact. I wonder why that >>is ? >>Something to do with being held to account maybe ? > > --- > Nope, it's because we're so thoroughly disliked that if any of us > were ever brought into an international court, for any reason, it > would be impossible for us to get a fair trial. Come on, have a bit of faith. I'm sure they would lock up Bush for 30 years (fair enough), but they don't do any death sentences, as far as I know. Talking about fair trials, how is it going with those guys in Guantanamo bay? -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 20:11
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:36:39 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:38:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>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. :) > >--- >It doesn't even have to be a threat, just an annoyance will do it! An intended annoyance. I intend to annoy no one. If that ends up as th result, the person annoyed has a problem, not me. The law is meant to keep married folks or couples that have recently broken up from harassing each other or forwarding threats over a network. In these instances, in this thread, I would win out, and the law would actually get beaten down. |