Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 21 Oct 2006 12:31 T Wake wrote: [... democrats ...] > They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien > attacks If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why they may not want the other side to hear of them. Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you wouldn't want a nuke to go off.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 12:33 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:c82fa$453a411d$49ecfae$4310(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > > >> I actually go out of my way to try and comprehend your point of view. You >> obviously choose not to show me the same courtesy and, when your >> standpoint becomes untenable, you fall back on accusing me of deliberate >> misunderstanding. > >> Well done. > > She's right. You're a Muslim or a Muslim shill. Nonsense. But keep making your assumptions based on whatever you want to make up > That being said, > you're so brainwashed your "truths" are limited to what you've > been "carefully taught." (see _South Pacific_) Your idiocy overwhelms me.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 12:34 T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: <snip> > The argument in this thread is that the current > plans were wrong. That's one of many many arguments in this thread. > It appears that the military chain of command > are coming to think that as well. It is election season and the republicans are in trouble there. Even you should be at least aware that promises made during election season are not to be believed. But then, you'd have no case to make at all, so have at it.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 12:35 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:7db9$453a413d$49ecfae$4310(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>>>subject >>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>radio >>>>>>>>show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a >>>>>>>>bit >>>>>>>>behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>> >>>they >>> >>>>>>>know >>>>>>>better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant >>>>>>>they >>> >>>had >>> >>>>>>>no >>>>>>>vailidity ! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>> >>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>> >>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>> >>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>> >>> >>>I'm not going to deal with this one. >> >> >> So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? > > Because she had a point to make, and made it. You really do struggle to comprehend posts, don't you? She made no point and did nothing but post into the flow of a debate between others - without adding to it. What point do you think she was trying to make? Sorry, I really shouldn't ask you questions which require you think. I will avoid it in the future. Please, come back with some more assumptions based on complete misunderstanding.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 12:36
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:29e96$453a4272$49ecfae$4310(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: > > >> Jesus was the son of God (Part of God if you belive in the holy trinity). >> He gave his life rather than kill. This is the basic tenet of early >> Christianity. It was modified significantly over the next three to nine >> hundred years until by the end of the first millenium, Christianity was a >> war like religion which appealed to the Scandinavians. > You make me laugh. I am far from being a Muslim and even further from supporting the spread of Islam. I went to a Catholic Grammar school - please, what did I distort? Or was the sole purpose of your post the attempt to call me a Muslim? |