Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkth3$8qk_002(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>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. > > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important > action that can be taken right now. Only the person known > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. Because they're another smokescreen to try to keep people from focusing on the real issues. As I mentioned several times, and you've refuse to address, less than 3 % of our national electric power comes from pretroleum. Since we only import about 2/3 of our petroleum, apportioning imports across all uses leaves about 2 % of our electric power coming from imported oil. Since only about half of our oil comes from the traditional Muslim nations that might cause us trouble (fully 1/3 of our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico), that's down to about 1 % of our total electric power grid that is at risk. You would truly never notice that if it went off-line, as coal- and natural gas-fired power plants would easily take up that small amount of slack. No, nuclear power plants have nothing to do with petroleum dependence on Muslim nations, as you imply. They do, however, have to do with the future of electric power in this country, once coal and natural gas run out. However, between them, the reserve is estimated at well over 400 years, so it's clearly not a big issue in this election as Bush would have us believe. Where did you get your talking points, if not from the RNC--certainly not from any analysis of actual information. > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit > to open a plant. Great, I'm all for it personally. However, it has nothing to do with the quality of elected officials. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehku1t$8qk_005(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed. > > Yes, it is needed. Only if you intend to use the "gender card" in place of facts, inn an attempt to win an argument...which clearly appears to be your intent. >I think that's one of the underlying reasons > people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It > appears that modern females are also not getting trained to > anticipate and prevent messes. OK, so you admit it's not a male-female thing, and yet you still insist on playing the gender card. Makes your intent pretty clear. > I'm starting to think that this may have something to do > with concentrating on work that pays money rather than > other kinds of work. You mean other kinds of work like sitting around dreaming up paranoid conspiracy theories? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 24 Oct 2006 12:47 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o(a)4ax.com... > > >>>>> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to >>>>> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. >>>> >>>>All topics have conferences like that. >>>> >>> >>>I find physicists to be especially aggressive. >> >>Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient. > > "That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later > that it can work. "Wow, that is great. It looks cool. It sound cool. It has a trendy presentation and has been posted all over USENET in capital letters. It has lots of pretty looking documents and some young guy who keeps talking about how Einstein was ignored early on supporting it. It has the potential to solve the worlds energy needs. It will allow mankind to colonise Mars. It is brilliant" - is not very terse and it is even worse when it is discovered that it will never work (*). "That can't work" is indeed pretty terse and more often than not, it turns out it actually can't work. For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How should people react to new ideas? Habishi would be a good example... ~~~~~~~~~~~ (*) Poorly worded given the rigours of the scientific method but I don't mind.
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:50 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:TsOdnbyhHbpLY6DYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehkpst$8qk_002(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill. >> >> I don't think so. > > You are correct. > >> I think these types of people are >> trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice >> about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will >> have mercy and not kill them. > > You are incorrect. There is no "trying" to survive about it. I can only > speak for myself and I am trying to maintain my freedom and the rights I > have been brought up to think were inalienable. And for myself, it's a matter of maintaining perspective. If you recall, I did not come to the conclusions I have from the Democrats. I came to those conclusions by consideration of the data when I was still reasonably happy with the Republican party. As I did so, I became more and more dissatisfied with the Republican stance on things. Nice try, BAH. >> It's similar to a pack >> mentality, I think. > > This argument cuts both ways. Yes, but pack mentality generally doesn't work in the direction of reasonableness. It generally works in the direction of extremism. Which is more extremist, the insistence on proportion and reason in response to the threat of terrorism, or the Chicken-Little "Sky is falling!" routine that the Republicans have been pulling since about 2002? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:53
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkutu$8qk_006(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > I'm not posting here to discuss the benefits and socioeconomic > effects of humor. I do not find satire funny. I think sarcasm > is not funny at all but a method of demeaning the subject. ....and yet you use it all the time, if your postings here are any indication. >>Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those >>tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I >>think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already >>thought about it. > > Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy > Western civilization. Evidence, please. This, once again, is at best an extremist over-interpretation of what anyone has actually said. Eric Lucas |