Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 15:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnf2o$8qk_007(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <be992$453b7621$4fe75d1$17105(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <453A5164.754CBC24(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The survey was to determine death rates from all causes pre and post >>>>>>war. Quite simple really. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pre-war of course there weren't any deaths from either US killings or >>>>>>any insurgents. >>>>> >>>>>And of course you faithfully believe Saddam's historical >>>>>records as being accurate and true! Bwahahahahahaha >>>> >>>>The figures for the pre-war era encountered by the group tally with CIA >>>>figures ! >>> >>> >>> What era? And there aren't death certificates for those >>> in hidden mass graves. So any person asked about people >>> they know who died couldn't have shown a certificate. >>> This person who disappeared could have been reported by >>> 10 households. Do you not see a problem in collected >>> unique datums? >> >>Lucas & Wake's blindness is highly selective. > > Yes. Yet much less selective than unsettled and, assuming you are as joined to "him" as I am to Lucas, you. > I don't understand their logic. That much is true. > I am considering a new > hypothesis about this type of thinking. I suspect it will functionally identical to your previous ones.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 15:48 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnfkr$8qk_010(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <snip> > >>> Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains? >> >>Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly >>functioning neuron between them. > > I realize that. Really? Do you honestly think that? Prior to being kill filed, unsettled and JoeBloe provide nothing but insults and sychopancy. If this is what criteria _you_ use to determine if some one has a "functioning neuron" I am disapointed. However, the reality is at no stage have you (or the sycophants) managed to construct an argument which has any logical integrity. > It a serious problem and you should be very > worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming > the politcally correct way to think. You use two disingenuous tactics here. First off you create the assumption that "political correctness" is a "bad thing" which is not always the case. Current, popular, use of the term implies it is "bad" but the reality is political correctness is just a buzzword to mock people doing the "right thing" (not insulting co-workers for example). Yes it can be taken to the extreme at which point it becomes bad, but extremism is not mainstream. Secondly, you use this false assumption to try and criticise the logical arguments put in front of you. You do not try to say anything we[tinw] have said is wrong - you just demonise the line of thinking. > This will cause political > leaders who pander the same way to be elected. All political leaders pander to the electorate. You are using demon #2 based on false assumption again. > These people > will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists. Nonsense. > They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything > about it. Nonsense. > There one difference between WWII and now. There are lots of differences between WWII and now. This is a very bad analogy to use, as in the run up to WWII the Nazis ignored the international community, demonised a religion and militarised based on the false threats. Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced technology. Islamic extremism isn't. > Today's > technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the > world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague > days, the creep of death waves took longer. > > This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling > is not an acceptable tactic. No, but it is the only tactic some people have.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 15:50 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnibo$8qk_020(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6qSdndc6PtVrmqDYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehi55a$8qk_008(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <453A24D6.FD9A2EED(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Why not start listening to and watching the BBC >>>>> >>>? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which >>>>> >> slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they >>>>> >> are taking that day. >>>>> > >>>>> >Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please? >>>>> >>>>> Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start. >>>> >>>>You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ? >>> >>> No. That will be the consequence. >>> >> >>Of what? > > Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to > destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied > and aided in their endeavors, will have the result > of the society that produces these programs to surrender. Nonsense. Phantom demon based on false assumption.
From: John Larkin on 25 Oct 2006 16:15 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >> in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >> were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >> school. > >Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor. Do people still say "duh"? > >Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science. This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. If somebody says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." John
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 16:29
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>> Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>> in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>> were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>> school. >> >>Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor. > > Do people still say "duh"? Probably. > >> >>Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science. > > This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. If somebody > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." Not always. However, the discussion was about the validity of science and the like. |