Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:57 In article <jpr%g.21228$e66.17477(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. You have stopped thinking again. It is necessary for females to be able to anticipate messes their kids are going to make. This ensures continuation of the human species. Anybody who does housework knows that it's easier to keep the house clean (and thus save laboring) by making everybody take their boots off before going into the house. This is mess prevention. Males don't generally think about these things; they weren't supposed to. They were supposed to hunt and kill dinner; that is always messy. Women just made them make the mess outside rather than inside. > > >> 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? Dream on. Have you stocked two weeks worth of drinking water? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 07:59 In article <453E1310.1BD60CD9(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy >> Western civilization. > >Cite ? > > >> The compensation for those who die >> while doing this work for them is only addressed to males. >> The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and >> no transport out of the house). This is not getting back >> to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read). > >So you reckon that all Muslim women would happily say OK to this ? The women did in Iran. They got the old ways back. Then they were sorry. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:18 In article <lyr%g.21239$e66.304(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehkutu$8qk_006(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> >> 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. You have been given evidence. You do not accept it. I'm not going to repeat posts and I don't the others, who also posted evidence, will either. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:22 In article <I-ydnWJzsq0e7KPYRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:nkmsj2p3uhnf5d5ai3gfo835c0h0gnns0j(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"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. >> >> One seriously good idea per decade is great in some fields. But you >> won't get that one if you murder tham all at birth. > >True but if you try to nurture every idea to see if it is good you will also >never get that one good one - as it will be drowned in the sea of wasted >time and money. > >The key is finding the balance. Sometimes good ideas are quashed. If they >are good, they survive this and prosper. The only ideas that survive and prosper are those where the people who created them are willing to work on the idea even if they never see its completion. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:24
In article <4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How >>should people react to new ideas? > >By *thinking* about them! NO! Working on them is just as, if not more, important. /BAH |