Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:42 In article <zYL%g.15874$TV3.11801(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehnf70$8qk_008(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> >> I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the >> report of estimated death count. > >So you put up a smokescreen excuse in order to justify ignoring a study that >might make you question your tenacious hold on the assumptions that you deny >you have, but which are obvious from your writings. Interesting way to >justify your position. I suppose it works with the uncritical crowd. I do not have to eat bullshit to know it's bullshit. All I have to do is smell it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:52 In article <SuydnbA1IYhqJqLYRVnysQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehnf70$8qk_008(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <ehiku1$rv0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying >>>on >>>people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates. >> >> When did the public records offices get reopened in that country? >> How does their public records offices work? >> >> I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the >> report of estimated death count. > >How do you know this is not mentioned in the report? Because of the way you people used the number to support your faulty conclusions. Becaues of the way it was reported by the BBC and CBS news. Because common sense says that there is no way to count dead heads in a country that has a living style of killing for the hell of it. Because keeping records is a bureaucrat function. Bureaucracy is usually the first piece of infrastructure to go when a government is toppled. Because when the UN inspectors would go inspect in the buildings that were supposed to be the place where all this paper is kept and not a scrap remained. > >Do you feel you are able to peer review a document without seeing it? I don't have to peer review any document since I'm not a peer. ARe you saying that, becuase the authors have titles and have not stated their hidden agenda that I am supposed to not ever question it? You want me to beleive that there are more deaths happening now than before when there is no way that Saddam, his sons, and sycophants would record their little killing games. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 08:58 In article <1uquj2d4v82b8dv6gbn12ibgt7ghau0hn0(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:59:33 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> >>>I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under >>>our eyes. >> >>Ah-choo! [emoticon picks nose] Yep. >> >>/BAH > >Well, I was sort of hoping for something more radical than butterflies >with differently colored wings. Merge two viruses. Kill of all orange butterflies. That leaves an ecological gap which will be filled with a different color. But I was trying to simply make the obvious joke. I just thought of the paragraph today. > >I arguw with my biologist daughter over the definition of "species." >It no longer what I learned in biology class, with ability to breed as >the boundary; in fact, she can't give me a definition that's clear to >me. > I think that was starting to happen when I was majoring (but didn't complete) in biology in 1968 and 1969. I took a grad course that studied various papers and the distinctions were getting mukier and murkier. It was not unlike Uncertainty Principle. That's the analogy I thought back then; nowdays, I'd call it whackamole. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 09:04 In article <4540A893.7EB83109(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced >> >technology. >> > >> >Islamic extremism isn't. >> >> hmm..that's why these extremists use weapons manfuactured by >> the West to kill Westerners and Muslim moderates. > >So who's selling them this stuff ? I suspect Germany, France, Russia, China, and North Korea has stated it intends sell nuclear weapons. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Oct 2006 10:22
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" > do you not understand? In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / business. Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to continue living in ignorance of the facts ? http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ Graham |