Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:32 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehq91o$8qk_002(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <lyr%g.21239$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. I've not seen it. So you refuse to give evidence, then you cover that up with "you have been given evidence." Nice disingenuous debating tactic. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4540C493.2EE94A81(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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/ Nice design. Looks remarkably like the Petronas Towers--I wonder if it was the same designer. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehqafk$8qk_010(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <zYL%g.15874$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. ....to use as an excuse to ignore it. Boy, it's a good thing that the editors of peer-reviewed journals don't use such an olfactory technique for reviewing articles for publication. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 10:59 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4540CC6E.A8AC7D15(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> >> message >> >> >> >> > If somebody >> >> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >> >> >> >> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. >> >> An >> >> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past >> >> two >> >> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." >> > >> >An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! >> >> You haven't been in the mountains. > > It rains without clouds there ? Such ignorance of the value of actual empirical data would go a long way to explain her other beliefs. Eric Lucas
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Oct 2006 07:15
In article <ehq61l$8qk_002(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <_6M%g.15884$TV3.5959(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehngfd$8qk_013(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> In article <ehilc2$rv0$11(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>>>And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties? >>> >>> Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Note >>> that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do. >>> So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has >>> removed. >> >> >>Yet another smokescreen intended to obscure the fact that the Executive >>branch of the government, under the leadership of GWB, is taking away >>freedoms specifically named in the Constitution. Since Bush is the Chief >>Executive of the US, that means that he is responsible for the actions of >>the entire Executive branch. Try the 4th Amendment prohibition of searches >>and seizures without the probable cause that would get them a warrant, for >>starters. > >That Act passed by Congress is very specific. It is not a blanket >clause that covers all search and seizures. > (1) Bush is spying on citizens without warrants. (2) The law just signed allows Bush to declare anyone, anywhere an "enemy combatant" and then to hold that person indefinitely, with no right of habeas corpus. >>Try the implicit right not to be dragged into a war unilaterally >>by the Executive branch of the government. > >Huh? > >/BAH |