Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 09:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvgl5$8qk_011(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4543423D.7C3A2311(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of buildings >>> >full > of >>> >people, mostly Americans. >>> >>> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >> >>Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. > > Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting > businesses that dealt in world trade. > > >> >> >>> This is >>> the part of human society that keeps it functioning, growing, >>> thriving. Remove that and you have a dark ages. >> >>See these Muslim centres of trade. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_towers >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_World_Trade_Centre >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putra_World_Trade_Centre >> >>And this list of 74 buildings also called " World Trade Center " >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_trade_center > > And the goal of those extremists is to destroy it. For all your bluster about the World Trade Center, I've still not seen you list *one* tangible effect its demise has had on world trade, other than some fantasy you had about "the destruction of all that know-how". Bullshit--I want you to list even *one* actual, documented lasting effect its demise had on world trade. Otherwise, your bluster is meaningless semantic games. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 09:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvafe$8qk_005(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4540C493.2EE94A81(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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/ > > I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. Nice convenient excuse to avoid actual facts. At least this time you didn't use that old chestnut "it smells like bad science, so I won't even read the report." Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 09:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvb5g$8qk_007(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <1161873433.497805.165040(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>[....] >>> >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >>> >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >>> >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >>> >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >>> >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. >>> >>> The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear >>> power plant, is Bush. >> >>That is simply false. >> >>At least the these have talked about it at length: >> >>Dennis Kucinich, >>Senator Domenici, >>Sen. Stabenow >> >>I'm sure there are many more but I'm lazy. > > I'll make a point to listen to these people when they talk. You might add Sherrod Brown, Ken Strickland, and Mary Jo Kilroy. I usually TIVO through the ads on TV, but I just happened to catch each of these three in a row, and they're all talking specific plans to deal with terrorism. Certainly better than "stay the course". You're problem isn't that you refuse to listen to what people say, it's worse than that....you listen selectively, and then refuse to admit that they said something you didn't want to hear. >>> I haven't heard Republicans say them and >>> Democrats always leave it off their list of items we have >>> to do to become less dependent on oil imports. >> >>Once again simply false. Try a bit of googling. >> > Anybody can edit any ASCII that's out there. I listen to > their speeches.. No, actually, you don't. You listen *selectively*, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what they are saying. > They don't *say* it when it counts. No, you don't hear it when they say it. There's a huge difference that I'm not sure you're even capable of understanding. > There isn't a mention > in my state's politics about improving our power grid. IIRC, you mentioned you live in Massachusetts. When exactly was the last time your states grid was insufficient? Not exactly a hotbed of blackouts or brownouts. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 10:04 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvff6$8qk_004(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <kOq0h.17025$TV3.9936(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehsmvn$8qk_001(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> OK. I've thought about this one and cannot deduce why. I have >>> a disadvantage because I have no idea what kind of work is required >>> to be an aerial gunner. >>> >>> Did it have to do with following the recipe in the properly ordered >>> steps? >> >>You think *that's* what good cooking is about??? > > Definitely. Cooking is chem lab products you have to eat. That would explain a *lot* about your misconceptions about chemistry. Neither good chemistry nor good cooking has even the remotest connection to being able to "follow a recipe in the properly ordered steps." Both are about having a very general plan, making observations, and making it up as you go. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:06
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvga6$8qk_008(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45433F9F.F6808F39(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>> [Clinton] >>> >(C) >>> >Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>> >I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >>> >>> I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>> of religion an effective action. >> >>It's not *its brand of religion* at all ! >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi >> >>> That's spitting into a gale >>> force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>> a hundred miles away. >> >>How would you deal with it then ? > > I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, representative democracy > with a secular education system mandatory for all residents > smack dab in the middle of that mess. Invade a sovereign nation. Remove that nations current government system and _force_ one upon the people. Force them to renounce their religious practices. That sounds real decent and righteous. |