Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:34 <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. You really should consider using an internet browser on your own PC. RCN communications provide an internet service. It will not cause your PC to become immediately infested with virus outbreaks or any other horror stories you may have heard. > However, it seems that you are making the assumption you accuse > me of making; namely, that all Muslims deem capitalism as an unIslamic > condition. The threat comes from Muslims who believe that *all* > Western civilization activities are bad. The number of Muslims who believe all western civilisation activities are bad is roughly the same as the number of Christians who believe all Islamic activities are bad. There are a significant number of westerners who believe western activities are bad - despite living in capitalist democracies. Do you advocate invasion and regime change in those cases as well?
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:37 <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. >> >> >>> 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..you know those where they talk face to face > with their constiuencies? Even the Democrat rebuttals to > Bush's Saturday radio speeches never include building nuclear > reactors when they list the viable alternate energy sources > they claim to have in their platform plans. > > They don't *say* it when it counts. There isn't a mention > in my state's politics about improving our power grid. And > we have tons of hot politics going on at the moment. No > Democrat and no Republican in this state is talking about > any of the real stuff. What you mean is any of the stuff which is really important to _you_.
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvdfq$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <EL-dnW6mcO-Zn9zYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>>best >>>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>>> >>>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow >>>>>>some >>>>>>one >>>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually >>>>>>incorrect >>>>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in >>>>>>the >>>>>>scientific method. >>>>> >>>>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>>>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>>>> how science works. >>>> >>>>I know how science works. >>>> >>>>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>>>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>>>understanding of what you are observing. >>>> >>>>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>>>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that >>>>happens >>>>we >>>>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >>>> >>>>That is how science works. >>> >>> I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >>> continue to work within the range of the old measurements. >>> >>> I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>> work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>> I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>> because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. >> >>You must have misread my post. Can you read over it again and see where I >>said Newtonian gravity doesn't work, I don't think I said it and I hope I >>didn't imply it. > > Sorry. I was nitpiking because I knew what readers would conclude :-). > They've done it before. Ok. I dont have a problem with nitpicking at all. >> >>I am talking about the possibility that a future theory of gravity _may_ >>overhaul the Newtonian mechanics for low mass objects and slow speeds. >>There >>is nothing in the scientific method which precludes a future generation >>discovering a better experimental test and finding a flaw in the Newtonian >>theory because of something we have no knowledge of at this time. > > Here you imply it with your use of the word "flaw". It's not a flaw > but a case that can't be predicted by Newtonian theory. Shall we nitpick some more. My post does not say Newtonian gravity is wrong, nor does it imply it. My post says a future generation _may_ find a flaw with Newtonian gravity. There is nothing in the scientific method which stops that happening. Experimental evidence only ever falsifies a theory, the positive support a theory may get is only for the case of that experiment (although the equivalence principle allows for some assumptions to be made). Newtonian gravity has mountains and mountains of positive evidence. But to assert that there will never be any falsification is surely a belief not founded in the scientific method. > That new > theory is another tool to add to your tool box of predictions; it's > not a replacement for the hammer which is the first tool used by > kiddies like me. I wasn't talking about any currently known theories. >> >>It remains the case, that until such a time, scientists _believe_ >>Newtonian >>theory is the best theory for describing gravity in the circumstances in >>which it is used. It is not possible to know that this is the only theory. >>The same applies to GR. It is scientist's belief that GR is the best >>theory >>for describing gravity on a cosmic scale. >> >>Belief is a word. Giving it mystical meaning is pandering to religious >>extremists. > > When the convention is about belief in god being supplanted by > the theory of evolution, the last word any science teacher > (who can think) would be belief. Really? It seems a given in the title that the discussion would be about belief. It is hard to talk about belief without using the word. Evolution does not force people to stop believing in God. Belief in anything does not preclude a belief in God. People who believe in God seem (IMHO of course) to be willing to believe all manner of things. > By saying that word, these > idiots lost their argument before the first meeting was held; > they were talking to closed ears. > > Sheesh! I don't understand people and even I know about this > one. You are half correct.
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 10:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvlh0$8qk_003(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <6p6dnedpkJ2i_N7YnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>Now on to the important issue - are you saying that the Afghan Government >>is >>good enough for the US to leave it to carry on along its new found >>enforced >>self determinist path? >> >>Let me see if I have got this right. Is this the sequence of events as you >>see it? >> >>The Taliban supported AQ. AQ attacked the WTC. The US invaded Afghanistan >>and removed the Taliban government. Taliban / AQ went into the hills for a >>guerrilla war.Elections take place and weak government is installed. >>Guerrilla attacks increase. US decides "Job Done" and pulls out leaving >>NATO >>led forces to sort out the rest of the war. >> >>Is that broadly correct? > > No. Needs a rewrite. Ok, where did I go wrong?
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 10:53
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Groundhog post - the WTC was not the centre of world trade. It was named > >> > the World Trade Center in the same manner that the World Series > >> > involves very few nations. > >> > > >> >A name is a name. Its function was different from what you seem to imply > >> >here. > >> > >> Are you talking about the restaurants and shops that provided > >> services for the 50,000 (est.#) people who worked there? > > > >No. He's saying it was just a catchy name for a big office complex. > > Whose major business activities dealt with trade. Not exclusively by any means. > >There are 74 more World Trade Centers around the world including several in > >Muslim countries. However you've shown in a recent post that you don't want > > to see these. > > One down, 74 more to go. Take a look at the other targets. It has > to do with trade. It's nothing of the sort. I've never heard global trade mentioned even once by Al Qaeda or whoever. > >The NewYork WTC was *not* the centre of world trade ! > > You certainly cannot comprehend that the WTC was a world trade > center. Its value as a target was symbolic not real. > I don't know what else I can write other than I told > you so after the next mess happens. The simple fact of the matter is that these messes are actually the result of years of historically stupid American interference in issues you don't understand and should never have got involved in. America is wholly responsible for generating these 'messes' you talk of. Graham |