Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 29 Oct 2006 05:00 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>You should, however, have a big problem with her assuming she knows what >>>you're *going* to say. It's precisely why she never hears anything from >>>either political party that would contradict her wacky black-and-white >>>worldview--she simply already knows what they're going to say, and doesn't >>>actually bother to listen to what they *do* say. Ditto with what she >>>already knows the terrorists are going to say. >> >>The two jackasses Wake & Lucas bray in unison >>mostly. >> >>Listen guys, you're nothing but a pair of punk >>anti-Americans picking on a woman who has some >>good ideas, some bad ideas, and some occasional >>genius thrown in for good measure. You aren't >>bright enough to recognize the difference because >>you're in attack mode having flushed your brains >>away. > > > Excuse me ! > > BAH is living in a fantasy world so far removed from reality it begs belief ! > > I guess that means you must be too. What I wrote above and your reply belong to two mutually exclusive realms. Whatever BAH writes or thinks does not negate the validity of the statement you cited above. Are you capable of conducting a cogent conversation? It appears I should have included your name in the above list. Consider it done.
From: unsettled on 29 Oct 2006 05:03 Eeyore wrote: > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >> >>>>I am starting to build a mental image of /BAH as a sort of survivalist, >>>>living in a log cabin with a shotgun and a computer built out of twigs. >> >>>>It would go a long way to explaining some things said here. >> >>>It would. >> >>>I'm still perpelexed by the idea that thinks she's some important big shot. >> >>LOL, she's not the only one, however. Such matters are so >>far beyond you clowns that it's laughable you even try. > > > Projection. You're not competent to reply.
From: Eeyore on 29 Oct 2006 05:35 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>T Wake wrote: > >> > >>>>I am starting to build a mental image of /BAH as a sort of survivalist, > >>>>living in a log cabin with a shotgun and a computer built out of twigs. > >> > >>>>It would go a long way to explaining some things said here. > >> > >>>It would. > >> > >>>I'm still perpelexed by the idea that thinks she's some important big shot. > >> > >>LOL, she's not the only one, however. Such matters are so > >>far beyond you clowns that it's laughable you even try. > > > > > > Projection. > > You're not competent to reply. The assertion of someone with nothing to say. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Oct 2006 05:34 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> > >>>You should, however, have a big problem with her assuming she knows what > >>>you're *going* to say. It's precisely why she never hears anything from > >>>either political party that would contradict her wacky black-and-white > >>>worldview--she simply already knows what they're going to say, and doesn't > >>>actually bother to listen to what they *do* say. Ditto with what she > >>>already knows the terrorists are going to say. > >> > >>The two jackasses Wake & Lucas bray in unison > >>mostly. > >> > >>Listen guys, you're nothing but a pair of punk > >>anti-Americans picking on a woman who has some > >>good ideas, some bad ideas, and some occasional > >>genius thrown in for good measure. You aren't > >>bright enough to recognize the difference because > >>you're in attack mode having flushed your brains > >>away. > > > > Excuse me ! > > > > BAH is living in a fantasy world so far removed from reality it begs belief ! > > > > I guess that means you must be too. > > What I wrote above and your reply belong to two > mutually exclusive realms. Whatever BAH writes > or thinks does not negate the validity of the > statement you cited above. BAH's statements belong purely to the realm of fantasy and nightmares. > Are you capable of conducting a cogent conversation? > It appears I should have included your name in the > above list. Consider it done. OK. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Oct 2006 06:07
In article <4fT0h.22837$e66.13424(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehvl9u$8qk_002(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <4543442A.FCBDD467(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You >>>> >can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is >>>> >more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will >>>> >continue to use oil. >>>> > >>>> You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. >>> >>>So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did the oil >>>go >> ? >> >> If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe >> in exchange for capitulation. >> >> /BAH > >They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a factor of >10??? They already have. It's going to be more. /BAH |