Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jamie on 4 Nov 2006 11:43 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Your opinion is worthless. > > > Yeah.... right..... Ok ! > > you finally agree with something! -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 11:43 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> >> >>> if you're in the market for a $5K+ >>> watch, there are only a few places worldwide that are comparable >> >> >> >> Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside >> from >> bragging rights of course ! >> >> Graham >> > you can't figure it out? why does that > not surprise me? Easy things are difficult for our camel jockey.
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 11:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eii3t5$8nc_007(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B8F8F.58262328(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >> Do you take this to imply there is a *shortage* of the goods and > services >>> >> in Europe? >>> > >>> >I was hoping to discover this too. >>> > >>> >Maybe BAH can enlighten us ? >>> >>> I don't know about now... >>> >>> People would fly over to buy computers, blue jeans, tooth paste, >>> books, condiments. >> >>To the USA ? > > Yes. > > >> >>Well..... we do actually have computers here. In fact the Dell brand sells > well >>here too. >>http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs > > They didn't use to be sold over there. What year are you talking about? > I imagine that network > shopping is starting to change the need to fly over to the US > to get stuff. "Starting?" There is no "need" to fly to the US to buy any of the things you have mentioned and there hasnt been for at least a generation. >>I do know that there are some 'cuts' of jeans that may only be available >>in > the >>USA due to perceived national fashion differences but there's no shortage >>of >>them over here nor toothpaste, books or condiments for that matter. > > For the toothpaste and condiments it was particular brands. Ok, this is reasonable. However extrapolating the behaviour of someone who will spend ?200 on a flight to the US to buy a ?2 tube of toothpaste onto the general population is far fetched. > For the > books, friends of ours would buy $500 worth of paperbacks because > they couldn't get those titles at home. They are strange people. >>> There was something else that was very odd >>> but I can't remember what it was. These items were cheaper, if >>> available for sale in European stores. Most were not available >>> and could not be ordered. Buying the stuff while you were in >>> your country was not allowed but you could go over and buy the >>> stuff as a tourist. >> >>Not allowed ? What do you mean exactly ? > > Import bans, taxes, etc. I never understood all of this > but it seemed to be tied to unions and headwedged thinking. You are correct that you dont understand. Import bans and taxes are not related to trade unions. Import bans (in the case of the UK) are because products are dangerous or illegal. Ephedrine springs to mind but I dont know its current legal status in the US. I seem to recall that the US has import (and export bans) and taxes as well. >> >>> These restrictions may have to be dropped now that there is >>> online shopping available. >> >>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing > from >>WW2 ended in the 50s. > > It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of > WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. Nonsense. Not to mention its been more than 15 years since she was PM. Seriously, do you exist in some Bizzaro world of 50 years ago? It would explain your reluctance to use a web browser on your otherwise capable PC.
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 11:48 unsettled wrote: > T Wake distorted: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>In article <454C1E11.8C3514AC(a)hotmail.com>, > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>I'm simply pointing out the factual reasons for the 1973 oil embargo. > >>> > >>>Do you want to rewrite history ? > >> > >>Now, think about an Islam decision that uses a similar tactic > >>which involves a shutdown of all oil shipments. > > > > > > Ok. I have thought about possible Islamic decisions which would use similar > > tactics and dismissed them all as either idiotic or ineffective. First > > though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. I have also > > though about the fact that there are non-Islamic countries which produce > > oil. I am sure most OPEC nations would baulk at bankrupting themselves just > > to reduce the oil they export to the west. > > > > Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual here. > > Siding with him on this does your argument no good. > > Here's my contribution to this discussion: > > >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War > >>>>So the arabs start another war, they lose, *again*, then > >>>>in a fit of pique punish the US, and here some 30+ years > >>>>later you're supporting the Arab posture? > > Where's the straw man? Where's the nonsense? > > Oh, YOUR nonsense? Oh, YOUR strawman! Islam had nothing directly to do with the 1973 oil embargo. The embargo wasn't an Islamic edict. It was a response from Arab nations. See.......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world Not the same thing at all. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 11:48
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:KqR2h.1397$Mw.659(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:U4qdnc8hdcI8VtbYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:454BB005.F2D563FC(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> Still, the best has to be Kroneburg or Stella Artois :-) >>> >>> I'll be drinking some Stella later this evening. It's quite pleasant but >>> not my >>> fave, however the pub doesn't have my favourite, in fact draught Holsten >>> is very >>> rare indeed. >>> >>> >>>> Hoegarden is pretty good as well. >>> >>> I've never really got on with that. White beers are an acquired taste I >>> reckon. >> >> I find they make you too drunk, too fast. But that isn't always a bad >> thing. > > > And don't even think about drinking a hefeweis with pizza, pretzels, > potato chips, or anything else starchy. You'll wake up the yeasties > again, and your SO won't get a single wink of sleep that night. Nice. Pretty much anything beer or larger has an adverse effect on me - starch or otherwise :-) Still, you get used to your own smell after a while. |