Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 12:48 Spehro Pefhany wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> 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. > > > >So do tell why a $5k watch makes sense. > > > >Graham > > Dunno, but after a few weeks living in HK you start to feel like you > need one. LOL ! Luckily I've never been bothered by trinkets. Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:54 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:454CAD3B.FF177A12(a)hotmail.com... > >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>But then they tout their "free" national health care. Heck, >>>they're too poor after paying all their taxes to be able >>>to afford much of anything, >> >>LOL. UK incomes aren't that much less than US. > > > Although "debating" with unsettled is akin to banging your head against a > wall, I found some numbers out. > > Average US Salary in 2002 was $36,764 (Source: > http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html), although the odd way they do things > makes it hard to determine. One source suggests this has dropped > (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm) > or increased (depending how you read it), but it seems reasonable to suggest > the average US income is $43,200 in 2004. Of course this doesn't cover any "off the books" income. > In the UK the average income > (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2006/2006_all_employees.pdf) > is about ?21,476 per year. > > Now $43,200 is about ?22600 so the difference in pay is pretty small to say > the least. > > One of the problems with this conversion though, is the US figure includes > income from stocks, bonds, savings and the like while the UK one is just > salary. Are you telling us that the numbers are an estimate? >>>and in the end they're paying >>>more for health care than we do, >> >>Let's see some numbers then ! I'm all for seeing a fair comparison ! > > > They certainly do not bear out unsettled's claims. > > >>>but it isn't visible to >>>them because the money trail is through government. >> >>?76.4 bn according to recent figures. That's ?1273 per head of population. >> >>What are your numbers ? >> >>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for $2418 >>regardless of age or medical history ? > > > While it was far from easy getting information and answers about this, > nothing I found suggested it was possible. I pay a little less than $2K per annum with copays for medicines. I pay extra when I receive uncovered services, such as $50 for a 5 hour mobile blood pressure monitoring study. >>>Talk about pollution? I smelled coal fires in a residential >>>district in August 2002. I haven't smelled coal in the US >>>in residential use since the 1950's. BAH you asked about >>>pollution and wood fireplaces? They don't have much wood >>>left in UK, > > > Amazing. > > >>but they do have plenty of coal They aren't >> >>>bashful about burning it without pollution controls. >> >>Really ? It's quite hard to find a coal merchant these days in fact. There >>are 8 in >>my county for a population of just over 1 million. >> >>We have 'smokeless coal' btw. >>http://www.coaldelivery.co.uk/acatalog/smokeless_fuels_open_fires_multifuel_stoves.html > > > Not to mention a raft of clean air act laws, most of which pre-date any > American ones. Unsettled rarely lets facts get in the way of bias. > > > I'll say it again then: >>>Talk about pollution? I smelled coal fires in a residential >>>district in August 2002. Nothing about bias in what I smelled.
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454CC459.54F13FCF(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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: Unsettled contributes nothing. I dont know why it claims otherwise. >> >>>>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? The strawman is implying the Oil Embargo was an "Islamic inspired" action. >> 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. As usual, it goes over unsettled's head.
From: T Wake on 4 Nov 2006 12:56 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162661707.765456.112550(a)h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > T Wake wrote: > [....] >> > 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. > > Venezuela ships it North more than west. Some of the Islamic leaders > would increase production if another Islamic leader of the wrong stripe > suggested an embargo. > > A far bigger risk is that a few large multinational corporations could > gain control of the oil industry and conspire to force prices up to > increase their profits. Certainly a more plausible risk.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:57
Eeyore wrote: > > T Wake wrote: > > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >>>>>is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >>>>>of service delivery counts. >>>> >>>>And yet you prefer to believe impersonal books when learning about what >>>>Islam is all about, instead of talking to actual Muslims. >>> >>>What do you suggest? I'm reading about their history. >> >>Try doing both. I get the feeling you distance yourself from society >>somewhat, which may explain the perspective you bring to the discussion. >> >>Try talking to, and spending time with, Moslems. They are not very different >>from Christians. > > > They're also usually quite keen to talk about their religion and how it affects > their lives too. > > Graham > You would know. |