Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 6 Nov 2006 04:09 On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:52:18 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I asked my neighbour about buttermilk. He says his mother used to drink lots but >they lived in the country you see where it would have been readily available >from the farm presumably. The "buttermilk" they use in the USA isn't actually buttermilk, it's a kind of runny yoghurt.
From: |||newspam||| on 6 Nov 2006 06:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Levi's jeans are a lot cheaper in the USA! But not for the reason that fuBAH thinks. It is actually a result of how the EU interprets trademark law that allows major US companies to price gouge European consumers for trademarked goods by preventing parallel (grey) imports. See for example the infamous Tescos vs Levi Strauss http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1431627.stm http://www.howrey.com/europe/newsletter/Winter2002a/12.html We do buy clothes in the USA when we happen to visit to take advantage of these prices coupled with the strong pound weak dollar exchange rate. > >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. I imagine that network > shopping is starting to change the need to fly over to the US > to get stuff. Dell got a pretty good foothold very early on and quickly became a corporate standard soon after IBM tried to stiff everyone with their new hardware incompatible PS/2 brands. It was largely responsible for breaking down the Compaq IBM duopoly on corporate PCs. By 1990 Dell had a large scale manufacturing plant in Ireland. > >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. For the There are some popular US brands and products that are hard to find in Europe - no demand. However, in large cities with a significant expat community you can usually find anything if you know exactly where to look. Hershey bars spring to mind as a terrible half rancid product that would never sell anywhere that actually had tasted decent quality chocolate. Most UK "chocolate" is also of a poor quality -so bad that the EU very nearly outlawed calling it chocolate. http://www.rps.psu.edu/0009/chocolate.html > books, friends of ours would buy $500 worth of paperbacks because > they couldn't get those titles at home. I suppose some dedicated ultra-right and KKK material is not widely available outside the USA. But just about anything else is. I have bought obscure textbooks from the main Amazon site because they were cheaper even allowing for the airmail. But now that the net book agreement (intended to protect small UK booksellers from unfair competition) has collapsed the differences are usually negligible. > >> 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 What an uinderstatement! > but it seemed to be tied to unions and headwedged thinking. Bollocks. You are a pathological liar or a fantasist or both. Even in the worst days of communist Russia they only tended to be completely out of a few random common consumer items at a time. It was always worth finding out what common consumables to take out if you were travelling over there. > >> 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. Really? Examples please. > >You're a funny old girl you know ! > > Once in a great while I'm funny. However, I'm old all the time. Barking mad would be closer to the truth. Returning to mess creation: the dimwits in the WhiteHouse did a fabulous job of publishing a large selection of key details for WMD chemical plant and partial equations & engineering drawings for an A-Bomb all neatly documented in Arabic from the confiscated Iraqi archives. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1953686.ece http://www.sabcnews.com/sci_tech/internet/0,2172,137788,00.html Great form of mess prevention that - the US publishing WMD trade secrets on the internet! No wonder that even Richard Perle describes the current Republican adminstration as dysfunctional. Regards, Martin Brown
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 06:36 In article <7ad6a$454e0ae9$49ecf9b$23543(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: <snip cleanup> >>>>>But preventative health care saves money in the long run, so insurance >>>>>companies have started paying for it. >>>> >>>>Sure. But preventative health care does not apply to the needs of >>>>the old and the dying. >>> >>>I am not sure what your position on this is. You defend the US healthcare >>>system >> >> >> Then you haven't read what I wrote. I think it sucks. There is >> no longer any delivery of services when needed. The biz has >> changed to specialized cut&paste with administrators assigning >> each page of text piecemeal. The medical practioners have become >> unionized and don't know it by handing all their business controls >> over to the government-approved bodies. > >I am guessing your experience is with HMO medical care. Acutally, both kinds. However, the HMO blocked using the regular insurance for 7x24 in home nursing. > In >that case I agree. My experience is with regular non-HMO >insurance, and my experience has been favorable. Until you need to hire labor. Then the HMO will block access to hiring nurses. If the nursing org needs to get along with HMOs, they can't go against HMO desires. > >I had a neighbor whose appointments with HMO specialists was >always 3 months in the future. His problem was the recurrence >of a fast growing cancer. Predictably, it got him. HMO was >the system he purchased, when he had other choices. He was a >nice guy, and I hate what happened to him, but he had >convinced himself he was getting the best medical care >available, and there was no talking him out of it. Even if he had the regular insurance, he might not have access. > >As best I can tell, HMO's are a parallel to Natinal Health >Care as it is practiced in the UK and Canada. YES! That's how it's morphing. My experience was in 1994-1995 so I can imagine it's become worse. One of the problems is the HMO was outside the company we worked for. Our regular insurance was kept within the company and adminstered by contracting. If the contractor did not deliver the admin service, it could get fired. So it had all kinds of $$$ incentive to not block access to the company's pool of monies. With an HMO, the money flows go outside of the company, and its doesn't have as much clout in behalf of its employees. /BAH <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 06:40 In article <1162747304.399492.204740(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1162657613.100498.94440(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >[.....] >> >You are, however, quite incorrect in this. The Democrat leadership is >> >quite sane and rational. This will be demonstrated after tuesday when >> >a wave of sanity sweeps through Washington. >> >> [stunned emoticon is mute at the unexpected perfection in >> broken thinking] > >In only a few days we will see the proof of the first part. I do hope >you are still around in 2007 so I can have the pleasure of saying "I >told you so". I promice not to follow it with "neener neener neener" >because we are, after all, adults. My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with no checks nor balances. The guy running for governor is promising to break the 2.5% property tax mandate, eliminating the high school graduation test, increase the income tax (against another taxpayer mandate), and somehow thinks that all this new tax income will create jobs. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 06:45
In article <454C9CAE.AC9911AC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam and >> >> his excursions north and south? >> > >> >What excursions ? There weren't any after Gulf War I. >> >> Exactly. Everytime Saddam tried, the UK and US bombed him. > >I don't recall any excursions. Perhaps you need to learn more recent history. > > >> Or have you forgotten all that? It was the UK and US spending >> money to keep him and his expansionism contained. > >Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) kicked his >troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. They were not reimbursed for that. Europe and the rest of the UN were perfectly willing to let these two countries tie up their military resources and monies babysitting Saddam. Saddam did not learn his lesson about not attacking his Arab neighbors. > > >> >I'll also point out to you that it wan't just the *USA* involved in that one >> - >> >nor even Gulf War II. >> >> I know that. > >So why did you say the USA then ? I'm currently reading about it. They were the first to say they would help when asked and backed it up with action. /BAH |