Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 09:02 In article <NPw3h.6024$B31.873(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message <snip> >So now you're changing your story? No. > First you say you refuse to talk to >actual Muslims because you get your data from books. Now you're saying you >talk to Muslims. Which is it? nice try. The answer is none of the above. Make another list. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 09:07 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > I was sanding a board outside yesterday. The air was thick > > with wood smoke. I immediately got a sore throat which > > I do when breathing wood smoke. I'm going to have > > another winter of constant sore throats. It was probably not dry wood. > > Now, take a good look at what happened in Britain w.r.t. > > coal and miners and strikes. Use it as an analogy when > > making a premise that a similar event will happen with > > the oil biz. > > Please do. I really doubt (either of) you have any understanding of the > miners strikes, their causes and the after effects. I can't wait to hear this one. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 09:10 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. > > No, it's not. Do please supply an appropriate example. Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Nov 2006 09:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:einfa9$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <NPw3h.6024$B31.873(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > <snip> > >>So now you're changing your story? > > No. > >> First you say you refuse to talk to >>actual Muslims because you get your data from books. Now you're saying you >>talk to Muslims. Which is it? > > nice try. The answer is none of the above. > > Make another list. It seems difficult to think of an answer other than you do or don't talk to Muslims. Do you commune with their spirits?
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 09:10
In article <n9duk29u8drj3219h96heic6vvt69detb8(a)4ax.com>, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > ><snip> >> >>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>a similar tax law will become national. >> >>THINK! dammmit. >> >>/BAH > >AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of >"equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus >in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). Yup. That's why those extra lines on each catalog order form exist. > They have no way of >enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for >companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable >items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is >easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to >calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. > >Here's some information from California: > >http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm > >They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the >IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very >low. Now imagine all that lovely data collected when people who buy stuff use the store's discount card. This kind of buying data is already getting collected by some states. You ain't paranoid enough yet :-). > >This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation >between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. The advent of web pages have made the old ways of collecting more difficult. In the future, unfortunately the near future, all purchases are going to be done on the net. Either the states find a way to tax purchases retroactively or they come up with a general tax that is a guesstimate of would have been collected through a sales tax. > It could only be >widely enforced (for individuals) if states agreed between themselves >to collect and remit taxes for other states. That doesn't work. They are exchanging purchase data of who bought what instead of collecting the money for the other states. /BAH |