Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 14:30 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:82161$454f7cda$4fe7386$32592(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:ce217$454f7793$4fe7386$32431(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>>>>In the American lexicon, any work which pays less than >>>>>the maximum going rate is "volunteering." >>>> >>>>So, teachers are volunteers. Policemen, firemen, ... >>>> >>>>Airline pilots who work for smaller airlines are volunteers too... >>> >>>I am pleased to announce that you and I live >>>in rather different worlds. >> >> So what exactly, pray tell, did you mean by your gem: "In the American >> lexicon, any work which pays less than the maximum going rate is >> 'volunteering'."??? > > It is a simple sentence. Learn to parse. Parker's response was a fair one, since each of those people make substantially less than "the maximum going rate", and none of them is, as a class or workers, volunteers. I therefore thought I would give you a chance to explain your idiotic statement. I've polled 20 people that I work with, and none of them can figure out what the hell you're talking about. None of us thinks that "any work which pays less than the maximum going rate is 'volunteering'". We're all Americans, and your wacky definition is not in *our* lexicon. Or was this just another attempt to muddy the waters and "act superior" when nobody can figure out what the hell you mean? Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 16:15 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with > > no checks nor balances. > > ...and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been > for the entire country. She doesn't think that Republicans require any checks and balances. That's what's really scary as they gradually dismantlke the provisions of the US Constitution ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 16:19 unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > That is how the politically correct raionalized the change > > of having health *insurance* from a benefit to a right. > > Even more than that, it is a major paradigm shift away from > making the federal (US) government responsible for maintaining > a stable economic environment. So... ? The current government is running a huge budget deficit which certainly isn't good for a stable economic environment but I don't see you complaining about that ! It's only *your* presumption anyway that general health cover would be damaging to the economy. On the contrary it could actually be very good for it indeed. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 16:27 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > Yes, there > are socialist aspects to Europe's economy. Hell, the 'Murc'n jingoists here > won't admit it, but there are socialist aspects to the US economy. That > doesn't indict the entire economy. What you say above is true about > socialism stifling productivity, but it's not necessarily true of a > basically capitalist economy that has socialist aspects...like most of > Europe, the UK...*and* the US. BAH needs to get her head round the idea of the mixed economy. I bet she'd freak of the idea of the PPP ( Public Private Partnership ). Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 16:34
Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > [.... wood burning stove ....] > >>A good stove can be 90% efficient. > > > >That's not good enough if you're burning wood. > > I have an uncle who heats his house with wood only. Several of his > neighbors also heat with wood. The trees are grown in a "managed wood > lot" for fuel purpose. The wood costs less than other fuels even if you > include the cost of felling and splitting. And wood is a 'green' carbon-neutral fuel. It needs to be decently dry to burn properly btw. Graham |