New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Aug 2006 15:07 Eeyore wrote: > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:33:35 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:26:32 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Between periods of malevolent behavior, a rabid dog remains a rabid >>>>>>> dog. >>>>>> Then George should not have owned the rabid dog in the first place, >>>>>> should he? >>>>> --- >>>>> Why not? Lots of people have sick pets which they hope will get >>>>> better but which eventually _have_ to be put down. >>>> But George liked him *because* he was sick. >>>> George didn't want him to get better. >>> --- >>> LOL, you were there, huh? >> I was around, and complaining about Saddam being a tyrannical murderer, >> when he was your good pal and Rummy was photographed shaking his hand. > > Do you recall that Iraqi Guardian ? journalist who got strung up by the neck > with wire by Saddam for venturing too close to some dodgy military installation > when on a story ? > > Must have been during the 80s I reckon. Interesting how hating Saddam made one a weak wimpy leftist back then, and hating him now makes one a strong rightwing patriot. Dirk
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Aug 2006 15:08 John Fields wrote: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:29:44 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> A poll showed that some 45% of the overall population supports attacks >> on US forces, and that rises to over 80% in Sunni areas. >> So who appears to be the terrorists? > > --- > If it's true, the ones who are inciting the population to support > attacks on US forces as well as the actual attackers. So one has to be incited to oppose a foreign occupying army... Dirk
From: Michael A. Terrell on 3 Aug 2006 15:09 Eeyore wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > John Fields wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:05:11 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian > > > <null(a)example.net> wrote: > > > > > > >My point is, that a person who claims that war can be reduced by making > > > >more war is clearly insane. It's like trying to put out a fire by pouring > > > >gasoline on it. > > > > > > --- > > > That's a stupid analogy. > > > > > > Our getting involved in WW2 and making more war obviously reduced > > > the number of casualties and the length of the war. > > > > > > Using the analogy of burning a fire bridge to contain an existing > > > conflagration in order to let it burn itself out is more accurate. > > > > > > -- > > > John Fields > > > Professional Circuit Designer > > > > Its a good thing Rich doesn't have to fight forest fires. The > > concept of a backfire would cause his tiny brain to implode. > > Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you're out of your depth ? > > Graham Have you ever fought a forest fire? I have, and it is a dangerous, back breaking job. Now, if you will just back into your depth, things will smell a lot better around here. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: krw on 3 Aug 2006 15:41 In article <44D2418C.7D214655(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > John Fields wrote: > > > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:05:11 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian > > <null(a)example.net> wrote: > > > > >My point is, that a person who claims that war can be reduced by making > > >more war is clearly insane. It's like trying to put out a fire by pouring > > >gasoline on it. > > > > --- > > That's a stupid analogy. > > > > Our getting involved in WW2 and making more war obviously reduced > > the number of casualties and the length of the war. > > > > Using the analogy of burning a fire bridge to contain an existing > > conflagration in order to let it burn itself out is more accurate. > > > > -- > > John Fields > > Professional Circuit Designer > > > Its a good thing Rich doesn't have to fight forest fires. The > concept of a backfire would cause his tiny brain to implode. Oh, hell no. Is breath would catch fire and burn him to a cinder first. -- Keith
From: Michael A. Terrell on 3 Aug 2006 15:45
krw wrote: > > In article <44D2418C.7D214655(a)earthlink.net>, > mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > > > > Its a good thing Rich doesn't have to fight forest fires. The > > concept of a backfire would cause his tiny brain to implode. > > Oh, hell no. Is breath would catch fire and burn him to a cinder > first. That would solve at least ONE problem. :( -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |