New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Phat Bytestard on 4 Aug 2006 00:21 On 3 Aug 2006 16:00:57 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: >And this is what we call pig-ignorant jeering from the peanut gallery. What is it with you retarded twits over there, and calling someone "pig ignorant"? For one thing, pigs are almost as smart as dogs, they just have poorer vision. Number two is that they are ALL smarter than you fucktards. I'd rather be pig ignorant than dirt dumb.
From: Phat Bytestard on 4 Aug 2006 00:23 On 3 Aug 2006 16:10:06 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: > >Phat Bytestard wrote: >> On 2 Aug 2006 19:16:04 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: >> >> >If his brains >> >> Double posting now, SlowMan? How many years have you been in >> Usenet? Oh... that's right... you are too pathetic to care about >> conventions. > >I blame the link - I didn't get an acknowledgement for ages, and >thought that I failed to click the send icon .... Said the google groups Usenet retard. I find it amazing that you at least know how to format a post.
From: Phat Bytestard on 4 Aug 2006 00:36 On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:53:41 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >In article <4jf5puF7q56kU1(a)individual.net>, dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com >says... >> John Woodgate wrote: >> > In message <4jevt0F7ncu4U2(a)individual.net>, dated Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Dirk >> > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >> > >> >> So one has to be incited to oppose a foreign occupying army... >> > >> > Well, if that army would be inactive, and in due course would go away >> > entirely, if it wasn't attacked, a civilian's best interest is not to >> > attack it. So that civilian needs to be incited to lose his reason and >> > attack. >> >> ie if the civilian population lies down and accepts its puppet govt >> foisted upon it by the occupying army, then that army will leave. >> >> Sound a bit 'Soviet Bloc' doesn't it? > >No, it sounds like Lebanon. Good call.
From: joseph2k on 4 Aug 2006 00:38 Eeyore wrote: > > > Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:22:08 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Jim Thompson wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:59:22 +0100, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Hell, ship them to England and let Eeyore rehabilitate them. >> >> >> That >> >> >> way he can find out first hand exactly the kind of being he is >> >> >> defending. >> >> > >> >> >Some of them *have* been returned to England where they *live* ! >> >> >> >> Oh, really? I didn't know we'd snagged any Brits pretending to be >> >> terrorists. >> > >> >I guess your media didn't want to let you know. They seemed pretty >> >harmless actually. >> > >> > >> >> >I'm defending the rule of law which the USA seems to find convenient >> >> >to forget about when it suits you. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> Please cite the "rule of law which the USA seems to find convenient to >> >> forget". >> > >> >The ones about torture ? >> >http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511202006 >> > >> >On 29 June 2006 the US Supreme Court ruled by a 5-3 majority that the >> >structure and procedures of the military commissions as defined under >> >President George W. Bush?s Military Order of 13 November 2001 violated >> >US military law and the Geneva Conventions >> > >> >Graham >> > >> >> But there was NO *torture* found by any investigators or >> Democrat-biased Congressmen. >> >> You prove yet again that you are nothing but a BlatherMouth ;-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > And you're an apologist for mediaeval methods of 'interrogation'. Why not > red-hot irons too whilst you're at it ? Oh - those would leave marks of > course ! The pschological ones are conveniently not readily visible. > > It's really sad to see the USA decay into the role of World Thug. > > Graham That happened a long time ago, before the Bush I era. Haven't you been paying attention? -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: Phat Bytestard on 4 Aug 2006 00:40
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:23:33 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >In article <b4m4d2lrotcq9b3rru725gdv2u5f21381q(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:39:36 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Ken Smith wrote: >> >> In article <4je8poF7hvjbU3(a)individual.net>, >> >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>> It is quite possible to build a nuke with as little as 1kg of Pu >> >>> There have been suggestions (ie word of mouth, unpublished) that it >> >>> might be done with as little as 200g >> >>> >> >>> A lot depends on compression and neutron reflection. >> >> >> >> ...and the current price of Beryllium. >> >> >> >Just crack open a few old power transistors. >> >> --- >> That's beryllia in there, (beryllium oxide) not beryllium. > >Years ago (20ish) our chemical safety people came down on us for >some HP pulse generators that had beryllium content (actually, I >raised the issue as a counterpoint to some stupid regulations). HP >was all over themselves trying to prove that it would never come in >contact with the users of their equipment. I was laughing all the >way, but such sillyness has become sick these days. Hell, it was likely only transistor heat sink pads. |