New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 16:07 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:09:31 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <Xns9814BE02DF4ECjyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.83>, dated Thu, 3 >Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >>John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>news:u94dDGrJIk0EFwNE(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> >>> In message <spd4d2p94a17j8g2sfqo5rp33c28mp37m2(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >>> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>>>Think about this: What do you think would happen if we weren't here? >>> >>> The oceans would drain away into the hole? >> >>Nonsense is all you could come up with? > >A nonsense question deserves a nonsense answer. That's probably a bit >subtle for people who think that debate consists of hurling personal >abuse and making obscene allegations about them. --- What I meant was the population, _not_ the land mass, FHS! -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 16:11 Frank Bemelman wrote: > "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> schreef in bericht > news:44d34be9$0$2814$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in > > bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... > > >> In 1950, at the end of 1000 years of European domination of the world, > >> there were 22 democracies. By 2000, after a mere 50 years of evil > >> American hegemony, there were 120, by far the greatest number in > >> history. > >> > >> 120/22 = 5.4, a pretty serious factor. > > > > And you are counting Zimbabwe, Chile, Indonesia and Pakistan as > > democracies? > > > > How many of the new democracies are new nation states? Papua-New Guinea > > probably rates as a democracy in your book, but it does not score too well > > on any index of democratic function. > > > > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and > > the one for 2000. > > Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke > curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American > achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 16:12 Frank Bemelman wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > news:3b57d2dc0pue0e65eqg504b9d9ljfig8ci(a)4ax.com... > > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:55:24 +0100, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>John Fields wrote: > > > >>> --- > >>> It will. Any society which worships death is bound to die. Either > >>> through suicide or "death by cop". > >> > >>Islam doesn't worship death. You misunderstanding is a classic example of > >>how > >>the USA gets it wrong, by being over-simplistic about every issue. > > > > --- > > See, that's part of what I mean by "America Bashing." > > > > I may be wrong about Islam's (or its practitioners') apparent > > penchant for death, (although, reduced to its simplest terms, I > > doubt it) but then you take _my_ error and try to make it seem like > > it applies it to the entire country as if _I_ was all of America, > > and then tag it with your own simplisic oversimplification of the > > situation in order to try to make it seem like we're a nation of > > misguided fools and all we have to do is listen to the likes of you > > and everything will be all right. > > Okay, so you're telling the US is not a nations of fools, and that > you are just one of the fools that exist in every nation. > > Sounds fair enough. Actually, I never thought of the USA as a > nation of fools, at least not until that nation voted for > Bush for the *2ND* time. I mean, his first election can be > called an honest mistake, but how can a nation continue to > follow such an insane leader with such dangerous ideas? That > is *very* hard to understand. 9/11 probably helped him. It became fashionable to dislike foreigners. Graham
From: John Woodgate on 4 Aug 2006 16:16 In message <c687d254mpenqg62t5jc453oqrp9l6sijr(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >In any case, lucky for you that we got dragged into it when we did, no? Yes. Some would say 'providential'. With a capital P, indeed. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 16:17
John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:52:01 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:19:45 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:08:25 +0100, Eeyore > >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >In return you got our 'golden jewels' utterly free of charge like radar and jet engines. > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> Hundreds of thousands of American lives lost fighting on your > >> >> behalf is hardly "free". > >> > > >> >On 'our' behalf ? > >> > >> --- > >> Didn't you ask us to get into the war? > > > >When we did ask you didn't. > > --- > We would have eventually. Or maybe not, who knows? > --- > > >The USA got into the war on its own account over a dispute with Japan in case you'd forgotten. > > --- > I think "dispute" is a little mild, It started off as a dispute. > but there was also the nearly > simultaneous Declaration of War by Germany, I believe. Simultaneous ? Japan and Germany were allies ( the Axis ) so by engaging Japan in war you were automatically at war with Germany anyway. > In any case, lucky for you that we got dragged into it when we did, > no? I guess so. It's hard to imagine how it might have gone otherwise but stalemate in Europe is one possibilty. Graham |