New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 5 Aug 2006 13:19 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:fxpRQeFLfD1EFwTA(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <Xns9815D2FABE048jyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.83>, dated Sat, 5 > Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >>John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>news:3ptbWzycMm0EFwvd(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> >>> In message <hhm4d21q5mgl9vu47lcd7krn5cfrb35b7t(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >>> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>> >>>> And, you should be afraid of us. You should be _very_ afraid. >>> >>> Rest assured, John. We ARE very afraid of people who express views >>> similar to those you express. They are so like those expressed by >>> militant Islamists. >> >>Then you have a misplaced sense of things. >>Our ACTIONS speak for themselves,and so do the Islamics. >>You seem to believe they are equivalent. >> > Well, the actions being proposed by JF and others of similar opinions > are VERY like those comprised in a jihad. Only if you believe in moral equivalence. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 5 Aug 2006 13:27 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:rxscAzFfgD1EFw1P(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44D41E6E.D684D343(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>Your mistake, which seems common in the US is to see all 'Islamists' - >>they're called Moslems btw as freedom-hating terrorists. > > 'Islamists' means zealots, like 'Zionists'. The vast majority of Muslims > want nothing to do with Islamists. I dunno about that;it seems they passively support them. Large numbers of American Muslims cheer Hezbollah,even though if Hez(or any other Islamics) took over,their way of life in the US would cease and many of them would be oppressed. IMO,it may be just that they are keeping a low profile and seeing which way the tides flow. Much of the stuff the "radicals" are saying IS a basic tenet of Islam,written in the Koran. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: John Woodgate on 5 Aug 2006 13:42 In message <44D4D23A.60914DA(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >Are you entirely incapable of absorbing anything I say ? There's no so deaf as them that won't hear. -- 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: John Woodgate on 5 Aug 2006 13:51 In message <gii9d2da1kc7na27cddfkice7lnsf3nhko(a)4ax.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >I have a recent quote for custom-cut slabs of the stuff, not expensive >at all. But we went with AlN, which is almost as good thermally. NOT the dreaded aluminium nitride? It's well known that aluminium accumulates in the brain and gives you Alzheimer's and if you tried to breathe nitrogen you'd suffocate. When rats were tested with aluminium nitride, all their teeth fell out. (If you believe that, you must be an environmental campaigner. With the accent on 'mental'.) -- 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: bill.sloman on 5 Aug 2006 14:04
John Larkin wrote: > On 4 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:39:24 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >Bill Sloman wrote: > >> > > >> >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in > >> >> bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... > >> >> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:26:26 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >> >> > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>In 1000 years the only thing the US will be remembered for will be the > >> >> >>moon landings. Not its brief shot at empire before the Chinese dominated > >> >> >>the globe. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Dirk > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> >It seems he may have found this piece of serious disinformation ! > >> >http://www.hooverdigest.org/003/diamond.html > >> > > >> >I see they can't list them either. > >> > > >> >Graham > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Whatever you do, don't google "total number democracies world", or you > >> might encounter facts that you don't want to know. > >> > >> Oh, I'd also avoid "Berlin Wall" if I were you. > > > >If you count pre-Berlin Wall soviet satellites as non-democracies, > > and you don't??!!! > > > and > >claim that they mostly became democracies after Yeltsin took over in > >Russia, you do get a marked step forward for democracy. Curiously, many > >of them have taken to re-electing the old Communist party politicians. > > Well, take a look at these... > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World > > http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf > > > > > >In the old Soviet Union, you had to be a member of the communist party > >to eligible to stand in an election. In the U.S. you have to be a > >millionaire, or be supported by a miilionaire for it to be woth the > >trouble to stand for election, which doesn't strike me as all that > >different. > > > Not so. Money is clearly necessary to mount a successful political > campaign on any but the local level, but the money is available to > virtually any viable candidate; he/she needn't be rich, and many > mayors, govenors, and representatives aren't. Is Tony Blair poor? > Jacques Chirac? Horst Kohler? And were they selected by popular > election? > > > > >50 years of evil American hegemony does seem to have increased the > >number of states who describe themselves as democracies, but one can > >can have doubts about the sincerity of their devotion to democratic > >ideals - it seems likely that a fair number of them are aware that a > >democratic veneer will make it easier for them to do business with > >American firms and send their students to American universities. > > > >America itself is only fond of democracy as long as it produces > >governments that America finds sympathetic. > > Agreed. They are called "democracies." Allende's government in Chile was - correctly - called a democracy, and you didn't find it sympathetic. Pinochet's administration that replaced it after a military coup was called a murderous right-wing authoritarian regime, and you did find it sympathetic - though not even Nixon or Kissinger had the nerve to try to call it "democratic". Musharref in Pakistan is a more recent example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |