New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 15:26 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:12:31 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > > > > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > >news:ngj7d2hst8b7oe15nr9ksl8c3t6620fjgg(a)4ax.com... > > > >> What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I > >> guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let > >> Israel die than to help her. Why is that? > > > >An eye for an eye, not 10 eyes for an eye. Israel has just > >slaughtered too many. It has lost all of its credibility. > >It has no longer the benefit of the doubt. > > --- > Read this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye > > and then come back with something specific, OK? " The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment " from your link. Now explain what's *proportionate* about Israel's current action please. The very issue that I'm concerned about. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 15:31 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:19:15 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> Gave us: >Phat Bytestard wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 14:58:24 +0200, "Bill Sloman" >> <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> Gave us: >> >>> Texas got very well paid for saving England - the phrase "over a barrell" >>> does come to mind - and the gratitude that Texas can can expect to get over >>> and above getting paid extortionate prices has to be correspondingly >>> limited. That won't be the story that they fed you in civics class at >>> school, but you don't believe in Father Christmas these days, and you should >>> really outgrow the tales of the benevoltent Uncle Sam. >> >> It was much less than $8 a barrel back then, and it was a bargain, >> considering that we had to ship it over to you. >> >> "Extortionate prices" = utter bullshit. >> >> It was top quality high end fuel. > >The problem with you is that I see the name on the posts and know that >they say nothing, so I just mark them all read in bulk. > Yet another utterly retarded behavior on your part.
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 15:33 John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:32:07 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:38:45 -0500, John Fields > ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > > >>A lousy system if ever I saw one, and I see no reason why > >>presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be carried out > >>on-line where the result would truly be popular. > > > >Like the way Tony Blair was elected? > > > >John > > --- > I don't know. Got a link or an example? Tony Blair was elected by the citizens of his constituency. He's the Prime Minister because he's the leader of the winning party in the General Election. We don't have a presidential system. Blair can lose his position either in another General Election, if he's voted out of office by his party, if his party were to fall as the result of a vote of no confidence or indeed he could choose to resign / retire / step down. It's not a fixed term thing. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 15:35 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:00:46 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> Nope, it's quite simple. It's called war (declared by Iran, BTW). > >You're pathetic. No. He is correct. Where have you been?
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 15:35
Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:13:37 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >I guess having a simple view of the world is quite cosy for those who aren't > >comfortable with exercising their brain as opposed to brawn. > > You're an idiot if you think that is what has happened. It's abundantly clear actually. You have a cosy world view you've been fed that you don't want anyone upsetting with any unpleasant and tricky details that might involve engaging your mind in some rational or critical thought. Graham |