New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Frank Bemelman on 6 Aug 2006 08:26 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:tfmbd2l64mae62a07ctg25du058csnvt46(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 22:42:19 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >>news:14r9d2ldb9qah9lovh4ke8esggi3m1clv9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:20:24 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" >>> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>>No, but about half the polulace voted so that the electors had a >>>>good chance keeping him in the saddle. In my book, that is the same. >>> >>> --- >>> Half a nation of fools is the same as a nation of fools? >>> --- >> >>Yes, one can safely say that. The average nation has only >>5% of fools, that's all normal and to be expected. With >>50% of fools (a factor of 10) an exageration by a factor >>of 2 isn't such a big deal. >> >>But, I settle for 'half a nation of fools' if that makes >>you happier. >> >>Of course, now that we agree on that, it raises all kinds >>of other questions. > > --- > There was no agreement there, I was merely commenting on your > questionable arithmetic. That comment didn't set much straight then. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Frank Bemelman on 6 Aug 2006 08:33 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:annbd25ea112qc7ashaugeongpbss8erjv(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:54:20 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Appeals to you ? I thought it might. Some ppl reckon that humanity has >>risen above the 'law of the >>jungle' but I guess a few regressions like yourself can be excused. > > --- > When push comes to shove, if we think our lives are worth anything > we'll revert to animalism and either fight or run when we're > threatened, so the "law of the jungle" is very much at the core of > things. Seems that the US is easily threatened then, with their continious quest to find and supply jobs for their powerful army. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: John Woodgate on 6 Aug 2006 08:33 In message <1154865648.931183.173690(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >As was pointed out before you invaded Irak, the three-way division of >Irak into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites makes it impossible to construct a >stable government. The *government* was reasonably stable before Saddam, and, of course, during his reign of oppression and genocide. Various sectors of the population experienced bad things; such was the price of 'stability'. -- 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 Fields on 6 Aug 2006 08:53 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:15:49 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US >> >did not. >> >> --- >> "When it mattered?" Don't be absurd. As far as you know we got >> there just in time. > >I guess he might be referring to the Battle of Britain ? Maybe, but he'd be wrong since we _were_ there. Only a few of us, but... From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#United_States_contribution "The RAF recognises 7 aircrew personnel from the United States as having taken part in the Battle of Britain.P/O WML ('Billy') Fiske saw service with No. 601 Squadron, claiming one kill before dying of wounds on the 17th August 1940. P/O AG 'Art' Donahue served with 64 squadron, while 609 squadron had a trio of American pilots see action through August and September (P/O's 'Andy' Mamedoff, VC 'Shorty' Keogh and EQ 'Red' Tobin). P/O PH Leckrone was with 616 Sqn, while P/O JD Haviland served in 151 Squadron. Only the latter pilot survived the war. Ultimately three squadrons of RAF pilots from the United States, known as Eagle squadrons fought with the RAF, although the first ( No. 71 squadron) became operational in February 1941, well after the main daylight battles." --- >Had Britain fallen there >wouldn't even have been a party to come to, never mind arrive late. --- But she didn't, so the point is moot. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: bill.sloman on 6 Aug 2006 09:21
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. "An honest politican is one who stays bought". The US system makes it essentail for elected politicians to have access to a load of cash shortly before every election, which does give people with money a disproportionate amount of influence. Hence my comment about successful politicans being either rich, or patsies for the rich. > Is Tony Blair poor? He was a successful Queen's Counsel, which means that he was alowed to argue cases in court. His wife - Cherie Booth - still is. That is reputed to worth a couple of hundred thousand pounds per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel > Jacques Chirac? Jacque Chirac was re-elected in a campaign where the slogan "elect the crook (Chirac) and not the thug (La Pen)" was probably decisive. He isn't poor. > Horst Kohler? Which Horst Kohler ?- google gives me the head of the International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/np/omd/bios/hk.htm That would be a well-paid position. And were they selected by popular election? Tony Blair became leader of the British Labour Party by an electoral process involving the membership of the Labour Party and the British trade union movement - formally equivalnet to your primary elections where registered Democrats get to choose the Democratic candidate, and registered Republicans get to choose the Republican candidate, though the one man one vote principle doesn't seem to apply to the trade union input. His party was then elected to Parliment in a genuine popular election - it was in fact a landslide. Chirac is the elected President of France. Horst Kohler is the appointed head of the International Monetary Fund. Are you sure that you weren't thinking of Angela Merkel, who isn't noticeably rich, and does seem to be impeccably democratic (and technically trained - she has a Ph.D. in phsyics). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |