New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 16:03 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:14:10 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> 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... > >These were Americans fighting on our side simply because they believed in the >cause of course not on account of US policy. > > >> 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." >> --- > >I had thought it was around four Americans from memory alone but I'm happy to be >corrected on this point. > >The full list is..... > >Polish 139 >New Zealander 98 >Canadian 86 >Czechoslovakian 84 >Belgian 29 >Australian 21 >South African 20 >French 13 >Irish 10 >Unknown 8 >American 7 >Jamaican 1 >Palestinian (Jewish) 1 >Southern Rhodesian 1 > > >> >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. > >Indeed. But there was no American aid involved. --- Idiot, read the list you posted. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 16:02 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:15:26 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > Phat Bytestard wrote: >> > >> > > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >> > > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >> > > >> > > > Yes, it does. If you're in the paper products or produce business. >> > > >It would be damn hard to make money selling apples and other fruit >> > > >without growing them on trees. It would also be very hard to build >> > > >decent homes without lumber, which grows on trees, as well. >> > > >> > > Yep... even the media that the "money" got printed on came from >> > > trees. >> > >> > Rag has been traditionally used actually ! You can't get much right can you ? >> > >> > Graham >> >> YOU don't know much about paper. >> >> As far as paper for money, some of it has synthetic fibers added to >> make them last longer, and to be harder to tear. > >And what was used before synthetic fibres ? > >Are you suggesting the paper made from rag *isn't* in use even now ? > Rag is PLANT FIBER, dumbass.
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 16:07 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:27:31 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:38:00 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:59:03 -0500, John Fields >> ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >>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? >> >> >> > >> >Possibly because in the long view Israel is rather insignificant, >> >except as a regional US puppy. What have they contributed to world >> >wealth and wisdom? >> >> --- >> Israel, lately, >> >> http://www.newsoftheday.com/ > >" Israelis invent hydrogen car that uses just a tank of water." ( first item on >the page ) >http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19125621.200.html > >Neither new ( i.e. not an invention at all ) nor terribly useful. > >Just saying. --- Read the rest of the list. Sour grapes? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Woodgate on 6 Aug 2006 15:54 In message <Xns9817931D8E6ACjyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.83>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >It seems that Islamic culture is inherently incompatible with Western >culture;Islamic culture considers Western culture a disrupting and >insulting influence on Islam. Christian fundamentalists consider it a disrupting and insulting influence on their version of Christianity >I note some Euro Islamics are clamoring for the right to live under >their own Sharia law,sort of a separate society or nation right among >you. VERY interesting times ahead for yo We get by in Britain with very different legal systems in England and Scotland. But I believe Shariah law is not consistent with the Human Rights Directive, so that could be a big problem. -- 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 6 Aug 2006 15:59
In message <44D63C58.CBBA6896(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >Jim Yanik wrote: > >> Saddam was using Oil-for-Food money to rebuild his palaces and fund WMD >> programs > >There weren't any WMDs ! No. A big surprise, isn't it? Everything pointed to SH's advantage being very much in continuing his previous WMD programme, which certainly did exist. It's a much bigger mystery that nothing was found than that the Coalition intelligence was totally wrong. -- 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 |