New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 11:42 In article <0hfcd2lm354u3i17tach5ds1nro3sltkgu(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:41:43 +0100, John Woodgate ><jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: > >>Most people who have studied the subject disagree. By 'pushing the >>envelope', the military demands are a powerful force for innovation. > > 100% correct! It claims to support your position so you call it correct but can you find any proof? Those who wish to increase military spending make lots of claims about it beyond "it is needed" but when the facts are checked, the only reason to spend on the military is because it is needed. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2006 11:44 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:43:00 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:24:43 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John Woodgate wrote: >>>>> In message <4ji12eF83vuqU2(a)individual.net>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Dirk >>>>> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >>>>>> And it will have to be one with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the >>>>>> Israelis as well as Hezbollah. >>>>> Almost certainly it will never need to, in defence. Let us fervently >>>>> hope that it never fires on Israel in aggression. >>>> Given the number of UN positions attacked by the Israelis in the past, I >>>> expect a serious force to be able to return such fire. >>> --- >>> So you'd like for Israel to be defeated? >> If they attack UN forces - yes. > > --- > Why don't you just admit it; you'd like to see Israel gone as well > as all of Jewry. > --- My political beliefs are here: http://theconsensus.org/uk/introduction/index.html The bit you should look at is about here: "We are nationalists in that we believe that every major cultural group should have its own homeland and live under laws of its own choosing and in its own way." In case logic is not your strong point, the word 'every' includes the Jews. Dirk
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 11:54 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:45:18 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:44:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, you're soft on Islamic terrorism... >>>> --- >>>> I'm not soft on _any_ brand of terrorism, as you should be well >>>> aware of by now, but it seems to me that that's not really what >>>> matters to you, what you're interested in doping is needling me. >>>> Why is that? >>>> >>> Because I smell hypocrisy in your vicinity. >> >> --- >> A dog smells his own first... > >I'm not the one claiming that the best way to spread democracy is to >support tyranny. --- Recognizing tyranny as a necessary precursor to democracy and allowing it to "burn itself out", so to speak, or even providing it with the fuel to hasten its demise isn't supporting it, it's recognizing it for what it is and doing something positive to end it. It seems what you're suggesting is that we descend on all tyrannies and wipe them out, because you recognize that they're bad, yet when we descend on _one_ you choose to find fault with that. That's what I call hypocrisy. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 12:00 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:58:44 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <0oacd2t5g2pkiur9iug5p6g991c76mi65r(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes >>Yeah. My company has ignored the RoHS thing entirely, except that we >>are concerned about tin whiskers on the leads of compliant parts. > >You still use parts with LEADS? How quaint. (;-) --- Really. Doesn't RoHS mandate that they be leadless? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2006 12:00
John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:45:18 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:44:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, you're soft on Islamic terrorism... >>>>> --- >>>>> I'm not soft on _any_ brand of terrorism, as you should be well >>>>> aware of by now, but it seems to me that that's not really what >>>>> matters to you, what you're interested in doping is needling me. >>>>> Why is that? >>>>> >>>> Because I smell hypocrisy in your vicinity. >>> --- >>> A dog smells his own first... >> I'm not the one claiming that the best way to spread democracy is to >> support tyranny. > > --- > Recognizing tyranny as a necessary precursor to democracy and > allowing it to "burn itself out", so to speak, or even providing it > with the fuel to hasten its demise isn't supporting it, it's > recognizing it for what it is and doing something positive to end > it. See pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, and the US reaction to Saddam gassing the Kurds. > It seems what you're suggesting is that we descend on all tyrannies > and wipe them out, because you recognize that they're bad, yet when > we descend on _one_ you choose to find fault with that. I'm not suggesting we descend on tyrannies - just the opposite. That we leave them alone and do not support them in *any* way. > That's what I call hypocrisy. No, that's a mirror you are looking in. Dirk |