New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 14:24 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 02:31:38 GMT, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> > Gave us: > > >Could be, how many DC-3's are still flying? > > None that are still in military service. Military service never was the criterion. The phrase was *in service*. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 7 Aug 2006 14:23 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:00:35 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >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? Without Lead (Pb), not without leads. :-]
From: Frank Bemelman on 7 Aug 2006 14:26 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:da0fd216n5irhkhpn09nroup8f2hf6kr9u(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:44:51 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > > --- > Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her > own laws and in her own way? Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing money at it. Thank you very much. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Phat Bytestard on 7 Aug 2006 14:24 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:00:53 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> Gave us: >I'm not suggesting we descend on tyrannies - just the opposite. That we >leave them alone and do not support them in *any* way. Sheep with blinders on says "Poke me in the eye, that I may see less..."
From: Frank Bemelman on 7 Aug 2006 14:29
"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> schreef in bericht news:bv0fd2545o3i1h2ra9v610fi1juvrci3f1(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:42:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken > Smith) Gave us: > >>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. > > You wouldn't even be sitting in front of a personal computer right > now were it not for the military and their endeavors. Yes, agreed, it would probably have been a better computer than the average PC we're using now. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email) |