New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 15:45 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44D785BF.37BDFC9F(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Mon, 7 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > > Is that how you reckon cotton is harvested ? > > According to my friend's 13 year old son, it came from sheep kept on the > Yorkshire Wolds and was carried across the Pennines to be spun in > Lancashire, where the climate was more humid. Is that what they teach them these days ! ? :-o Graham
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 15:53 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:00:53 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:45:18 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> 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. --- Short of a blockade, then, you'd let the cancer grow? --- >> That's what I call hypocrisy. > >No, that's a mirror you are looking in. --- LOL, that was original... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 15:55 On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:02:36 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >news:q0oed2dcmk02ill7rapb5m9g9ikp2vel9t(a)4ax.com... >> >> 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. > >And what do you call this: >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ --- Diplomacy/getting to know your enemy. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 15:51 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:11:31 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:55:35 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:01 +0100, Eeyore > >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> > >> >> >Frank Bemelman wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and > >> >> >> > the one for 2000. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke > >> >> >> curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American > >> >> >> achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. > >> >> > > >> >> >Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. > >> >> > >> >> Can you really be *THAT* stupid? > >> > > >> >Do please by all means name those countries made into democracies by the USA since > >> >1950. > >> > > >> >Graham > >> > >> You could start with Poland and Hungary and those guys. > > > >Do please tell how you think the USA made them into democracies. > > > >Graham > > By bringing down the USSR, of course. > > John The USA may have destroyed the Soviet MIC but the movement towards democracy came from within. As it did in Eastern Europe. Most of the former 'Soviet bloc' countries had some traditional of liberal western democracy already before coming under the Russian heel. Look at the uprising in Hungary against Soviet domination and the Prague Spring for examples well before the USSR 'fell'. Most of all, I liked the situation in the former E Germany where the public just decided not to stand for it any more annd engaged in civil disobedience ! Graham
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 16:08
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:51:45 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:11:31 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:55:35 +0100, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Phat Bytestard wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:01 +0100, Eeyore >> >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Frank Bemelman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and >> >> >> >> > the one for 2000. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke >> >> >> >> curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American >> >> >> >> achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you really be *THAT* stupid? >> >> > >> >> >Do please by all means name those countries made into democracies by the USA since >> >> >1950. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> You could start with Poland and Hungary and those guys. >> > >> >Do please tell how you think the USA made them into democracies. >> > >> >Graham >> >> By bringing down the USSR, of course. >> >> John > >The USA may have destroyed the Soviet MIC but the movement towards democracy came from >within. As it did in Eastern Europe. > >Most of the former 'Soviet bloc' countries had some traditional of liberal western >democracy already before coming under the Russian heel. Look at the uprising in Hungary >against Soviet domination and the Prague Spring for examples well before the USSR 'fell'. > >Most of all, I liked the situation in the former E Germany where the public just decided >not to stand for it any more annd engaged in civil disobedience ! > >Graham > But, until the 1980's, democratic movements lost to troops and tanks. I think the Soviets lost heart for the game before they actually ran out of resources, but it took 40 years of holding the line before it finally happened. The (Scottish) FAX and the (US) Xerox machine played a part, too. As the Internet is a political force today. John |