New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Frank Bemelman on 8 Aug 2006 09:56 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:h51hd2t7lj7vbqvpk5h6g56rtvtib44los(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:38:47 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> schreef in bericht >>news:4jpfi8F95hb6U1(a)individual.net... >>> John Fields wrote: >>>> --- >>>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>>> own laws and in her own way? >>> >>> No. >>> The right of self defence has to be limited in a civilised society. If >>> somebody slaps me I have no right to burn their house down with them and >>> their family inside. >>> The law recognises 'proportionate response'. >> >>Civilised folks don't even need a law to see that. > > --- > Hogwash. > > Civilized folks is where law came from. Only because they started to realize they had less civilized folks amongst them. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Frank Bemelman on 8 Aug 2006 10:03 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:514hd29ku93i930m3ktlumr277ige8usek(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:30:09 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > --- > I think what you really want is for all of us (Americans) to believe > that we're all horrible people and that we should mend our ways and > start living our lives in a way of which you approve. > --- That took you a long time to figure out. Not all Americans though, but more the likes of your leader, and yourself, for starters. >>You had that attack coming. The unconditional financial support >>of Israel, enabling them to play their 10-eye-for-an-eye strategy, >>has caused that. > > --- > Nope, what caused that was a madman who wanted to prove he could do > it. Nothing more, nothing less. > --- Here you demonstrate what I call blind and deaf. >>I'd wish they had no reason to do what they want to do. But >>objectively, from their point of view, I can understand that >>they are more than just a bit pissed off. > > --- > Objectively? > From their point of view? > > Now you _are_ being stupid, LOL! No, just a poor way of putting it. I would have phrased it better in Dutch. > --- > The acceptable way is to persevere until it's over. Like Vietnam? -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: John Larkin on 8 Aug 2006 10:23 On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:53:31 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <2n5fd2hdrp07d6mmtb6jpeu1uics4mtrjr(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes > >>I had a Sprite (totalled, crushed to half its original size, with Yours >>Truly inside) and then an MG Midget, which I sold to an artist who >>painted the ocean on it and keeps it on a display stand to this > >The Triumph 'lotus eater' [1] was the Spitfire. Details at: > >http://www.tssc.org.uk/ > >[1] Not one of mine; due to an English teacher at my school. The real breakthrough was the Mini and its tamed version, the Austin America. The Mini was the first "modern" car: transverse 4, front-wheel drive, integrated transaxle. John
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 10:16 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:9BOZsDQYqG2EFw9W(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <rllgd29r5f1cn50r87m4piua756ltktp6t(a)4ax.com>, dated Tue, 8 > Aug 2006, xray <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> writes > >>John, it's good to see you back! > > Thank you. > >>I view your well informed but basically neutral postings in threads >>like this as similar to control rods in a nuclear pile. > > Well, perhaps it's not a case of just absorbing the verbal neutrons but > deflecting them to more interesting nuclei. > > Incidentally, BBC TV did show Bush admitting to saying 'nucular' and > trying to pronounce 'nuclear', with difficulty. But he isn't the first > President to mispronounce the word. Wasn't it Nixon who started it? Jimmy Carter? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 10:15
John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:N0BFRcJnNF2EFwo8(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44D84DE5.4A07C7DA(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Tue, 8 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>" Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar >>of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary >>to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Gee,how about WOMEN? they don't get much freedom under Islamic rule. Nor do Jews,or liberals.Liberals always "forget" about that stuff. > > Read that carefully; it's nonsense, isn't it. 'Free men do not forfeit > security. We do not forfeit security. Therefore we are free men.' You > can prove a horse is a cow (count the legs) with that brand of logic. > > Enlightened slave owners, from Roman times if not before, gave their > slaves excellent security. It saved having to buy and train new ones. > Enlightened managements treat electronic engineers like that, too. >> >>If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - >>Sweden? " Because they are no obstacle to Islamic ambitions. The US,Britain,and Israel are. > > Bush or anyone else doesn't have to explain what ObL doesn't do. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |