New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 8 Aug 2006 14:01 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:13:23 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:04:26 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >This is the kind of attitude that makes the USA so truly loathesome. >> >> We like it! > >Which only goes to show how out of sync the USA is with the entire rest of the >world. I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings here: 1. Europe isn't "the rest of the world" and 2. We don't care. John
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2006 14:03 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:13:23 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:04:26 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This is the kind of attitude that makes the USA so truly loathesome. >>> We like it! >> Which only goes to show how out of sync the USA is with the entire rest of the >> world. > > > I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings here: > > 1. Europe isn't "the rest of the world" > > and > > 2. We don't care. You certainly were made to care by Bin Laden. Old European saying - "Don't care was made to care" Dirk
From: John Larkin on 8 Aug 2006 14:14 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:34:39 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <44D83E8F.3DA551(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Tue, 8 Aug >> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >> >Sorry, John but I don't see that the argument that the US was attacked >> >because of jealousy over the richness of the western lifestyle holds >> >any water at all. >> >> Neither do I. Western lifestyle is contrary to many tenets of >> established religions, Islam in particular but not exclusively. The >> clerics see their raison d'tre threatened, and they are not wrong. So >> they fire up their militants - 'jihad' is not just a label, they really >> mean 'holy war'. Christianity largely went through a similar phase >> around 500 years ago, waging war not only against people of other faiths >> but, in many cases with even more spilling of blood, among the factions >> and about the merest slivers of difference of interpretation. > >I entirely agree with your clarification. > >Another mistake I see the US making is the belief that *all* Moslems are wedded >to this 'backward' view. That's silly. W made a point of meeting with Muslims in mosques immediately after 9/11. We have a sizable Islamic population around here (including one of my engineers), mosques and all, and nobody I personally know thinks anything of the sort. Officially, we work with any number of Islamic nations as allies. You really think Americans are identical dopes. We're neither. You should travel more. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 8 Aug 2006 14:19 Eeyore wrote: > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > > > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:10:11 -0500, John Fields wrote: > > > > > Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her > > > own laws and in her own way? > > > > I merely know that I detest the mindset that rationalizes murdering > > your neighbors and their wives and children as "defense". > > Amen to that. For which we'll be branded leftish weenies of course ! > > Graham In your case it would be a leftist "Vienna Sausage" -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Rich Grise on 8 Aug 2006 14:19
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 07:37:33 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > "Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:41:58 -0500, John Fields wrote: >> > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:12:18 +0100, Eeyore >> >>Phat Bytestard wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >> >>> >> >>> > 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 ? >> > >> > I might be late with this, (haven't yet read the rest of the thread) >> > but where do you think rag came from? >> >> Uh, cotton and linen? I doubt if they make much paper from nylon rags. > > The 'non-weenies' think they come from cotton trees and linen trees it seems. > Well, to get linen, you have to kill the plant, but they set seed and new plants will grow in a year. :-) Cheers! Rich |