New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 21:41 On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:06:23 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <44D83594.DD2058A2(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <44D754EF.BBE58B05(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> [... me ...] >>> >> The US DOD stands for Department Of Defence so *everything* they do is >>> >> defence and paid for by the "defence budget". >>> > >>> >That's a curious way of thinking of it too. >>> >>> That is more or less the normal way of speaking of military spending in >>> the US. >> >>Whatever happened to the War Department ? It had a more honest name at least. > >In the US everything "The Department Of The Interior" is in charge of is >outdoors. Do I have to say more? --- Perhaps. AFAIK, the "Department of The Interior" has to do with what happens within our own borders. Do you have evidence to support that that isn't true? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Phat Bytestard on 8 Aug 2006 21:47 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:39:29 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >The hate would appear to be on the American continent, not the European one. >We're just aghast at your simplistic bile towards those you don't happen to >agree with. I'd be willing to bet that I could find at least 50 instances of you doing exactly that, in this thread alone.
From: Phat Bytestard on 8 Aug 2006 21:50 On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:57:53 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> Gave us: >"Jim Yanik" <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> schreef in bericht >news:Xns98191F579D2A5jyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.86... > >> 500+ of them found to date are not WMDs? (of course,they are) > >You seem to know more than your holy leaders. > >http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/ > >Can't you think of a better lie, or go back to your >crystal ball rants. Crystal ball rants are okay. Anything is better than the babbling bullshit you spew.
From: Phat Bytestard on 8 Aug 2006 21:53 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:37:13 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk >> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >> >Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? >> Citation? > >"We decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the >freedom of our nation," Bin Ladin said. > What "nation" does Bin Laden call "his"?
From: Phat Bytestard on 8 Aug 2006 22:02
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:17:05 -0700, xray <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> Gave us: >On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:34:39 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Woodgate wrote: >> >>> In message <dgagd2dnnd6egl07phm8qh0aog2rb09nn5(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 >>> Aug 2006, xray <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> writes >>> >>> >At that time, I think the hate toward the US was mainly because of how >>> >our lifestyle was leading the rest of the world (including the Middle >>> >East) astray because it was enticing, not so much because of any >>> >political or military actions the US had made. >>> >>> It's a big factor. The priests see their lifestyle threatened, and I >>> don't mean only Muslims. >> >>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. >> > >It's not jealousy. Pretty much exactly the opposite. Don't let this >horrible lifestyle spread. We are trying to find and kill him every day. We want to stop him spreading too. Get a clue. |