New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 9 Aug 2006 13:21 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:41:27 -0500, John Fields wrote: > (Ken Smith) wrote: >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> 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, it was a joke. Ken is being this week's turdfeeder. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 9 Aug 2006 15:28 Keith wrote: > In article <91gid25upsoq7uvato0h0g9egur7rh5svs(a)4ax.com>, > phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org says... >> 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"? >> > Islam. > That's right. And Bush and the FBI know *exactly* where the Nation of Islam is hiding out in the US... Something must be done! Dirk
From: bill.sloman on 9 Aug 2006 19:36 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:57:43 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > > >Can't you understand the difference between a bullet and a > >thermonuclear weapon? > > He obviously cannot. The Phat Bytestard doesn't seem to appreciate that there is a lower llimit to the size of a fission based nuclear weapon (which is all of them so far) which makes the smallest nuclear weapon no smaller than a big artillery shell. Bullets are smaller and lighter. This is a difference that even the Phat Bytestard could understand, if he were put in the immediate vicinity of examples of both at the same time. Some of us can manage to appreciate this with less explicit teaching aids, and have gone on to more advanced subjects, like bullets being made of solid metal while nuclear weapons are intricate assemblies involvig quite a lot explosive material ... As I said in response to John Field's post, that would have been one of John Field's sillier rhetorical questions ... and only the Phathead could have been silly enough to take it seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 9 Aug 2006 20:02 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:00XLxlD+aX2EFwv6(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > > > In message <1155077708.010870.213940(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated > > Tue, 8 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > > > >>The odds are very good that your strategic arsenal will be made totally > >>obsolete before it is ever used. > > > > I expect most Americans, even the most barking that post here, hope that > > is true. They have much more to lose than Third World people, a small > > percentage of which are probably the only ones likely to survive a > > nuclear war. > > Look at today's Japan;they survived two nuclear detonations,and today are a > prosperous,free nation. Probably not indicative of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange with today's nuclear weapons - the two bombs dropped on Japan were 15 and 20 kiloton devices. Fusion bombs are a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful, and few attackers are going to limit themselves to two bombs. Do a google search on "nuclear winter". -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Yanik on 9 Aug 2006 19:54
Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in news:MPG.1f43b9a81f7eca77989bef(a)News.Individual.NET: > In article <pan.2006.08.09.23.34.00.627161(a)example.net>, > null(a)example.net says... >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:04:57 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> > You obviously don't comprehend the definition of "murder",nor of >> > Hezbollah using their own as human shields,locating launchers among >> > their people's homes and cities.You have been successfully >> > manipulated by them. >> >> Feh. "Human shields". Another excuse to rationalize murder. > > Murder <> killing. You really should take Jim's advice and look up > the definition of "murder". He also needs to look up the Geneva prohibitions of using civilians as human shields.Hezbollah is committing a War Crime. Daily. (actually many war crimes,as it's also prohibited to use weapons to deliberately cause or enhance civilian casualties;the rockets Hezbollah fires have been modified to include thousands of ball bearings to kill or maim civilians.I've seen pictures of the damage one of these small- warhead/bearing-enhanced rockets causes;it's very nasty.And the warheads themselves are too small to be intended to do damage to military targets.) > >> "We shelled them and bombed them, but the deaths were our target's >> fault." > > Certainly. Hiding under mommy skirts gets mommy killed during war. > >> That's the "you have disturbed me, therefore I must kill you" >> imprint. > > "disturbed"? *YOU* are disturbed. His bias has overcome his rationality. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |