New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: joseph2k on 9 Aug 2006 22:45 Eeyore wrote: > > > John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:24:29 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian >> <null(a)example.net> 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". >> >> --- >> Then you agree that Hezbollah are murderers and the Israelis are >> defending themselves against murderers. > > Switch Hezbollah and Israel and ask if it reads any differently. > > Graham No. Let's be a bit more honest; the mostly decent, productive citizens (Israel) are accosted by organized criminals (Hezbollah), who hide behind other decent citizens; so that when the decent people, that they slapped repeatedly, come looking for them to "slap them back", the other decent people get hurt. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: John Larkin on 9 Aug 2006 22:54 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:13:47 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> >>> and the U.K. is almost as old-fashioned, though >>> at least they have some fairly effective rules for stopping excessive >>> election advertising. >> >> Some very bright and thoughtful people have argued that there is no >> such thing as excessive election advertising. Our Supreme Court has >> found that restricting election advertising is in violation of our >> constitutional right to free speech. > >Hardly 'free' is it? > It's free here. And blogs are becoming increasingly influential, and they're free, too. John
From: krw on 9 Aug 2006 23:02 In article <R4xCg.8251$uo6.1255(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com says... > Eeyore wrote: > > > > > > > John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:24:29 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian > >> <null(a)example.net> 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". > >> > >> --- > >> Then you agree that Hezbollah are murderers and the Israelis are > >> defending themselves against murderers. > > > > Switch Hezbollah and Israel and ask if it reads any differently. > > > > Graham > > No. Let's be a bit more honest; the mostly decent, productive citizens > (Israel) are accosted by organized criminals (Hezbollah), who hide behind > other decent citizens; so that when the decent people, that they slapped > repeatedly, come looking for them to "slap them back", the other decent > people get hurt. Oh, but your value judgments of "honest", "mostly decent", and "productive" are just so, well, judgemental. The Europeon weenies could never go that far. -- Keith
From: Phat Bytestard on 9 Aug 2006 23:20 On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 02:10:04 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <cv6gd21nc6vg16e5jb55bgeo0ls51dp6v1(a)4ax.com>, >Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >>On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 02:17:03 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>Smith) Gave us: >> >>>Take a look at it. It is a funny shape. >> >> >> It is not a funny shape. Your brain has a funny shape. > >You seem to still think that you can gain something by insulting. Your brain must have a funny shape. Bwuahahahaahaa. > It isn't working. As if a twit like you could ever make a valid assessment... of anything. > To the contrary, it is making people tune out and losing >you support. What makes you think I ever thought about or cared what ANY reader ANYWHERE thinks?
From: Phat Bytestard on 9 Aug 2006 23:24
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:35:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> We fire bombed Dresden for the UK. We didn't need no stinkin' >> bombsights. It was at night, and we dropped a huge salvo. > >There was no " for the UK " about it. Not true. |