New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Jul 2006 20:42 On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:48:50 -0000, buck rojerz <inorbit(a)outerspace.org> wrote: >"O5O" <Christoffur-No-SpamIt-050(a)Verizon.Net> wrote in news:LJHxg.5374 >$fL3.4666(a)trnddc07: > >> >> and everyday we keep getting the same results "Whoops, I guess it wasn't >> > >I think, that they may believe that if they succeed in a given deed, then >it *must* have been God's will... because they DID succeed. > >IMHO > >buck --- Funny, though, if they didn't succeed, then it was their position that it was GOD testing them to see how they could handle their failure and, no matter what, since they were convinced that their quest was divine, failure after failure was only GOD testing them over and over again. Yeah, right... Here's this bunch of yahoos who blame women (their mothers) for all of their failures, yet won't even let their (the) women speak for fear that they'll (the yahoos) be branded as less than men. They're all a bunch of goddam cowards, as far as I'm concerned, who'd rather die than admit they were wrong. And, with their stupid suicide bombings, have proved my point. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Phat Bytestard on 26 Jul 2006 22:21 On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:08:56 -0400, Stephen Rush <sjrush(a)comcast.net> Gave us: >On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:04:43 +0000, Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:34:19 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> Gave us: >> >>>> http://analog-innovations.com/NewRuleBook.png >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> -- >>>> | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | >>> >>> It seems the courts think World War III is just a play war. >>>I might add to that, much of our populace . >>> Mike >>> >> What makes you think this is WW III, dumbshit? > >Yes, it's actually WW IV. WW III began in 1945 and ended with the >implosion of the Soviet Union. Of course, some historians consider >Napoleon's war to be the first world war. You're an idiot. > >I know that there has been no declaration of war (at least on the western >side), but WW II was already running while Neville Chamberlain was still >prattling about "peace in our time." At any rate, formal declarations of >war are obsolete, especially in the United States, where they activate a >bunch of inconvenient old laws (like the Trading With The Enemy Act) that >the the old men who really run things would rather ignore. I take it back... you starred in "Total Retard" right?
From: Phat Bytestard on 26 Jul 2006 22:24 On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:42:58 GMT, "O5O" <Christoffur-No-SpamIt-050(a)Verizon.Net> Gave us: >"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message >news:6hqdc2d6rljlkrsoee57o6gra8k51pd9ub(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:12:12 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> Gave us: >> >>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:34:19 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> http://analog-innovations.com/NewRuleBook.png >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> -- >>>>> | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | >>>> >>>> It seems the courts think World War III is just a play war. >>>>I might add to that, much of our populace . >>>> Mike >>>> >>> >>>Wait until Iran jumps in and then Israel nukes them off the face of >>>the earth ;-) >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >> >> Well... Tehran anyway... Also any stray soldiers roaming around that >> didn't get the message can be peppered too. >> >> It will totally serve the evil bastards right. > >You ever notice how, when "they" say the name of "the prophet Mohammed," >they always add the phrase "peace be upon him?" What's up with that? Did he >ever have a day of peace in his entire life? They were no more than a bunch of scimitar wielding barbaric twits that happened to win the war they were in. > >Has the history of Islam, since the day of it's inception ever had a day of >peace? His is not now, nor was he ever a prophet, nor is he a god or The God.
From: Phat Bytestard on 26 Jul 2006 22:28 On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:48:50 -0000, buck rojerz <inorbit(a)outerspace.org> Gave us: >"O5O" <Christoffur-No-SpamIt-050(a)Verizon.Net> wrote in news:LJHxg.5374 >$fL3.4666(a)trnddc07: > >> >> and everyday we keep getting the same results "Whoops, I guess it wasn't >> > >I think, that they may believe that if they succeed in a given deed, then >it *must* have been God's will... because they DID succeed. > So if we turn the first inch of Tehran's sand into glass, it must be God's will, because we WILL succeed.
From: Phat Bytestard on 26 Jul 2006 22:29
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:59:16 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> Gave us: >Right on! Let Cristendom take over the world. Kill all the heathens >that won't convert. After all, they wouldn't obey God's will anyway. >Get rid of the Israelis while we're at it, they don't subscribe to >Christ Almighty. They only believe in the Old Testament and we all >know that is only the preamble for True Chritianity. Atheists are to >be burned at the stake as a warning to all infidels. Such is the Word >Of God. Actually, such are the words of a complete Usenet idiot. |