New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Aug 2006 19:33 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:26:32 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:22:17 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> A former pet, whose behaviour had improved somewhat since George's >>>> father gave up ownership. >>> --- >>> Between periods of malevolent behavior, a rabid dog remains a rabid >>> dog. >> Then George should not have owned the rabid dog in the first place, >> should he? > > --- > Why not? Lots of people have sick pets which they hope will get > better but which eventually _have_ to be put down. But George liked him *because* he was sick. George didn't want him to get better. Dirk
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Aug 2006 19:35 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:22:41 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > [snip] >> In my opinion, if Iran wants nuclear power, it is no business of the US. >> >> If I'm up-to-date on this one, it seems the US position is simply over >> concern that the nuclear capability could later be turned to weapons.... So >> let's take away their plowshares too? >> >> Don > > Don, > > You certainly qualify as naive. > > Haven't you been paying attention... > > Our concern in enrichment. > > We offered Iran basically free power plants in return for stopping > enrichment. > > Iran only responds as "thinking about" the offer, and continues > centrifuging. > > Do you think that is a reasonable response? Yes. Some problem with nations deciding they want nukes, just like the US? > We ought to put a hit team out for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and any clerics > that support him. That would require a large army. Pity it's busy elsewhere for the foreseeable future. Dirk
From: Don Bowey on 2 Aug 2006 20:00 On 8/2/06 4:30 PM, in article kvc2d2dasednr7vf9phu3cbmbs73evo8ap(a)4ax.com, "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:22:41 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > [snip] >> >> In my opinion, if Iran wants nuclear power, it is no business of the US. >> >> If I'm up-to-date on this one, it seems the US position is simply over >> concern that the nuclear capability could later be turned to weapons.... So >> let's take away their plowshares too? >> >> Don > > Don, > > You certainly qualify as naive. Thanks. I wouldn't like to be viewed as an opinionated old fart. > > Haven't you been paying attention... Gee! I guess not > > Our concern in enrichment. > > We offered Iran basically free power plants in return for stopping > enrichment. I for one am tired of using US dollars to buy our way in the world. Let's withdraw the giveaway offer. > > Iran only responds as "thinking about" the offer, and continues > centrifuging. > > Do you think that is a reasonable response? It beats just saying NO. > > We ought to put a hit team out for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and any clerics > that support him. I'm thinking about that..... OK, good idea. Do you propose the same for everyone who believes the German treatment of the Jews in WW2 was a lie? > > ...Jim Thompson Where will Iran obtain fuel rods for their reactors if they ca't do it for themselves? Don
From: John Fields on 2 Aug 2006 20:36 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:33:35 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:26:32 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John Fields wrote: >>>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:22:17 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> A former pet, whose behaviour had improved somewhat since George's >>>>> father gave up ownership. >>>> --- >>>> Between periods of malevolent behavior, a rabid dog remains a rabid >>>> dog. >>> Then George should not have owned the rabid dog in the first place, >>> should he? >> >> --- >> Why not? Lots of people have sick pets which they hope will get >> better but which eventually _have_ to be put down. > >But George liked him *because* he was sick. >George didn't want him to get better. --- LOL, you were there, huh? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 2 Aug 2006 21:05
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:29:16 -0700, Don Bowey wrote: > "Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <null(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:06:53 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>> Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: >>>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:00:04 +0000, Phat Bytestard wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:07:31 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >>>>>> In article <pan.2006.08.02.22.12.07.64599(a)example.net>, >>>>>> null(a)example.net >>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:04:51 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pax Americana isn't a bad idea. It would save billions of lives >>>>>>>> and damage a bit of pride. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, of course, the Americans would have to swallow their false >>>>>>> pride and actually stop making war. >>>>>> >>>>>> BS, be worried when we stop *ending* war. >>>>> >>>>> Well said. >>>> >>>> Gawd, you people are twisted. >>>> >>>> How exactly is it that you reduce war by adding war? >>> >>> It's pretty clear that a large percentage of the US think that the only >>> answers come out of the barrel of a gun. >>> >> Yeah - the joy of Democracy: It doesn't matter how wrong you are, as >> long as you have a lot of company. >> >> I wish there was some way to get the warlovers to see just how psychotic >> they are. >> > I'm pretty sure that the few people who love war are insane. > > Your wild excursion from logic is irrational and doesn't help support your > POV. > My point is, that a person who claims that war can be reduced by making more war is clearly insane. It's like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. Thanks, Rich |