New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Aug 2006 23:30 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > Does "Lend-Lease" mean anything to you? It was a great way of getting rid of ( and getting paid for ) loads of ancient destroyers otherwise good only for the scrapyard. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 2 Aug 2006 23:30 On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:34:19 -0400, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >In article <44D01FD5.AAD04C5C(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com says... >> >> >> krw wrote: >> >> > In article <op9vc2dns7ld3jngnh2vuqlol9ecj6lk2c(a)4ax.com>, >> > jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... >> > > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:19:30 +0100, Eeyore >> > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > >Your militias practice firing weapons don't they ? >> > > > >> > > >> > > Lots of people practise shooting guns. That's still legal here. >> > >> > I do, when I have time (not much lately). A brick of .22LRs, with >> > some .357s thrown in for excitement, is a nice day of relaxation. >> > Take the wife, and a couple of sandwiches and it's a lot of fun. >> >> You're going to shoot your wife ? > >Only if she refuses to bring me a beer. Be sure to wipe that stuff up after you two have had your cigarette. I never wear raincoats... :-]
From: Phat Bytestard on 2 Aug 2006 23:35 On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 19:46:36 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: >In message <1154540545.114278.233890(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated >Wed, 2 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >>Phat seems to be dense enough that he could have a uranium brain. >>Happily, there isn't enough brain for there to be any risk of a >>critical mass. > >The bad news is it's not U, it's Pu. Or is that Poo?(;-) Why would an otherwise would be intelligent man jump on those retards' bandwagon? Some of your colors are showing.
From: Don Bowey on 2 Aug 2006 23:38 On 8/2/06 8:05 PM, in article 44D167FC.215CE462(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> When the Keizer was killed, leading into WW1, > > No such thing happened. It's Kaiser btw unless you're Dutch in which case your > spelling is correct for you. > >> should all the treaties have >> been abrogated, having no country step in to help another? Standby and hope >> the flames will die on their own? >> >> How about WW2? Should the US have simply defended itself in the Pacific, >> and let events in the Pacific and Europe play out without US involvement? > > Didn't have a choice. By going to war with Japan the US was at war with its > Axis > ally Germany. > > Graham > Sure there was a choice. I believe I could make a strong case that if the US concentrated on Japan and won that war much earlier, Germany would have been glad to leave the US alone so they could concentrate on Europe. The US would not have fought Germany until much later, if at all. If there was further warring Germany would have been defeated by the US and Russia. Don Don
From: Phat Bytestard on 2 Aug 2006 23:38
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:18:49 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> Gave us: >Of course, the actual problem is Baby George smashing his way into other >peoples gardens and trying to put their dogs down because he has a >rabies phobia. You're an idiot. |