New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Aug 2006 00:35 O5O wrote: > GOOD JOB JIM!!!! > > I am impressed. > > One week. 489 posts to this thread! > > Keep up the good work! Maybe we can set a record ? Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 3 Aug 2006 00:36 On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:11:12 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> Gave us: >On 8/2/06 6:05 PM, in article pan.2006.08.04.01.03.47.198555(a)example.net, >"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" <null(a)example.net> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > >When the Keizer was killed, leading into WW1, 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? > >How do you decide when you are not your brother's keeper? > >Do you honestly feel the world should stand by and do nothing to help people >who are being abused by Hitlers and Husseins? > You have redeemed yourself.
From: Phat Bytestard on 3 Aug 2006 00:38 On 2 Aug 2006 19:16:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: >Plutonium-239 has a minimum critical mass of about 10kgm versus 15kgm >for U-235, but since the Phat Bytestards cerebral mass seems to be >fly-weight (a few grams), we don't seem to be at much risk. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass Oh boy. The puppy can read, and even knows how to cut and paste. > >If his brains were dynamite - which they clearly aren't - they woudn't >blow his hat off. If your brains were anything other than the shitpile they are, you would actually see how retarded your petty baby bullshit is.
From: Phat Bytestard on 3 Aug 2006 00:40 On 2 Aug 2006 19:16:04 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: >If his brains Double posting now, SlowMan? How many years have you been in Usenet? Oh... that's right... you are too pathetic to care about conventions.
From: Eeyore on 3 Aug 2006 00:43
John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:11:30 -0000, buck rojerz > <inorbit(a)outerspace.org> wrote: > > >In my roamings around the usenet, I have seen many top-posters. However > >this group seems to complain a lot more about them, than the other groups > >do. (Just an observation.) > > That's because we're generally smarter than the people in other > groups. But ditchwater would be annoying even if he posted properly. LOL @ ditchwater ! Nice one John. Graham |