New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Phat Bytestard on 3 Aug 2006 00:51 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:36:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >Since it was given to them it's hardly a case of 'spending it' is it ? They HAVE to spend it here. THAT is the rule. It bolsters our economy, spurs technology, and strengthens our world position. ANY country that we give military aid to (there are several) MUST spend ALL of the dollars HERE.
From: Phat Bytestard on 3 Aug 2006 00:54 On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:45:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:56:10 -0400, Spehro Pefhany ><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:36:21 -0500, the renowned John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:12:36 +0100, John Woodgate >>><jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>In message <u6t1d2pp82griqp2q4rt96eukqpr6ihcb7(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 2 >>>>Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>>> >>>>>Somehow, I got you confused with "tapwater". >>>> >>>>You can't tell the difference between a fictitious stuffed donkey and >>>>tap water? (;-) >>> >>>--- >>>It's difficult because one is a burro and the other sometimes comes >>>from a burrow. (Hopefully _not_ from a burro...) >> >>Either could live in a borough. >> >> > >I they can borrow enough for the down payment. > Might need a wheel barrow for the move.
From: Eeyore on 3 Aug 2006 00:55 Phat Bytestard wrote: > 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? Who are you calling a retard, you retard ! ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Aug 2006 01:02 Don Bowey wrote: > 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. Is that so ? Why do you think Germany was working on diesel fuelled aircraft engines ? And very long range submarines too btw ? > 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. I'm wondering if it wouldn't have made more sense for Britain to have made peace with Germany on the condition that France was un-occupied and the 3 countries would rule a New Europe. We could have quietly had Hitler assasinated so many of the Jews would have lived and Russia would have quietly taken the hint and kept out of the way. Had we gone that way, I reckon it's likely that half the globe would be 'European' now ( think of the combined overseas territories of the former colonial powers ) and the USA would simply be a colony again ! Graham
From: John Larkin on 3 Aug 2006 01:05
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:35:24 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 I wonder what's the record for the biggest thread on usenet? The subject line was surely blank, on the principle that the less specific the subject, the longer the thread. John |