Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:16:03 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show me
a religious text that*isn't*
riddled with contradictions.

They're all really just books of magic spells anyway.

---
No, they're not. They're survival manuals.

That's a very strange idea.

---
Think about it for a while.

I don't need to.

---
It's beyond you anyway, so whether you need to or not is moot.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:17:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:06:05 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:24:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Ever wondered why it [international terrorism] happens to the USA
most btw ?

---
Nope. Losers want to blame everyone but themselves for their
predicaments and, so, take shots at the champ in an attemp to try to
convince themselves that they're not impotent.

Let me explain then.

It becasue America pokes its nose into stuff that's none of its business
all the time and just generally likes to kick the little guys around.

---
Translation:

Because America has the wherewithal and the will to do whatever it
wants to, and all the little guys resent that.

Do Americans have a word for Bullying?

It's what the State Department does.

---
Geez, when we get our way it's bullying, but when you get yours it's
diplomacy?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:22:44 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <45243BFD.9C297BE5@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Many Arab nations have sorted this one out. We really do need to bash the
Israeli and Palestinian heads together.
Egypt definitely. Can't really think of another, though. Anyone?

I thought Jordan.

Syria's the one that needs to settle.


Whilst Israel continues to get a blank cheque from the USA it's not going to
happen of course.

As long as the Palestinians and others keep attacking Israel.
Israel was giving back land and moving out some areas and making moves
until Hizbolah began firing off rockets, etc. Same old same old.

Honestly, they're as bad as each other.

---
How can you say that in the same sentence with "honestly"?

Israel was working for peace by making unilateral concessions and
they were attacked preemptively for no apparent good reason.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <fu8bi2h0pfrimp5kfqphg8g8ner12tb8vg@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@nosuchplace.org> wrote:
[...]

ESPECIALLY in time of war.

No, no .... are we at war! When did this war get declared? I must have
missed the debate in congress and the vote. When was it? What country is
our enemy?


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <eg3f0u$j7l$8@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
[.....]

Yes, from *OUTSIDE* the country (i.e. foreign intelligence). There
were no domestic calls "tapped", without warrant.


First, we don't know that. Secondly, when did the 4th amendment get repealed
for an American citizen calling, say, France?

They may be ordering some of that yucky French wine instead of the nice
californian stuff. The NSA should not listen in; they should disconnect
the call.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:24:14 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" wrote
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

As noted above, both of those individuals _did_ commit crimes in the
US and, as such, are subject to prosecution under US law.

So when the Ayatollahs send the religious police into the USA to arrest the
purveyors of porn you'll be fine with seeing thousands of US citizens
dragged off to Iran for death by stoning?

---
This case is different in that the pornographic images aren't
specifically targeted to areas where they're prohibited, they're
merely broadcast over a network. That places the responsibility for
their reception and decoding on the individual downloading the
image.

Who's hosting it ?

---
Where's the radio station>


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:22:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:39:50 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:
What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

---
Some folks are only happy when they're miserable or trying to make
everyone else miserable.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

Geez, when we get our way it's bullying, but when you get yours it's
diplomacy?

No, oxying ... You have bulls, they have oxen.

And they pay much more ("MONEY" -translated for John Chesterfiled
Fields) for gasoline than you.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:43:48 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT;

Well it is very British.


it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy"

In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond.


, nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

I find that dull.


You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days
though ( see thread ).

---
Try laughing at yourself; everyone else does...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:43:48 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT;

Well it is very British.


it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy"

In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond.

---
A goofy innkeeper who perpetually gets himself into trouble with an
overbearing bitch of a wife. Not much funny about that...

Do you also like "Keeping up Appearances"?
---

, nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

I find that dull.


You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days
though ( see thread ).

Graham

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com>
wrote in message news:eg54n2$7ql$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at
least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to
reach the stated endpoint.

When Oil runs out - the rate will increase exponentially!

Now *there's* an assumption.

In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

Their "reason" is similar as for climbing mount everest: "because it is
there" -
i.e. "because you exist". The hive must destroy all that is not off the
hive!

That makes absolutely no sense. If that's the case, then what explains the
drastically increased terrorist activity in Iraq after we invaded, where
there was absolutely none before. And don't try to say they're just
attacking the US presence there. Most of the attacks are *not* against US
servicemen, but against fellow Iraqis. If they are not "of the hive", then
nobody is.

Denying that there are things that we do that increase the risk of terrorism
runs contrary to what all Middle East scholars have to say, and burying our
collective head in the sand about it won't help the situation at all. That,
after all, is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56e4$8ss_004@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article
kurtullman-0F836F.10021405102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual
physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is
nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to
suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given
both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble.
Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of
magnitude below physical and sexual abuse.

When did talking dirty become illegal?

To a minor? A long time ago.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:15:37 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:t1v8i21l8kal7h6td3j4nr6gir8t5b26mu@4ax.com...

Sounds strange to me. The people I know have traveled a lot, and many
have lived in other countries. Americans are often fans and admirers
of other countries and languages. As for not being very introspective,
that is true of many Americans, and it's generally a virtue: jobs,
hobbies, interests, causes, and family are a lot more interesting than
narcissistic, neurotic self-absorption. Maybe you are mistaking
politeness and open-mindedness for being gullible: they are different.

Of course America is big, with beaches, glaciers, mountains, rivers,
an enormous variety of geography and cultures. Not all Americans elect
to fly overseas when we have 50 different states of our own to
explore. Your thinking seems to be undisturbed by actual knowledge of
the US.

And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or
Mexico? Or have even left their own state?

---
Dunno, but ignoring Canada and Mexico, I've been out of the US a
lot, as have most of the people I know.

What percentage of people have ever left Canada and returned
voluntarily?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56eh$8ss_005@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Did you find the speech that Bush made in January? He described
why Iraq is important.

I saw it when he gave it. I saw nothing there but more of the usual
fear-mongering that he has been doing all along. However, I agree at this
point that we need to not "run away", since we created the mess for
absolutely no reason. We need to make a plan to stabilize the situation as
best possible, and then get the hell out of there and let them duke it out.
It's now essentially a full-blown civil war, and we have no business keeping
our nose in the middle of it.

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Did you purposely mininterpret what I wrote? Or did I not
write clearly enough? The Democrats are using this behavior
as a distraction.

A "smokescreen" is the same as a "distraction".

Do you not think that they are minimizing
the behaviour?

No, but you are by calling it a smokescreen.

Nobody has reported what those emails said.
All I've heard is that there was sex mentioned. Does that
mean he wrote, "Fuck" or something else?

When his own party gets up in arms about it, calls it "reprehensible, etc.,
I gotta believe it was pretty bad. It has been said he propositioned sex in
the emails, and the only thing that wasn't clear was whether or not he
followed up on the proposition. (At this point, I assume he didn't, because
that's his Constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven
guilty, but the proposition itself is bad enough.) To assume he did nothing
more than say the word "fuck" is denialism.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57go$8ss_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism.

3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people and
he's not fussy about who they are.

I'd like to see evidence of a *credible* threat. Basing foreign policy on
what someone *might* do is fear-mongering of the worst variety.

Eric Lucas

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:48:40 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

Probably. Do you fit into any of the other categories? If you are dead, as
the sentence implies, then I suspect you may fall into several categories at
once. Or I do.

One or the other.


According to my doctor, I am fine other than the medical problems.
No insanity, never had any problems with 95% of the people I've met.

OTOH, morons like the one who was blowing his horn and cursing at me
for walking too slow across a marked crosswalk while using my cane do
piss me off, as it should be. I had one punk try to take my cane away.
I wound his arm behind his back so tight he was begging for me to let
him go. I may be 100% disabled, but I'm no easy target. ;-)

Have you seen the movie, "Falling Down" ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57ru$8ss_012@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are
afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why
does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the
very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

So you prefer people who can spin you a line of bullshit to
people who deal with real problems?

You call the Federal response to Katrina "deal[ing] with real problems"??
All we've done in Iraq is create one big, huge problem that, luckily for
Bush, *he* won't even have to deal with. I will grant you that Bush dealt
with 9/11 reasonably well--but what evidence do you have that Clinton
wouldn't have done just as well--or is it just your inability to admit that
Clinton was capable of doing anything good just because he got a blowjob?
Clinton was verifiably trying to go after bin Laden--obviously he wasn't
successful, but he was trying. And I do clearly remember the Republicans
using the phrase "wag the dog" in relation to the effort to discredit
Clinton for even trying. (Back then, I was still reasonably happy with the
Republican party, so this isn't just a matter of me having selectively heard
something just because it made the Republicans look bad. Heck, back then, I
kind of agreed, because it was not clear to the average citizen what sort of
threat bin Laden was.) By contrast, there is solid evidence that
Condoleeza Rice was briefed with a plan to continue going after bin Laden.
Do you know how important she considered that meeting? She doesn't even
remember it happening! There was a good reason Colin Powell resigned. He,
as a skilled and level-headed diplomat, was sick of the Administration's
cowboy foreign policy, including being made to lie to the public to justify
invading Iraq. Before he gave that speech, he *told* the President that the
intelligence was wrong...and he was forced to give the speech anyway.

Eric Lucas

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <45254611.542B0FC1@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

[...]
Sounds like the sign of the liar to me ;-)

On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was all
over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it.

The neo-cons are terminally clueless.

No, they aren't. Many of them are quite well educated and on other
subjects can think through problems very well. They are more like a PC
that has a virus installed. The program for thinking about politics is no
longer able to care through logical thought.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <MPG.1f8efa5f98d07c31989d9a@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg3143$okg$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
In article <0cr8i2p5gcd7asiq8nsdlon8b0m6h69l5a@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[....]

(2) "I _tried_ to get OBL...", just recently interviewed by Chris
Wallace.

Sounds like the sign of the liar to me ;-)

On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was all
over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it.

Actually, they didn't. Most thought he didn't do enough; too many
sheets left standing in the desert. The aspirin factory raid was a
killer though.

Oh no! Someone has implanted memories in my head! I clearly remember
them doing just as I said any yet Keith says it didn't happen.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <452561A0.981EE687@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

You must be a Democrat.

So when does the new Civil War start ?

I estimate that it could fester for at least another 2 years before it
gets to the point where the violence becomes self sustaining. In the US
it is normal to state which party you belong to when registering to vote.
As a result if it comes time to stand all the Republicans against the
wall, the Deomcrats will have a nice list of who they are.

On the other hand there is also a trend in the US to settle disputes by
means of a contest. I'm sure that you have noticed that some political
ones are already settled by the amount of mud the contestants can get to
stick to a wall. This sort of contest is now spreading into other forms
that are uniquely american. The high tech contest is hacking into voting
machine code, where the one who does the best job decides the election.
The lower tech one is the liars contest where the speaker must convince
the public of a long list of things that aren't true.

Most Americans are well aware that a civil war can never really happen.
Can you imagine trying to fight a war where each soldier has to say to the
one for the other side "Excuse me. I have to shoot you. Would you prefer
it in the head or the heart." before he can pull the trigger. This is
simply not going to happen, so as a result that can be no such thing as a
civil war. Some americans don't seem to take much comfort in this when it
is expained to them.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge