Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ohh but I do ! It's a tribute to my war with The Meow.Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
Have you any idea how any dickheads' accounts ( who chose to make an issue of
dickheadedness behaviour ) I've had cancelled ?
You're a legend in your own mind, asswipe.
Do *you* have a newsgroup named after you ?
No. Nor do you, fucktard.
I will. Thanks for what i choose to interpret as encouragement.On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:11:37 GMT, joseph2k <quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:
The theory is, I think, that the US has the power and the moral
imperative to spread democracy throughout the world. You can argue
that it's in our self-interest to do so, but I could reply that it's
in everybody's self-interest. Whether the goal is being pursued
intelligently or effectively is certainly open to debate.
snip
John
Your pseudo-American moral-imperative nonsense is exactly what is wrong
about how America is handling the issues.
It's not my nonsense; I was expressing what I think is the theory
under which the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq took place. Since I
wasn't President at the time, they can't be my own theories.
It is _MY_ nation (as well as
millions of other's) and I have the obligation, as one of its sovereign
citizens, to criticize it when it goes astray.
As much as you would be gratified from attempts at censorship, you'll
get none from my direction. Rant on!
John
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
Have you any idea how any dickheads' accounts ( who chose to make an issue of
dickheadedness behaviour ) I've had cancelled ?
You're a legend in your own mind, asswipe.
Do *you* have a newsgroup named after you ?
No. Nor do you, fucktard.
Ohh but I do ! It's a tribute to my war with The Meow.
I don't want to read your fucktard wiki CRAP.
T Wake wrote:
"joseph2k" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CYXVg.3026$NE6.2914@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
T Wake wrote:
This is a logical fallacy. Everything you have said can be true and
still
it would not disprove anything YD has written.
Insulting someone does not change the validity of their comments, nor
does eliciting sympathy for yourself.
If I needed sympathy, I wouldn't visit the vast troll playground
known as Usenet. ;-)
Top drawer reply Mr. Terrell.
To paraphrase your comments to me, if you want to indulge in a group hug
take it to Email.
What a coward, attempting to misdirect replies to a bit bucket
(alt.local.village.idiot). Turnabout is fair play.
Really ? I wouldn't want to subject you to any mind-expanding ideas for sure ! LOL.Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
Have you any idea how any dickheads' accounts ( who chose to make an issue of
dickheadedness behaviour ) I've had cancelled ?
You're a legend in your own mind, asswipe.
Do *you* have a newsgroup named after you ?
No. Nor do you, fucktard.
Ohh but I do ! It's a tribute to my war with The Meow.
I don't want to read your fucktard wiki CRAP.
No. It has my real name in the title. A likely reason I may not disclose to you what itWhat is the name of the Usenet group that is named after you?
BTW eeyore doesn't count, as the real eeyore was around long before
your retarded ass was using the moniker.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:50:52 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have,
and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when
engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to
send messages to another country. Censorship of international
correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders.
Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is
silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because
you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to
trying to make sense.
Soldiers letters home were censored during WW II, I have seen
pictures of letters with words or sentences cut out. I have a DVD with
some WW II training films, including one about "Loose Lips Sink Ships",
telling the military what they could, and could not write home about in
any war related effort.
There's always a compromise between liberty and safety. That's why we
have traffic lights.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:40:29 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
JoeBloe wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
Have you any idea how any dickheads' accounts ( who chose to make an issue of
dickheadedness behaviour ) I've had cancelled ?
You're a legend in your own mind, asswipe.
Do *you* have a newsgroup named after you ?
No. Nor do you, fucktard.
Red light cameras should be replaced by red light cannons !John Larkin wrote:
There's always a compromise between liberty and safety. That's why we
have traffic lights.
Yes, not to mention idiots on motorcycles who blow through red lights
without slowing down.
The Hamilton Amendment is Amendment 9, not 4. Read it.On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:49:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:03:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg@pipex.net...
My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we
are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted
(possibly part of the problem).
I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word
from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should.
The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For
the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US
Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people
prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such
"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife.
I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to
snoop on international communications, or even domestic
communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit
murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in
that order.
The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled
up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing.
Hardly, John. I suspect you've not really been reading your history
much. The concept of privacy as a right abounds within any reasonable
interpretation of the Constitution itself, as well as in the
Declaration of Independence explicitly, as well as in the debates over
ratification, debates raging in the New York Journal of the day, and
in the personal letters -- those anyway for which we still have copies
of today.
But setting aside those details, of which you appear ignorant, there
was also quite a deep concern about rights, generally. Some states
had specific declarations that prevented gov't from encroaching the
rights of minority groups (majority groups don't need protections, as
they can pass laws easily to get what they want.) Some states didn't.
On early development of the Constitution, there were no Amendments
specifically attached. And there was deep concern among many,
including Jefferson who wrote about this lack, that there was a
specific need to list at least some of the more important ones so that
there would be no possibility of mistake in later generations.
Hamilton argued fiercely, though, against their inclusion. He argued
that they would become our prison bars, as later generations would
imagine that having listed any at all, that those were all there were
to protect. Like owning 1000 acres of land and putting up a tiny
picket fence around only 1 acre about your solitary home, others
arriving into the area might very well imagine that you only claimed
just one acre, because that is where you put your fence. Jefferson
likened putting out explicit rights very much like this picket fence
that later generations might imagine, or be convinced to imagine, was
the only real province of their rights. When, in fact, quite the
opposite was true -- that the listing of some rights should not at all
be construed as to mean that others did not also exist and with equal
force, too. So we have the 9th Amendment added, to satisfy Hamilton.
It's known as "The Hamilton Amendment."
The principle guiding the writing of the Constitution of the US is
that "All rights reside within the individuals and that individuals
cede to gov't only those rights they deem are necessary for the good
of the whole and only for so long as that continues to be the case."
The presumption here is that gov't has NO RIGHTS at all and that only
individuals innately have rights; that individuals choose consciously
to cede only some of those rights to gov't for such good purposes as
seem appropriate for a time.
The point is that the right to privacy was not some silly concoction
to satisfy some weird, twisted means to write Roe v. Wade the way it
is. The right to privacy is quite real, apart from any of that.
Being ignorant of this is excusable. But claiming that the "current
concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the
Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing," isn't excusable. It's not
even enough right to be considered wrong. It's just pure ignorance
speaking.
Jon
I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have,
and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4,
That doesn't. But then you didn't know what I was talking about,"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when
I did. You just can't recognize it.engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to
send messages to another country. Censorship of international
correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders.
Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is
silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because
you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to
trying to make sense.
Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center?jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egd9oe$8qk_008@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him?
Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization
is not isolated to one human being.
Where do you *get* these assumptions???
What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine?
They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not
empty threats; they demonstrated their intent.
No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to destroy
three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to
extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of Western
civilization."
Fine. I started with actual events, then learned the historyAs I've said before, you don't even know what your assumptions are, and how
ludicrous the premises on which you predicate them.
From my understanding, the Iraqi people were the most capableIn article <eg7u2a$8qk_008@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eg5tpm$70s$13@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg57l7$8ss_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com...
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.
3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by
Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many
have died in car accidents in that time?
That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack.
That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by
anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal
risk in life.
Amazing really.
So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?
So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him?
Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization
is not isolated to one human being.
/BAH
It sure isn't something that was in Iraq prior to our invasion.
I don't appreciate the name calling. It accomplishes nothing.To a pinhead, obviously!
There aren't any other stores. There won't be any otherOn Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it
doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it
is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can
get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him.
This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that,
there is no other option available to you for getting
the apple you want.
Just go to another store! That's what I do.
I've been observing. My data set may consist of extreme examples.jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?
Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.
Are you actually serious ?
Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut
the cold start so that it will only be 500 years.
In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'.
They are at the age that Christianity was in the 1500s.
I've been studying that era. Assuming (this is a big
assumption) that religions follow similar growing paths,
take the same time for each growing pain, there is going
to be quite a bit of mess before things gets settled down.
I expect that modern global communications / media and living in each
others' cultures will speed up the growing process very considerably.
Actually, I think it stops maturing.
The evidence is completely the reverse of your suggestion.
Go read about the tower
of Babel and how nobody got anything done.
The best argument you have is an old Bible story ?
I've got a new
hypothesis about this one. When you go to work and nobody
shuts up, nothing gets done.
So ?
I don't know how to deal with this.jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egd9rd$8qk_009@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <bnPVg.11984$6S3.8593@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg806n$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <KStVg.13889$7I1.2829@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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
Because he didn't do as well. You seem to keep forgetting that
9/11 was the SECOND bombing of those building. The first one
happened while Clinton was president and he did not deal with
the problem. He just gestures and pretended it won't happen again.
Evidence, please. This is revisionist history, filtered through a desire
to
exalt Bush and excoriate Clinton. How about a little more balanced view
of
the facts, please.
You have forgotten that 9/11 was the second attempt to destroy
the World Trade Towers?
And have you forgotten that Clinton kept them from attacking for 8 years,
and it wasn't until Bush took over that the attacks took place?
Thank you. I get all these names mixed up and it doesn't helpIt seems like every country has its own brand of Islam established
by its ruler. Each ruler functions by promising to become the
head of all Islam. I understand this; politicians do this
all the time when they discover that nobody can be satisfied
ever.
The Saudis call theirs ...shit...the word begins with a W and
the only word that pops up into my head is Wannabe.
/BAH
Wahhabi
In article <kmnki2t5q21v3q4unpq99qqsner3pu6mhr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it
doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it
is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can
get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him.
This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that,
there is no other option available to you for getting
the apple you want.
Just go to another store! That's what I do.
There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other
stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a.
competition, is allowed.
/BAH
Yea, I know. There was something weird about the apple marketjmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <kmnki2t5q21v3q4unpq99qqsner3pu6mhr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it
doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it
is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can
get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him.
This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that,
there is no other option available to you for getting
the apple you want.
Just go to another store! That's what I do.
There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other
stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a.
competition, is allowed.
/BAH
I would do the same thing I do right now. If I can't find what I
want, I don't buy anything. I walk out of a lot of stores, empty handed
because what I came for wasn't in stock. As far as apples go, I haven't
seen one fit to eat in four months, so its been that long since I've had
one.
My tree produced apples the size of crabapples this year. ThereA dollar a pound for apples the size of a large chicken egg?
Forget it! There isn't enough to take two good bites, so someone else
can buy them.
"Different" --- I think that "Alien" is more correct!On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:09:53 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iq1ji2t66ov05f69i8oamaop8nq107jigb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things:
1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society.
2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society.
Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.
In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the wearers
boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society where
the
outsider-norms are the rule.
Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts
from yours.
Sure is; right now "they" are routinely torching the ghetto's here in Ĺrhus andThis is fascinating.
John
Wow, another blinding insight from the disciple of Aristotle himself.On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:42:45 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
Oh, well... shit happens.
That seems to cover most American actions these days.
Shame that a load of it doesn't end up drowning your lame ass.