Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

You're not, you're just a coward who's afraid to go out and do
the bombing you'd really like to.

Don't be so absurd. It sems you can only relate to violent ideas.

---
Not at all true, but when I read your violent rhetoric I like to
translate it into visuals which depict what you'd like to do if you
weren't afraid of the reprisals.

Show where I have espoused violence.

---
I recall you said that you have nukes which you'd use to repel
invading Muslims. That's pretty violent in my book.

I said no such thing. Nor do I expect any invasion ! What a crackpot idea.

---
Denying saying it won't make it not so.

You're utterly stark raving bonkers MAD !

Who's going to invade us ???? How FFS ???

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:29:32 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:42:54 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide
them with no end of support....

Or move them all to the Outer Hebrides - and the Muslims with them!

With such a wide selection to choose from, I often wonder why we have no
prison islands.

---
You do. It's called Australia.

You could make the prisoners actually work the land and stuff.
You never know, it might do them good.

---
They certainly seem to be doing better than you lot, lately.

---
P.S. One Australian friend of mine says he'll be eternally grateful
to you for giving them Heaven and keeping Hell for yourselves.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

The only violently inclined ppl in this thread
are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal
threats.

---
Show where I made a personal threat.

Can you not read ? 'even to' doesn't have to include you.

---
Nor then does it have to include Thompson or Terrell, so who were
you leveling the accusation at, specifically?

It would have to include at least one of them.

Or are you going to try to backpedal your way out of this one, too?

Don't be so utterly pathetic.

Graham

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting
here. JoeBloe beats them hands down though.

Graham

Ermm, is Terrell not an electronic guru?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

In article <IjTUg.51405$E67.42536@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message.

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

You are your mother's failure.

Bwahahahahahahahaha !

Are you always this retarded ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

"It" being radical Islam,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal."

---
I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the
acquisition of unlimited power.

Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are
often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal.
Interesting take.

He simply doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about.

I've repeatedly asked him to identify this 'radical Isalm' and all he can say is
'radical islam'. He's a total nitwit who has no idea about the real issues.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>, daniel_mandic@aon.at says...
Keith wrote:

You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by your
posts.

You would like to say, a Neanderthaler descendant is a two-faced
bastard.

Keep Care...

Nope, it's worth nothing if you keep it.

They might act two sided but they think once. Thousand times better
than any ...[putyourself here]... (Ape?... Bush)))

You might care to consider what that might do for your credibility.

You might want to consider what you do for your country's
credibility.

I guess Eyore is English. My dear they are also dangerous, but they
^^^^^ Eeyore ,

have Class, at least. Getting better and better, indeed. USA thumps
^^^^^ One's class isn't a good measure of one's worth

from one desaster to the next ****
^^^^^^^^ really?

But yes, the world is full of "desasters" underway and waiting in
the wings. Going from one "desaster" to the next is a better
strategy than ignoring "desasters", head in posterior.

Now let's see you write that in German and we'll criticise *your* spelling
and grammar shall we ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:16:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out
the horse.

Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted.

The history of Europe is the history of war. The earliest Greek
writings that survive are tales of war. Europe has been at war for
most of the last 3000 years, culminating in the "total war" of the
20th century, killing tens of millions of non-combattants, surely the
largest-scale terrorism in world history.

It was the American occupation, Pax Americana, that enforced 60 years
of peace in Europe for the first time in millennia.

Spin that!

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

---
You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

---
Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

I don't recall Starr being a newsman.

Graham

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76@News.Individual.NET...

In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET...

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.

Uhh...then why does even the White House refer to this as the "warrantless
wiretap" program? And who cares if the phone that's tapped is in another
country. If it is able to listen to something going on in a living room in
the US, then it is *domestic* surveillance.

How would you ever know?

*You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is
slipping.

And you assume they aren't. If I'm wrong, no harm, they can still get post
facto warrants, and we still catch the bad guys. If *you're* wrong, my
Constitutional rights are being trampled. All I insist on is
accountability. Right now, the NSA is accountable only to themselves, and
this is a clear violation of the system of checks-and-balances built into
the Constitution. As a citizen of this country, I demand of my government
that the actions of one branch of the government *always* be subject to
review and approval of another branch. It's the very basis of our
Constitution...and Bush has duped you into believing that you must give up
that right.

Let me ask you a question.... FISA sets up courts and has a system whereby
the NSA can get warrants within a certain number of hours after a tap is
used. Why do we need anything else? Not for speed. Not for security of
the warrant information. The only plausible reason that we would need
approval for the President to do anything more than that is if he has
already authorized the NSA to do something they're not currently allowed to
do under FISA. FISA ensures that the NSA is at least accountable to some
independent entity outside the Executive branch of the government. You
don't want your government to be held accountable for their actions?

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:46:19 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Damn Ghandi and his crazy ideas - not to mention that fool Jesus. Look at
how many arguments he lost in the long term.

Ghandi shamed the British into setting India free. It wouldn't have
worked with the Russians or the Chinese... they would have disappeared
him and his followers in weeks.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer
"listens" for certain key words and phrases.

No no. Special people do this in their freetime. As we do our Usenet
Job.
You just need the key. With ISDN and everything digital is this
technically no problem, as you surely know. You can listen it whenever
you want, comfortably with all digital features.

But I think it is just in a test phase, bez the people doing the
observer job are not officially endorsed. Just picked out people.
With everything private (here the telekom and POST is still partly ;-(
in state-hand) in the near future, it will be no problem at all.
Formula ten. For every ten people, one observer (chef).

That was how the Stasi worked wasn't it ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:19:37 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.

Graham

Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,
usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a
nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are
just a framework to hold things up.

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?

John

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com...

---
"It" being radical Islam,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal."

---
I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the
acquisition of unlimited power.

Is there any evidence for this, or is it your speculation in the absence of
data? And this is an honest question, so don't go talking down to me or
throwing insults at me for asking it. I just haven't seen data one way or
the other, and since the Western point of view is so different from the
Middle Eastern, I would be loath to ascribe motivations based only on my
point of view...especially about something so important.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

What's that got to do with it ?

You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't
take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ?

The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eKVUg.51441$E67.25489@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:nK6dndhIJoSMvLnYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...

Yes, but we are not the generation of seventy years ago.

It is not a case of reading reports of pacifist beliefs - currently we
are willing to surrender basic freedoms all to "Prevent Terrorism."

I have no doubt the British people are as warlike as they were in the
fifth century.

I do, however, doubt how wedded we are as a society to the fundamental
freedoms we grew up with. (Stop and search, ID cards etc).

All you need is another Churchill. You've already got a Chamberlain.

Yeah, Churchill who championed Gallipoli......

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

It [WW2] simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you,
just to put your fevered >> >> >American
minds at rest, should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty'
expect another >> >> >Kristallnacht' with
Muslims being progromised.

I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not
the politicians.

---
So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for
something to happen so you can let it out?

No.

I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the
British public will defend them.

Hopefully.

I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day.

I think you mean political debate. I doubt the public would stand for it.

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:55 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)


Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?


It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and
explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work
status.

Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not
claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth,
does his job matter?

Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is
in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed
of yourselves.

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting here. JoeBloe
beats them hands down though.

Graham

At least we're not impotent like you.

...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.

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eKVUg.51442$E67.34713@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w@pipex.net...

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans seem
to avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route... )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

So, it's all his fault then.... He is a bad man.