Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4524A9AF.708AE0D3@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

Soon Teacher will turn up to put a stop to this playground fight.



Really? Do you know why the teacher left? He's out making book on
the fight,

Probably.

and the odds are in our favor.

Really? What did Teacher set as the victory condition? This is USENET,
despite all the hard talk and macho strutting all people are doing is typing
words. How can any one win or lose a "tauntfight" like that?

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45243F99.4CC1801A@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4523D85F.43BBD99C@earthlink.net...
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.


Yawn. You invade our newsgroup with crossposted bullshit, then you
want to set the rules? Forget it.

Ouch. You cutting wit has shamed me. I do apologise.

However, as you feel able to invade our newsgroup with crossposted bullshit
(and imply your rules are more acceptable) I must bow to your masterful
double standards.

Based on the frank and honest response, I see it really is a case of you
having nothing better to defend your position than a collection of logical
fallacies wrapped up in schoolground taunts.

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Yet another American dismisses non-American thing thinking as crap.

All you seem to do is post lines like this. You have no dialog
just a gut reaction that happens to be deemed to be politically
correct at the moment.

Yep! /BAH, this is the stuffed donkey. Stuffed donkey, this is
/BAH. The stuffed donky is one of SED's most prominent (and least
useful) anti-American Europeons.

If a stuffed donkey can outhink most Americans it doesn't say much for
America does it ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"YD" <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:esn9i2dmt34geb4aqp39u5dknbp1bqms6p@4ax.com...

Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it
going too.

Sadly true. Still entertainment is where you can find it and there are some
reasonable people (on both sides of the fence) posting in this thread.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45252809.A20CE3E6@earthlink.net...

YD wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:13:35 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4523D85F.43BBD99C@earthlink.net...
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.


It's just a bunch of obnoxious bitter old men and has-beens with no
real control over much of anything anymore. They've transferred their
lives to this ng. Their only way of one-upping is to degrade those not
espousing their POVs to below their level with name calling and
ridicule with no substance of fact.

Makes them look like school-yard bullies or teen-age gangs hanging out
on street corners.

Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it
going too.


Bitter? Are you sure? In truth, we enjoy watching morons prove
their stupidity, day by day, and hour by hour.

Ah, but you don't need anyone else to post for that.....

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:58:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France,
specifically.

You're being very very silly.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Bitter? Are you sure? In truth, we enjoy watching morons prove
their stupidity, day by day, and hour by hour.

Whereas you prove your stupidity every time you post.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6d%Ug.9902$e66.1245@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:tOmdnf6_-qawlbnYRVnyiw@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F755.6FBE3BED@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

That's not my recollection.

Ok, it is my recollection though.

Fair nuff !

You need to stop reading too much implied criticism where there isnt
any.

There's been *loads* !

In my posts?

A misunderstanding it seems.

Possibly. The joys of the text based USENET.

Yes, let's do stick to getting offended by the *ex*plicit insults. There
are way more than enough of those in this thread to go around.

Yes. Easier to not get offended by anything here

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45243BFD.9C297BE5@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

Is that what you want ?

What alternative do they have? Until the Palestinians and Arabs can
accept
Israel's existence, Israel can not hold off on its defensive posture.

Do you advocate Israel surrender?

Many Arab nations have sorted this one out. We really do need to bash the
Israeli and Palestinian heads together.

The Palestinians have been offered the same all other Arab nation have been
offered.

Is there ever going to be an acceptable midde ground?

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

Maybe. Hard to think of a reason why the US should abandon it's support of
Israel though.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:11:22 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. Hence it's moot.

---
Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll
have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the
problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize
it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd
otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency
is _not_ a virtue.

There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of force simply
because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to force me to do
anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) .

---
All it takes is one...
---

In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

---
No big deal. You've never heard of martial law?
---

The very concept is insanely stupid.

---
Not at all. The implementation may be extremely difficult, but the
concept is already causing terrorist acts to occur there.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:47:30 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

---
Trying to set up another straw man?
---

Is that what you want ?

---
Nope, but since you state that that's the only way Israel can win,
it seems that if you don't want Israel destroyed, that's what
_you're_ advocating.

In reality, though, your preferred "solution" would be to see Israel
("The Real Demon" according to you) destroyed, and yet you pretend
to advocate non-violence.

How can you reconcile that hypocrisy?

I have *never* said any such thing.

The answer is for Israel and the Palestinians to come to a peaceful accord. Nothing
else will ever work. End of story.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people?

That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA.

Cheaper to kill those the USA disagrees with.

Graham

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef931a1973410989d97@News.Individual.NET...

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m74$8qk_002@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?

Again, why should the government be involved in medical research?

Because they are in many other ways already. Ever heard of the NIH, NCI,
CDC, and on and on? Public health issue are a major function of the Federal
government.

You haven't addressed any of the other smokescreen issues in my list.

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

Minors? It appears that this flap (at least the public
information) is about IMs to an 18YO.

Wrong, where did you hear that? Ages 15 - 17 have been involved.

Was Lewinsky a minor too?

Sorry, nice try, wrong again. 22 - 23. She could even get drunk with him,
if she wanted. You really might want to get educated on the issues that
your politicians are using to manipulate your vote.

BTW, why is
Barney Frank still in congress?

What did he do besides be gay? (That's a serious question, I was in grad
school and just wasn't that aware of politics when that flap hit...14 hours
a day in the lab will do that to you.) Last I checked, that's not illegal
yet in the US...and it's even tolerated in a few enlightened
places...although I'm sure the neocons are working on that too.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

I don't recall Starr being a newsman.

Stoopid donkey, Starr never gave so much as an interview.

LIAR.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/25/starr.sawyer/


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an
argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who
disagrees with you.

Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too.

---
If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your
door because of your antics here.

Thankfully, the UK isn't yet run by a bunch of crooks like the USA is.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and
the Brits should have made a deal?

The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused.
Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad.

No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to
his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may
have gone differently.

---
It certainly _would_ have.

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.

The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gsj8i2tu59bh8v37118o7jo5rs2rk01kpo@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:35:26 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5db7i2d91g9i390qo6jqr3csbn7etevmsm@4ax.com...


Yes, but because of the small amount of respect eked out to
non-Muslim People of the Book, refusal to convert isn't an automatic
death sentence. For all others, AIUI, it is.


Ok, as I read it, you had stated Islam defines all non-Muslims as Infidels
"Any person who belongs to and acknowledges belonging to any other
religion
is an infidel."

Could it be that Islam is not as clear cut as posting sections of the
Koran
may imply?

---
I'm sure, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My point was that (AIUI) all non-Muslims are infidels until they
convert, at which point they are no longer considered infidels.

Now, if People of the Book refuse to convert they become (I forget
the Muslim word for it) something like slaves/second class citizens
whose very survival depends on the whim of the authorities, but if a
person who isn't one of the People of the Book refuses to convert,
they are always put to death.

Right? Wrong? Something else?

What do you think?

I think it is an interpretation of the Koran which has not been practiced in
any Islamic states that I can think of. (Ottoman Turkish murder of the
Armenians is the closest and this is possibly not entirely related to
religious issues)

Historically, Islamic nations (like Christian nations) have been more
tolerant of other faiths than a strict interpretation of their religious
dogma would imply.

The fact that we already have contradictory viewpoints in this small section
of the writings of a madman (pieced together and re-transcribed by other
madmen) highlights the difficulty in making judgement calls based on the
texts.

We live in a time when Christianity has had to evolve to at least tolerate
the unbeliever (and they have a stricter interpretation of it than Moslems -
you are either a Christian or you aren't), but historically the doctrine has
been convert or die.

Now, I fully understand that this is "not really the case" in Christian
nations - why do we assume it is the case in Islamic ones? All of the
current worlds Islamic nations tolerate the existence of other religions
within their borders. The extremists may be different - but they are
extremists.

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
Keith wrote:
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy.

Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
school buses. He knows all.

It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker
buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one !

See folks" He is _that_ stupid.

Tell me something. What's your objection to a 130 seater bus except that the stupid
USA doesn't make one ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:37:44 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:30:06 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229733.8D7D0F64@hotmail.com...

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.


Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has
always impressed me in the survival books.

---
No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs.
Which animals to eat and things like that.

Not very good survival manuals. Do they tell you how to treat heat stroke?
Do they tell you how to ensure sandflys wont bite? Now that would be cool.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:12:11 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:50u7i2h1nkv91i933t146sile4cdjht076@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable.
Has any "War
on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The
war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism'
?

---
We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible
to win this one?

The Nazi party was genuinely popular. That's one reason they got
elected.

---
What does that have to do with anything? We still beat the shit out
of them.
---

Islamist extremism *isn't* popular. Although it may become more so as
thew USA
continues to bumble its way from one disaster to another.

---
So what? If push comes to shove we'll beat the shit out of them too,
whether they're popular or not, dumbass.

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

---
Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent.

Brilliant. War really will never end.

---
Not as long as we have people like Graham who advocate genocide.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer