Jihad needs scientists

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:32:27 +0100, the renowned "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newshYYg.14725$vJ2.13515@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9@4ax.com...

Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on
the table -- particularly, their tactical use.

Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great
grandchildren. But it gets less likely.

Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump.

Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009.


Does the party in office make that much of a difference?

He didn't actually say the party made a difference, just saner minds.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nicely written.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent
State?

I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you
don't say what you are thinking here.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example
of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard
troops.

And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly
force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just
curious.


Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get
hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick.

It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that
frightening for them?

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need
to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy
wonderful.

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?

As I said, I
wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the
right, and dead.

It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this viewpoint.

They threw rocks at people with guns?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:17:52 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own
political party

I belong to no political party. My wife and my kid vote Democrat,
which is fine with me.

So are you not considering them too ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and
that's reasonably well enforced.

Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play
for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few
denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the
extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a
big problem, in my book.

Such behaviour would be considered outrageous over here.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.


Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act.

An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical
Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable suicide
for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin, Christians have been
fairly free with the definition of this though.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qndaj2p3kovkgrk7g4ijnppv9d1ptn2qfm@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nicely written.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called
Kent
State?

I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you
don't say what you are thinking here.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious
example
of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard
troops.

And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly
force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just
curious.


Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get
hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick.

It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that
frightening for them?

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need
to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy
wonderful.

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?

Normally it is an act bourne out of desperation or frustration. Sometimes
people do it just to be naughty, but I never realised that carried the death
penalty.

As I said, I
wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the
right, and dead.

It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this
viewpoint.

They threw rocks at people with guns?

Figuratively speaking, yes. An act of defiance towards a superior,
oppressive, organisation. Pretty much the same thing.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had no
vailidity !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this
universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out
how it works?

Yes, it may well be the case that this has happened. Science does not deal
with things like this. If you want to believe a genius kid in a parallel
dimension created our universe, feel free to do so. Who created the kid? How
can we falsify the existence of the kid? When we get to hard questions (are
quarks fundamental for example) the answer becomes "if the kid wants it that
way."

Quite so and one the religios simply don't get.

My conclusion is that the universe sits in a goldfish bowl on someone's coffee
table because it makes as much sense.

Graham

 

[David Bostwick]

In article <eh34ou$nc5$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eh30er$n6o$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:

[...]

Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every
killer who is anti-religion or unreligious?

By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything.

Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who believes
the fundamentals of a belief system. It has become linked to religion, but
fundamentalism can be religious, economic, political, or whatever. You can
try to change the definition, but we're still on this side of the looking
glass.

Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone
who kills just because he wants to?

If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why.

You put people who have done nothing wrong into the same category as those who
have committed crimes. What's good for one side is good for the other.

(And Teddy's a gimme.)

There's probably a killer out there who
believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone.

People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or to
rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to say
that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes X,
your're going to have a lot of labels to make.



True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such.

And then you did *exactly* the same thing.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ?

Graham

 

[David Bostwick]

In article <K38Zg.17285$6S3.4370@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:100aj2tujd38kum9omn0ni4tcbd22cfdbe@4ax.com...

[...]

There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all
sides.

The ones I'm objecting to are the religious ones, and they're almost
invariably aligned with the right.

So you haven't been in many African-American churches, eh?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had
no
vailidity !

I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45354337.ADC81796@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message

If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this
universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out
how it works?

Yes, it may well be the case that this has happened. Science does not
deal
with things like this. If you want to believe a genius kid in a parallel
dimension created our universe, feel free to do so. Who created the kid?
How
can we falsify the existence of the kid? When we get to hard questions
(are
quarks fundamental for example) the answer becomes "if the kid wants it
that
way."

Quite so and one the religios simply don't get.

My conclusion is that the universe sits in a goldfish bowl on someone's
coffee
table because it makes as much sense.

Your theory here is _just_ as scientific as God creating the universe and
just as probable.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

And I guess you can't be accused of being moralistic if you don't have
morals. Like you can't be accused of hypocracy if you don't have
principles.

You cant be accused of being tanned if you don't have a sun tan.

Is that like not being 'a little pregnant' ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their Muslim counterparts.

Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.

Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get
rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart
polygamists.

Suicide is a sin in Islam AIUI.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

I have stood in Northern Ireland while protesters threw petrol bombs let
alone rocks. Firing back was not an option we were simply there to contain.
It was made very clear to everyone that firing without having first been
_fired_ upon would result in a police arrest and trial (murder if required).
Shooting people because they are throwing stones at you is simply wrong.

If legislation came into force which demanded I worship in Church every
Sunday I would happily throw rocks at soldiers in protest. If they killed me
as a result it would, if nothing else, highlight to others how unjust the
system had become.

You would have become a martyr.

Now compare with how the suicide bombers see themselves !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so
than their Muslim counterparts.

Graham

Ah, now I understand you.

Lower-Austria for example (Katlholics -hicks) do not allow hindered
to visit the first communion.

Hindered ?

Graham

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:05:07 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nicely written.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent
State?

I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you
don't say what you are thinking here.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example
of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard
troops.

And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly
force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just
curious.


Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get
hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick.

It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that
frightening for them?

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need
to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy
wonderful.

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?

Wrong question, John. There were a lot of people there who did NOT
throw rocks. Only _some_ threw rocks.

And a separate question, entirely, John. Do you imagine that only
those throwing the rocks are the ones who were injured or killed by
professional military action?

Jon

As I said, I
wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the
right, and dead.

It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this viewpoint.

They threw rocks at people with guns?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake"

It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need
to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy
wonderful.

How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"?

Are you really being that obtuse ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45354B0A.FFBA6F96@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

I have stood in Northern Ireland while protesters threw petrol bombs let
alone rocks. Firing back was not an option we were simply there to
contain.
It was made very clear to everyone that firing without having first been
_fired_ upon would result in a police arrest and trial (murder if
required).
Shooting people because they are throwing stones at you is simply wrong.

If legislation came into force which demanded I worship in Church every
Sunday I would happily throw rocks at soldiers in protest. If they killed
me
as a result it would, if nothing else, highlight to others how unjust the
system had become.

You would have become a martyr.

Hopefully, but I also hope that if the situation ever comes to it I will
find it within myself to make what ever sacrifices are needed to defend what
_I_ see as the "right thing to do." At least I dont see suicide as a "sin"
or a "holy act."

Also hopefully, and especially so because I am a firm believer in democracy,
the situation would never arise.

Now compare with how the suicide bombers see themselves !

Sad isn't it.