Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their
actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to
use guns and soldiers against their own people.

You could blame the US gun culture too.

I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to
arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about
every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those
soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU.

For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example
here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule
either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ).

Graham

The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time
quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in
emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency
workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural
disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a
civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend
warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be
activated by the Federal government in times of national need.

Do you have anything like that?

Nothing comparable at all. I guess our natural disasters aren't usually bad enough
to need that kind of thing.

Other than disasters what are they actually needed for ? It's always puzzled ne
what their role is. It's not like there's any foreign threat.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

You're utterly mad.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe
unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to
scientific inquiry.

Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific
exploration
in that manner.

Exactly.

The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer
scientific questions.

Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples'
beliefs about stuff like this.

It isn't. However, considering the abysmal state of US primary science
education, we need to make sure it is taught where it belongs--in religion
classes, not in science classes (see below).


Until it is proven otherwise, the
universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation
or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe
had no date of origin.

It may have, but you know darned well that what is taught in high school
science classes is generally very well-tested theory, as students at that
level don't have enough of a basis of understanding to evaluate untested
theories. I don't see anyone wanting to slip vacuum fluctuations or
illusory time into high school science classes, and teach it as "The Truth",
while relegating other explanations to "just theories". You know perfectly
well that that just plays off the difference between the scientific (a
hypothesis that has withstood tests and attempts at falsification) and lay
(unproven and probably false) definition of the word "theory."

By the way, the onus for providing evidence for a theory and making sure it
is a proper theory is not on its critics, it is on the authors of the
theory. Thus, "until it is proven otherwise" has no place in a discussion
of a theory...that would put it in the realm of science fiction at best.


Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile
to the idea that the universe was designed?

I wouldn't say "hostile" (that was be another strawman), but rather they
(correctly) insist that it not be taught as a scientific theory. Part of it
is precisely because those who are intent on teaching ID have acknowledged
that it is just a euphemism for Creationism, and is just an end-around on
the Constitution. As such, it is being used to close off scientific
discourse at a time when the US is suffering from some of the worst primary
science education in the developed world.

It ain't all that bad...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/18/national/a003840D92.DTL&hw=math+education&sn=001&sc=1000


Science isn't done by the average high-school grad, it's done by the
exceptional few, and the best is done by rebels. Mentioning ID or
creationism as options for the origin of the universe won't poison
their minds... these people will be scientists or engineers because
it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great
scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage
their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism
big-time.

If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the onus is
on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory.

I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big*
problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause
for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced
of any truth.

You
must make a serious attempt to falsify the theory, as the very definition of
the appelation "theory" demands. Until then, it is a religious belief, and
has no place in a science class.


The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They
somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief.

Another strawman. The Jesuits aren't dogmatically Creationist, and as such,
their beliefs aren't aimed at shutting down scientific inquiry.

What concerns me more is dogmatic anti-Belief, wherein people
violently reject possibilities because they are afraid of even
slightly sympathizing with "religious nuts." This probably kills more
potentially good thinking than would a few lines in a high-school
physics text that says that some people think the universe was
designed. In other works, relax.

John

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh4va9$8ss_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <OziZg.13931$GR.6652@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which
religious
(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US.

Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality.

You mean the reality that the current administration is assaulting the
Constitution, all based on the vastly exaggerated fears that you keep
parroting? I have. Why haven't you?

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:40:55 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:52:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:55:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever.
Now you have:

http://www.emilyslist.org/

There are lots more... just look.

Please show me the list there.

Good grief, do I have to do all your web work for you?

https://secure1.emilyslist.org/Donation/index.cfm?event=initiative_showOne&initiativeID=12&mt=146

No, you just have to do YOUR OWN WORK. It was your point, after all.

I am beginning to put two and two together over this discussion to
gradually wonder that you may be the kind of boss who overly depends
upon people smarter than you to make good on your hand waving ideas.
I'm sure it isn't the case, but sometimes it seems that way.

I'm plenty smart about some things, less so about others. I'm rotten
at "business" stuff, the financial side of things, so I do have much
better people run that for me. And my serious math skills, in the
sense of doing calculus and heavy circuit analysis, are rusty from
disuse, and weren't stellar to start with, so if I need that sort of
analysis done, I have one of the kids do it. But I have a lot of
ideas, good ideas, and implement them well... about half the products
on my web site were designed by me, all the way from concept to
firmware and parts lists; I do get help with PCB layout and driving
the FPGA software. I have ideas because I like ideas and am bored by
routine, and because I give even outlandish concepts a chance before
rejecting them. I've designed about $200 million worth of electronics
so far, and I'm just getting good at it. I want to teach other people
to be good at it too.

My particular interest is understanding where ideas come from, and why
some of them get squashed. When Townes was trying to get his first
maser to work, his department head was convinced it was a waste of
time. Townes broke the idea to a Nobel laureat who promptly told him
that the maser couldn't work because it violated the rules of
thermodynamics. He later reconsidered.

John

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 18 Oct 2006 07:23:46 -0700, the renowned "MooseFET"
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161093895.152327.297830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

unsettled wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

You left "sex" off the list, unless you include that in one of the
three you listed.

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

/BAH

What's the reward for virgins? 1/72 of some hirsute dude? Hmmm...
could have used that line in HS..



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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh4vue$8ss_007@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <vf7Zg.17257$6S3.12040@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Uh, no...that would be your paranoia acting up again. About the only
thing
you'd be able to buy in a drugstore is isopropyl alcohol, and the same was
true in the 1980s.

Are you saying that it is impossible for me to make these
compounds?

It would be extremely difficult for you to get most of the starting
materials.

Are you saying that the only way these compounds
can be manufactured is by US companies?

No, where did that strawman come from?

Are you saying that
the formulations are trade secrets of only US companies and
that nobody else in the world knows how to make them?

Where did you get "trade secrets" from? We were talking about the
availability of starting materials, and they are most assuredly not, as you
asserted, available in the corner drugstore, or any other consumer outlet.
Most of them are only available from chemical supply houses, and then only
to companies registered with those supply houses to receive chemicals from
them. It is probably not impossible to circumvent that system, but I have
no intention of trying to, so I don't know what it would take.

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? They got on the list because they
can be used to make CWs.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. When they got used,
they were banned from export.

That's more cut-and-dried than it should be, but essentially correct.
Actually, any research chemist will tell you that most chemicals have been
becoming more and more difficult to obtain for some time, and most of this
is to limit or prevent illicit use. For CWs and their precursors, the
culmination was the CWC in the late 90s, which set very strict limits on
materials whose only use beyond research is to make CWs (Schedule 1
compounds), and very close tracking on materials that have other legitimate
industrial uses but can also be used to make CWs (Schedule 2 and 3
compounds.) Beyond this, Schedule 1 - 3 compounds all have export limits.

Yet you are claiming that it is
the US' fault that other people use common chemicals bought from
US companies to kill people. I cannot follow your logic.

I said nothing of the sort. It is well-documented that the US government
supplied Saddam Hussein's regime in the 80s, in order to help them win the
war with Iran, our enemy at the time. I don't know if that extends to CW
starting materials--I suspect it does not, but I don't know that for a fact.
I've never heard of CWs used against Iran, but that doesn't mean it didn't
happen.

What I'm taking the US government to task for is, on the one hand, arming a
despot when he was our friend, without conceiving of the possibility that he
might turn on us and become our enemy. It's just another example of the US
government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong (in this case, the
Iran-Iraq war), and then having that turn around and bite us later on,
ending up in the deaths of significant numbers of US troops and innocent
civilians in other countries.

Eric Lucas

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eh5es8$8b4$6@leto.cc.emory.edu...

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?

OK, so we know God was lazy.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA? Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?

That would suggest to me that all life on earth has a common origin.

Graham

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh51sb$8qk_001@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.


And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?

I don't know. In my pre-9/11 days, I thought that businessmen
would make the world work better. I had a rude awakening and
was forced to examine thousands of assumptions I didn't even
know I had.

From unbelievably naive (I've been in industry for 15 years, and I've never
had the delusion that "businessmen would make the world work better) to
paranoid delusional. Here's a hint. You've only just begun to scratch the
surface on the assumptions you don't even know you have, and even I suspect
you've created some new assumptions that you aren't aware of.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <eh52sr$8qk_002@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <892dnbGwhIzhhajYRVnyvA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.


They were ingredients.

Which need to be made. These compounds do not occur naturally
in the soil.


These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.


Yes, 25 years ago there was less vetting. Now there is more.

So, once somebody used certain chemicals to do mass killings the
US put it on the restricted export list. Yet you seem to blame
the US for all the killings even though other countries also
supplied similar chemicals.

Your point?

You are illogical in your zeal to make the US responsible
for all the ills in the world.



The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?


Well do you mean after Saddam stopped being America's great ally in the
region?

You should sit down and make a diary of events w.r.t. time.

snip another question ignored

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000
/2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.


Matrix Churchill was an example (remember the supergun which was mentioned
previously?) of how the UK/US (allies on the war in Iraq remember, the UK is
the most vocal european supporter of US policies) have a dual standard at
times.

If you think the fact the example was a UK company means the US were guilt
free I suggest you look at:

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not
afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that
the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq
from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by
issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in
June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by
former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida.

Now, why did Regan decide that it was not a good idea for
Iran to acquire Iraq? This has to be answered within the context
of the Cold War. Pay particular attention to what the fUSSR
was achieving in disarming Europe.


and

Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but
so-called dual-use technology- mainframe computers, armored ambulances,
helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well
as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies,
based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up
until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait

Note the "and elsewhere". What percentage of Iraq's imports came
from the "and elsewhere"?


[Both properly referenced on Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war].





Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?


Strawman based on a misconception that the UK dislikes the US.

Good grief. You are hopeles..



Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.


See above.

Ah, so you are goingt to completely ignore the Cold War going
on at the time. This dominated all countries' politics and
seemed to be reaching a crescendo during the early 80s.

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Well in 1988 it was 5.44% of the arms imports (*). Not sure about other
products.

Is that an acceptable percentage?

5% implies that 95% came from elsewhere. Yet your arugments
imply that the US was the primary supplier. This is the illogic
that I was trying to get at.



Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production.


Pure nonsense. Spend less time reading crazy books and try to visit Europe.

I have visited Europe. Did Churchill, Thatcher, and Wilson
write crazy books? Am I supposed to assume that all their
writings were lies?



This is not how business
works in the US. Europeans have this subtle assumption and
don't seem to be able to realize that companies in the US
never first ask if they can manufacture a foo before they
build the plant.

Strawman.

No, it's not a strawman. Until you understand how our
commercial business is run, your assumptions that US
businesses only do what the government allows will be wrong.
European politics is still within a royalty mindset where
nothing is allowed unless the governing body Oks the request.
Things tend to be the reverse in the US. Until a product
is deemed harmful or not desirable, for whatever reason,
there generally isn't any restriction (other than tax
and contract law) to making stuff.

Please note that there is a difference between laws and politics.

European economy has constraints from unions. Ours doesn't
in today's markets.



==
(*) Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
SIPRI makes the following comment of the methodology of this table: "The
SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major
conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such
deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI
uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an
indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the
actual financial values of such transfers."


It is worth mentioning that, based on the SIPRI figures, the total US

arms sales to Iraq throughout the span of the Iran-Iraq war amounted
to a tad more than 1% (yes, 1%) of the total Iraq's arams purchases
throughout this period. Even the 5.44% figure mentioned above, low as
it is, is atypical (probably chosen because its the highest the OP
managed to find). Heck, even Brasil sold more arms to Iraq than the
US did. I've the figures somewhere, posted them in the past and can
repost them.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.

And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better?

I don't know. In my pre-9/11 days, I thought that businessmen
would make the world work better. I had a rude awakening and
was forced to examine thousands of assumptions I didn't even
know I had.

From unbelievably naive (I've been in industry for 15 years, and I've never
had the delusion that "businessmen would make the world work better) to
paranoid delusional. Here's a hint. You've only just begun to scratch the
surface on the assumptions you don't even know you have, and even I suspect
you've created some new assumptions that you aren't aware of.

Who is this BAH clown anyway ?

Graham

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh52s4$8qk_001@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Ow7Zg.17265$6S3.622@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2g2k$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

And therein lies the problem...Bush will not be around to clean up, or
even
take responsibility for, the mess he and his henchmen have created in
Iraq.

This is your thinking blockage. YOu seem to have to be able
to assign blame of anything to one, and only one, human being.

OK, how's "the Bush Administration". Anyway, I guess you only find that a
problem when other people do it--you do it to Clinton all the time.

This has never solved problems, found solutions, and is
usually anti-productive.

I completely disagree. If people are accountable for their actions and
messes, they tend to be more careful of what they do. The Bush
Administration will never be accountable for the mess he's created.

There are people who think like you.

Don't presume to know how I think. It's unbecoming of you. And don't think
you have a monopoly on knowing how to solve problems. I've solved plenty of
industrial problems in my career.

We had them at work. Our approach was to make them a boss of
something and get them out of our way so we could define
the problems and think of solutions.

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been created by
the current administration. At least I've offered a desire to see the
administration do less going out of its way to create problems. That would
be a solution to future problems that they are likely to cause before they
leave office.

If you're going to wax pompous about all your problem-solving expertise,
I'll just say one thing. I tend to like to solve problems proactively, not
wait until they are problems. They're much easier to deal with then. So if
we can prevent the current administration from creating more of these
messes, we'll be better off in the long run. Delusions that arise from the
fear-based rhetoric of your government are causing you to lose your sense of
proportion and preventing you from seeing what the real problem is, let
alone proposing a solution.

[pomp snip]

Now, w.r.t. to the subject of this thread, most of you have
spent all of the writing time trying to blame one person
rather than hold a conversation about defining the problem
and possible solutions.

No, you're so focused on *your* definition of the problem, which is based on
defending the indefensible actions of the administration, that you just
won't or can't accept what we define as the problem, and therefore, you
reject out of hand the solutions that we do present.

You all seem to assume that, when Bush is out of power, the
problem will magically disappear. It will not.

I agree. The crap that this administration started will continue to be a
problem for a very long time. Thus my expression of regret that Bush and
his administration will never have to actually take responsibility for the
crap that they created.

At least the rate of increase of the problem will decrease. Yes, we will
still have to deal with terrorists, but that will be easier when we don't go
out of our way to make the problem worse.

It will get
worse because the Democrat party of the US has a platform
that specifically ignores this threat.

So does Bush. He is ignoring the problem that is growing in Afghanistan,
and he actively made the problem of terrorism worse by invading Iraq. "Stay
the course" is not a strategy; at best, it's a completely meaningless
soundbite; at worst, it's a strategy for continuing to make the problem
worse.

They aren't even
dealing with the likely possibility that oil production
will stop as a tactic of the Islamic extremists. I have
yet to hear any one of them say the words, "nuclear power
plant".

So what? Nuclear power and oil have nothing to do with each other.
Domestic coal and natural gas already provide most of the power needs of the
entire country. Well, OK, some of the NG comes from Canada. Who'd'a thunk
*they* would have us over a figurative barrel? Why the sudden need to "go
nucular", to paraphrase His Dubya-ness? Yes, ultimately (I understand it is
projected to be something like 500 years until the coal supply runs out) we
need to find a replacement for generating electricity, and yes, I personally
believe that nuclear power is a viable alternative. However, there is no
urgency, nor should there be, to go wholesale down that road. We still have
too many issues to iron out, regarding waste disposal, security, etc.--and
those *are* being ironed out, by the right people to do so, the nuclear
industry.

Only Bush is saying those words. Only Bush
is trying to get power companies to start building them.

Only Bush chooses to use those words as a smokescreen to mask the real
problems. Get it through your skull--nuclear power has absolutely nothing
to do with our oil supply.

And, when I say Bush, I mean that one, and only one, human
being is saying those words. Each US state's governor
and congressional (both fed and state) campaigns should be
talking about electric power and fuel independence.

We are, in fact, fuel independent for electric power. The problem is much
broader--the entire petrochemical and transportation industries. I don't
see Bush saying anything useful about them. Actually, that's a good thing,
in that it allows those industries to come up with their own solutions to
the problem. Since they have large teams of scientists and engineers
working on the issues, I have vastly more confidence that they will come up
with a solution than a president who appears incapable of stringing together
an entire grammatically and semantically correct sentence.

So far,
I haven't heard single one address these issues (my data is
sparse since I have not listened to all debates country-wide).

Nor has Bush. It's a difficult technological and political issue, and I'm
kind of glad it isn't being relegated to the level of completely meaningless
soundbites.

This should scare you.

I do worry about the demise of oil, but the answer isn't a pointless
soundbite from a president who doesn't even understand the technical
implications of the issue. I'd rather have what is happening now, which is
the large teams of scientists and engineers in the chemical and
transportation industries trying to develop realistic and workable solutions
to an extremely technically complex problem.

But it is not and I don't understand why
you prefer to not think about these things

I don't understand where you get off presuming to know what I am thinking.
In fact, I do think about these issues. In part, it's my job to.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh5312$8qk_003@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

I don't understand how stuff gets done.

Given your utter obtuseness to issues, it constantly amazes me when you whip
off a one-liner like this, that *perfectly* describes the problem with great
clarity.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2k1e$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

OK, if you must, then "fear of losing power, control and wealth". Witness
the fear-mongering among the Religious Right in the current election
campaign.

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem.

Citation, please. In your zeal to support the current administration,
you're not listening carefully.

The speeches say that Bush is lying
about the existence of this national threat.

That would be your problem--comprehension issues. What every single one
I've seen has said, is that Bush is lying about the *extent* of the threat.
Perhaps in your black-and-white world, you're not able to tell the
difference (I sometimes question whether most Americans are), but there is a
*huge* difference.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53mh$8qk_008@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <3D7Zg.17268$6S3.12906@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iip$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
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.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

Is *that* where Bush got the idea to attack a sovereign nation for no good
reason. That explains a lot.

No. I'm about ready to tell you to fuck off. Having a discussion
is impossible if you keep twisting the words of the discussion to
fulfill your premise.

It's called satire, but I guess you've lost all ability to think objectively
and have a sense of humor about this.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53u8$8qk_009@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
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.

So did Islam.

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.

Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are
martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure
out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes.
Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some
of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that
is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag,
and listen to what those believers are getting told.

Now you're finally starting to catch on. There are far bigger dangers, both
ideological and potential physical threats, within our own borders than
without.

Eric Lucas

 

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kGtZg.15971$e66.10370@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53mh$8qk_008@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <3D7Zg.17268$6S3.12906@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iip$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
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.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

Is *that* where Bush got the idea to attack a sovereign nation for no
good
reason. That explains a lot.

No. I'm about ready to tell you to fuck off. Having a discussion
is impossible if you keep twisting the words of the discussion to
fulfill your premise.


It's called satire, but I guess you've lost all ability to think
objectively and have a sense of humor about this.

Just to follow up my own thought....I have done this a few times now, and
the main reason is to try to break you out of your simplistic mental rut of
"US good, radical Muslims bad" and try to get you to see they hypocrisy of
some of the things you say. What you say about the actions of radical
Islamist terrorists can frequently be applied to the tactics of our own
government. If you refuse to see the parallels, or to get wry intellectual
enjoyment out of them, that's not my problem.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:35:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their
actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to
use guns and soldiers against their own people.

You could blame the US gun culture too.

I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to
arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about
every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those
soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU.

For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example
here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule
either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ).

Graham

The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time
quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in
emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency
workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural
disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a
civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend
warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be
activated by the Federal government in times of national need.

Do you have anything like that?

Nothing comparable at all. I guess our natural disasters aren't usually bad enough
to need that kind of thing.

You do have benign weather. Whenever I visit the grand old rockpiles
of England (or of New England, for that matter) I can't help thinking
about what a good hurricane or earthquake would do.

John

 

"George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote in message
news:dibcj2tfi7bdp7nbh74tr3upfnku9as0de@4ax.com...

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton,
etc,
but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British
soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones.

I can't resist being pedantic,

No, please do. Incorrect "facts" need correcting.

because I think this is a conflation of

Yeah, the fullness of time tends to do that to something I last learned 30
years ago. Funny thing is, I used to be a bit of an afficionado for that
time period when I was a schoolboy.

the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers
fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the
Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as
the shot heard round the world.

Now that you say that, I remember it being taught to me exactly the same
way. Thanks for setting my memory straight.

Eric Lucas