Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BXBZg.17718$6S3.17130@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536D490.247A7341@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
David Bostwick wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was
Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

Mad presumably.

And at least a Christian ("His suicide notes stated that he was
still
angry at God for the death of a premature infant daughter nine years
prior."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts)

Hmmm..... The threat from fundamentalist religions.

I'm not sure if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, but this was most
likely not an example of the threat from a fundamentalist religion. As I
understand it, the Amish aren't particularly Fundamentalist, they are just
deeply religious and very, very dogmatic when it comes to rejecting
technology. In any case, the fellow wasn't even Amish. No, this was
more likely just a guy who went over the edge, partly because of the death
of his daughter, and partly because of some pedophilia issues that were
tormenting him. One of the most touching aspects of the whole incident is
the Amish response. They knew immediately that there was absolutely no
reason to hate him, and almost immediately forgave him--he was quite
clearly a very sick man, who did what he did because of that sickness, not
out of some fundmental character flaw like hatred. Their consistent
longer term response was to invite his widow to the funeral for the little
girls, and to attend his funeral. They had no reason to hate her, either,
and knew that the best way to begin healing and get on with their lives
was to help her heal as well. That shows an amazing degree of maturity of
which not many social groups (including many Christian groups) would be
capable, if you ask me.

Although I am devoutly Atheistic, I am often impressed by some religious
groups. The Amish are among them. (But so are Sufis to balance them out )

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ovu$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <YrGdnWfM1rcLD6vYRVnyiA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh5425$8qk_010@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"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,

Murder is a sin; this is not "not killing anyone".

"Thou shalt not kill"

State sanctioned murder is still murder, otherwise what Saddam Hussein did
to the marsh arabs was not murder.

That is how westerners view his killing (as murder).

Yes. I agree. All Moslems I have met and discussed this with view it as
murder as well. All Hindus do. And Janes. And Atheists. (etc).

In the bible, killing someone is wrong. Trying to redefine it to make
"murder" wrong and then coming up with reasons as to why killing person X is
not murder is (IMHO) wrong.

Unless of course the word of God is so open to interpretation that mere
mortals can have the temerity to explain what he "really" meant.

Christians have been
fairly free with the definition of this though.

Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?

I am not a Christian so I do not see where this is going.

Killing some one is, IMHO, ending their life against their wishes.

It is in everyone's hardware to have a will to survive.

Yes. Killing is wrong. Murder is wrong. But killing people when it is not
murder is still wrong.

Why? Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing?

Yes. I need to eat to keep living. I also try to keep vermin
and other critters from tresspassing in my house. If a human
being is threatening my existenece and I have evidence that
the intention is real, I will kill or expect someone else
(whose job is to protect me and mine) to kill him/her/them.

Yes, and you accept this is a necessary bad thing to keep yourself safe.
Part of the problem is Christianity has historically removed the "life" from
groups that people were allowed to kill. Early followers of Jesus were 100%
pacifists, dying before killing another human. As Christianity evolved
various reasons to kill others were introduced ranging from "killing to
protect myself" to "killing to protect my family," "killing to protect my
property" and even simply killing because the Pope declared the other person
Heretic so it is now ok.

Killing Animals is a good example. The whole "not having a soul" thing all
help to skirt round the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule.

Humans are good at finding loopholes to exploit.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7o8n$8qk_005@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453643F9.131D0BC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin.

So did Islam.

So DOES Islam.

In case you haven't noticed, this has changed. It is not
suicide if you kill others when you kill yourself. Do you
not find something odd about this thinking, considering
what the Koran says?

An example of how people will re-interpret their holy books to suit their
needs. No religion is immune to this. Even Hindus appear to have changed
their religion into a Monotheistic once since they had greater contact with
the west.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7odg$8qk_006@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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.

You are wrong. It is a secondary danger. If Islam wins, the
internal danger won't exist because none of those people
will be alive. Neither will you be alive so the internal
danger is a null job.

False conclusion drawn on an inaccurate assumption. There is no competition
for Islam to "win" in that sense.

If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue largely
as normal.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7mj3$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
<big snip>

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.
snip

How many do you think have died?

What is an acceptable number?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7nfo$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <9YudneJsm-X4vajYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

big snip
You need to look into how statistics of any sort are calculated and
manipulated then read through the report procedures to see if you can find
fault. The key issue is this is a peer reviewed article, it is safe to
assume both right and left wing people have gone over the methodology.

I am not talking about the methodology. I'm talking about using
a poll to avoid dealing with difficult problems. Death certificates
just records the death of somebody. These can be forged or
reproduced.

By people who, earlier on in the thread, you say dont have access to pencils
or school books.

This is heading down the road of paranoia to disprove a figure.

Within the context of Iraq's living styles, did
their public health really issue certificates for every body
buried in mass graves?

How many were buried in mass graves?

Do the certificates verify that x was
killed by the US?

That was _never_ the claim made.

This determination would come a long time
after the certificate is issued, unless there is a request
for an amendment. People are forgetting that a lot of deaths
were self-inflicted but blamed on the US;

This was not what the report claimed. It can be taken to imply that the US
led occupation has increased the death rate, but it is not saying the US
shot them. The causes are things like poor sanitation, accidents, massively
increased IED threat, and of course random shootings by the US.

I'm thinking of the
ammo dumps that were stockpiled by foolish people who set them
off by accident. A lot of these were blamed on the US.

But this has nothing to do with the report. You really need to read it
before you make comments about it in this manner.

Opinion polls may work within a society that is generally
governed by laws.

Iraq was.

Iraq is within a culture were killing for
any perceived insult to religion is acceptable.

Not true.

Do the
death certificates state that death was due to committing
a deed that was deemed a sin punishable by death of another
sect?

Not an issue. You are diverting away from the numbers here. Whatever the
cause of death, the numbers will remain the same. You have said "the numbers
are made up" and then you question the cause of death.

Which argument do you want to use?

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:gemej2l094ii7nl694ggtq53liq3netvta@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:14:15 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

I assume the US is about to invade lots of other countries then.

So what? I can think of a few that need "correction" action taken
on them.

Shh, child. Adults are talking. You go back to your Ghost Recon game.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:5nmej29fhie3p5i6mcp3126q90d03nes5s@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:16:08 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


You really are like a broken record.

You're an idiot.

Over and over again. Nothing to say but you wont stop saying it.

Did you post on sci.physics under the
names SPACEMAN or DennisB by any chance?

You're an idiot, kook.

Oh yeah, you were going to point out the basis for that, weren't you. What
was the kook theory I am in support of? Any of them will do.

One day, when you are mentally mature enough,

Talk about broken records.

Yes, we were. I am glad you could keep up with the conversation that long.

you will have the ability to
form your own opinions.

Are you really stupid enough to think that I cannot?

Based on your posts, you obviously cant. It doesn't matter if I am stupid or
not.

Then you will be able to debate them.

Are you really stupid enough to think that I cannot?

(broken record again)

Based on your posts, you obviously cant. It doesn't matter if I am stupid or
not.

Until that
day, you are an object of ridicule.

Talk about broken records, kook, you take the cake.

Oh look, all three lines of nonsense rolled into one. How many times have I
said you were an object of ridicule? Or is it just something you get called
day in, day out.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:6tmej2de9dsdrjde78h5i25fd0uqfq1oku@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:22:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Britains colonisation of Africa did not "result in slavery."

That's right. You referred to them as "servants".

Learn to read.

The Slave trade was already going on, and had been going on for centuries.

What was the US
stance on slavery though?

The key word is "was".

Ok, so you can use "history" as a get out, but Britain cant? Well done.

Seems to me all men are created equal

Back then, the key word was men, and they distinguished some folks
as not being men. The incorrect has since been corrected. Have you
ever been commanded by a superior ranking officer that was of another
race in the service of your country? The US armed forces are quite
racially diverse, and we purged racism from our ranks decades ago.

I have and our military was racially diverse when I served. As you can see
calling history as an argument works both ways.

as long as
they are White Christians.

You're an idiot.

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.

Yes. Of course.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:qplej2togo8vfd6f05tc51k7ota3hni0gi@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



John Fields wrote:

And you're defending that pig? Shame on you.

I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused.

The number is wrong. It would still be high even if cut in half.

So what is the number then?

How did you conclude the number?

What are your error bars?

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:jrlej2d7jucm71sc7juj3kufmlsk1knork@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:12:41 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were treated.

Yes, it took us over a hundred years to shed the crap mentality we
learned from our european roots.

Yes. So what? When did black people have to attend separate schools in the
UK?

Then, we started the industrial revolution.

Nonsense.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:56:27 +0100, the renowned "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net...
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?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?

Gibberish non-answer.

Maybe it's to test your faith...


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

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45379C79.FAA049BF@earthlink.net...

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
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?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Would you design a bridge with the same basic structure as, say, a pair
of
shoes if you were starting from scratch?


We are talking building blocks. Steel is used in both, as are
synthetic materials for cushioning.


Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?



I would think an infinite god would have introduced a little variety into
his
designs.

He doesn't have to do what you want, he did what he wanted. If the
DNA wasn't similar, where would the proteins you need come from?

He could make them up any way he wanted.

 

[T Wake]

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:quafj2971c06mo4lcqk08anfpr5qj2sgh1@4ax.com...

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:56:27 +0100, the renowned "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net...
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?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?

Gibberish non-answer.

Maybe it's to test your faith...

Maybe.......

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:22:57 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're a bunch of meanies.


Oh there, there. Have a chocolate and don't cry.

Won't !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and
evolution
is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can
produce such variety?

The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their
high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own
right.

It is already astonishing that ACGT can spell out a human and a fruit fly.
The analogy of a programming language may be accurate, and is certainly
attractive, but answers nothing.

But how the heck do individual cells know what to turn into ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

The US armed forces are quite
racially diverse, and we purged racism from our ranks decades ago.

Yeah, *decades* ! Big deal.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were treated.

Yes, it took us over a hundred years to shed the crap mentality we
learned from our european roots.

Yes. So what? When did black people have to attend separate schools in the
UK?

Then, we started the industrial revolution.

Nonsense.

He actually said that !

LMAO !

Graham

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <45379C79.FAA049BF@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
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?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Would you design a bridge with the same basic structure as, say, a pair of
shoes if you were starting from scratch?


We are talking building blocks. Steel is used in both, as are
synthetic materials for cushioning.

Using DNA is much more than using steel. It's the basic blueprint. Kind of
like using a 8086 computer chip in a computer, a refrigerator, and a baseball.

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?



I would think an infinite god would have introduced a little variety into
his
designs.

He doesn't have to do what you want, he did what he wanted. If the
DNA wasn't similar, where would the proteins you need come from?

Are you saying a god couldn't cook up another way? Or DNA that used different
base pairs even?

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XoWdnbu9n5IeO6rYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:6tmej2de9dsdrjde78h5i25fd0uqfq1oku@4ax.com...

The US is the most diverse melting pot of race, religion, creed,
and culture in the world.

Yes. Of course.

Well, OK, will you accept that we're at least the most jingoistic? :^)

Eric Lucas