FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 12 [177 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
Author Message
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <185ypnhxp75kf$.jcndf2fxgq7o.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 06 09:47:26 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

No don't twist the facts honey.

I am not. You are in denial.


You're trying to argue with me the way you seem to have
learnt to argue to begin with: By arguing with
individuals outside your tribal boundaries.

Just because everybody
in the world hates you and your pro-Israeli ass doesn't
mean they want to "annihilate all humankind".

At some point in time Muslims will notice that the people
they are allowing to control them are also killing Muslims
with great relish. I think that this will be noticed after
it's too late. It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.

You might've had a better argument against Islam if you
weren't yourself filled to the teeth with religious
crimes and murders for the past 2500 years.

This is the paltry justification used by Muslims who have
gone berserk for all their murder, suicides and killing
non-combatents. All three of these actions have been deemed
wrong by Islam.

Quote:
You
celebrate the annivarsay of slaughter of 75000 Iranians
every year in your "Purim" ceremonies. Going from being
a pro-Israeli, a sickly raised half-psychotic piece of
a humanoid that you'd be, to being a practicing Moslem
is great progress in you. The point is if you don't
understand it (and you don't of course) then you could
at least practice it.

Now you want me to murder your fellow Muslims?

Quote:
You don't have to really
understand Islam to be a Moslem. Just pay your taxes
and curb your detrimental habits of under-belly and
alcohol and refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked and already you're a much
better individual. Go Islam.

So I have to "refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked" but you don't have to
refrain. This sounds like you are more special and allowed
to do viscious acts against other humans who have a lower
social status than you.

In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago. Since you are
blaming Jewish ancestors for all your troubles that require
retribution, then you must be damning the pieces of of the
Koran that honor Abraham.

In case you haven't noticed, this attitude is rewriting the Koran.

/BAH
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed. For every muslim cleric who condemned 9-11 and
Beslan, there was one who endorsed and/or gave sanction to them.
The only way in which islam can be a peaceful religion is if you
open the koran saying at the beginning, "islam is a peaceful religion",
and twist anything it says to fit that. but if you simply read the
words on the page, it endorses all the evils we have seen.
Back to top
Gordon
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On 11 Jul 2006 14:30:16 -0700, "bill"
<ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Quote:

An anecdote from the farm.
My mother raises sheep for reasons known only to her. for a time,
we had a sheepdog, not the kind that chases the sheep, but the kind
that lives with them and fights off the wolves.
This dog could stand and bark all day long and the sheep would
ignore him. But on many occasions, I observed the dog give a different
bark, in response to which, all the sheep stopped eating and ran home.

There was a monkey a while back that was taught sign language. a
few dozen words, like crap, food, jump, like that. at some point in
his training, his trainer refused to give him food, to which the monkey
responded by calling him a s**t-head. without any introduction of
insults.
We are no different to the animals, we are just the next very
small step.

Bill, I grew up on a farm/ranch and can reinforce what you are

saying. Even as a child I was amazed at the level of vocal
communications between the farm animals, both domestic and wild.

A hen with a clutch of newly hatched chicks will walk around the
farmyard, clucking softly while the chicks rome out a few yards
from the hen and go about their business of hunting for something
to eat. If the hen spots something she thinks the chicks would
like she makes a different clucking sound and instantly all the
chicks respond by running to the area immediately in front of the
hen. Whom ever gets there the firstest gets the mostest, or
something like that.

If the hen spots a hawk in the air she will make a trilling sound
and the chicks will instantly respond by hiding themselves under
any available cover. Then, after the hawk has left the area the
hen will make another clucking sound and instantly all the chicks
will come out of hiding and take up where they left off.

All this is a form of language. Very primitive, but none the
less, language.

Gordon
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <e92kro$8qk_001@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Quote:
In article <ahQsg.13$45.1124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e901i0$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.

I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.

Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.

Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.

The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.

Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.

Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.

Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.

Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.

Well, the indirect addressing is valuable, as it affords nearly full
authority, yet escapes full responsibility.

Sure. I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't important; but
that's for the marketing people. I'm trying to figure what
people do to keep things working.

But, I agree, that's a technicality.

It's something that has to be included in the design spec but
will be useless unless the cold start has been thrashed out.
I'm still trying to define cold start essentially.

Not sure you can define a clear cold start here. We're talking about
systems that evolved over long time.
Quote:

It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.

Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.

Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.

Yes, very true.

Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.

Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)

yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again Wink.

As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.

It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.

I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.

Sure.

I'm still having problems with this one. It doesn't explain
third world people who do have to know all about politics in
order to survive. Also between the Revolutionary War
and the Consitutional Convention, the colonies did intensive
tests of different political systems and governing systems.
So everybody had to be very intelligent w.r.t. to this
stuff [I can't think of the word I want].

Not necessarily everybody, but certainly enough people.

Quote:
The above observation also contradicts the general assumption that
an "educated" populace is needed for a democracy.

That depends on ...

Quote:
This one has led me down a path of trying to define educated now.

Ahh, you're getting there now.

If you look at the list of the Framers of the Constitution, you find
quite a few who had no more than high school education. Granted, most
had some college, but rarely above a BA level. Yet, in their writings
you see clarity of mind and comprehension of reality which you'll
rarely find among best educated academics of today.

Quote:
It cannot have the meaning the ivy-stuffed heads say it is.

Indeed. Their meaning is along the "mutual adoration society" lines.

Quote:
I ran across a person who had a major in science but dismissed coal
miners as unskilled workers. Where did this kind of attitude start?
And is it new?

It is new, and it isn't. Disdain towards people with dirt under their
fingernails goes all the way back to antiquity (and goes a long way
towards explaining the tendency of Greek scientists to prefer
theoretical discourse over experiments). What is new, dating to more
or less the second half of the 19th century, is the emergence of the
"intelligentsia" as a social class, with pretensions of superiority.
reading through various books of the period you see as recurring theme
the pretensions of the intelligentsia to be the modern day
aristocracy. However, although all the pretensiousness of aristocracy
was there, the other attributes of aristocracy, namely wealth and
power, didn't quite materialize. In order to compensate, the
intelligentsia developed an intense disdain towards anything practical
as being lowely and undignified.

All this is a gross overgeneralization, of course, with cheap amateur
psychology to boot. Take if for what it is worth.
Quote:


You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.

Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.

Of course. But being told is not enough, they need to actually want
to do what they're told.

Of course. You don't want a design decision that will lose
sales by making the piece of gear emulate a boat anchor in Kansas.

In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.

Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.

What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.

The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.

Yep.

And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.

Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.

It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.

This "absence of the hardware" you're talking about is not necessarily
all bad thing.

Oh, no. I'm not assuming it is. Since it exists, there must
have been an advantage of survival.

Exactly.


Quote:
A stable human society is made of a stew of followers,
spiced with a dash of leaders. With too many bright, independent
minded and critical individuals societies lose stability.

These are the anarchists; I seem to be tripping over this
attitude, right and left, over the past year.

Aha. Now, imagine what would happen if those would constitute, say,
10% of the society.
Quote:

Consider ancient Greece.

I have no information to do this. I'll have to watch out
for a book on this one. Didn't Greece have a common culture
rather than a common politics that unified it such that we,
wearing hindsight glasses, can clump it as a civilization?

Oh, it sure had a common culture and it sure qualifies as a
civilization. However, as society and political entity they were
hopelessly fragmented, thus they expendended most of their energies on
internal fighting, failing to become the great power they could've be
otherwise. Instead, it fell to Rome, who had far fewer creative
geniuses but a much more appropriate ratio of sheep to shepherds, to
claim the high position.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.

The difference in today's conflict is that the old method
of interpreting the Koran and shariah have changed to favor
visciousness over sense to fulfill the goal of removing
all of western civilization's production; in addition,
there is the means to make a big global mess rather than
a local mess.

/BAH


<snip>

/BAH
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:46 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <9ydtg.23$45.1420@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Quote:
In article <e92kro$8qk_001@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <ahQsg.13$45.1124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e901i0$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.

I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.

Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.

Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.

The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.

Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.

Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.

Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.

Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.

Well, the indirect addressing is valuable, as it affords nearly full
authority, yet escapes full responsibility.

Sure. I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't important; but
that's for the marketing people. I'm trying to figure what
people do to keep things working.

But, I agree, that's a technicality.

It's something that has to be included in the design spec but
will be useless unless the cold start has been thrashed out.
I'm still trying to define cold start essentially.

Not sure you can define a clear cold start here.

I'm not either Smile. It's my way of trying to identify key
elements.

Quote:
We're talking about systems that evolved over long time.


Sure they evolved over a long time but disinegrated within
50 years. (I'm think specifically of the Roman Empire now.)
The thing to use as a measuring stick is trade. When
trade disintegrates from empire-wide to only locally with
neighbors, it is the end of that political, economic, and
cultural era. I'm trying to figure out how to define
a cold start; IOW, what is the list of requirements needed
to begin the next evolution of cooperative trade? Booty
is non-productive for the long-term. It's a nice carrot
but is only concerned with used stuff. It doesn't nothing,
and seems to be counterproductive, to prosperous economy.

[emoticon rereads text] I'm not sure I'm explaining this well.
I've not spent enough time thinking about it; it requires a lot
more careful thought.
Quote:

It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.

Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.

Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.

Yes, very true.

Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.

Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)

yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again Wink.

As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.

It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.

I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.

Sure.

I'm still having problems with this one. It doesn't explain
third world people who do have to know all about politics in
order to survive. Also between the Revolutionary War
and the Consitutional Convention, the colonies did intensive
tests of different political systems and governing systems.
So everybody had to be very intelligent w.r.t. to this
stuff [I can't think of the word I want].

Not necessarily everybody, but certainly enough people.

More than 5%. Would it be as high 75%? I would think anybody
who had property would have a say, especially the women who
were running the farms.
Quote:

The above observation also contradicts the general assumption that
an "educated" populace is needed for a democracy.

That depends on ...

This one has led me down a path of trying to define educated now.

Ahh, you're getting there now.

If you look at the list of the Framers of the Constitution, you find
quite a few who had no more than high school education. Granted, most
had some college, but rarely above a BA level. Yet, in their writings
you see clarity of mind and comprehension of reality which you'll
rarely find among best educated academics of today.

I had assumed that most of their training was done at home doing
real work. I haven't found out how they learned about European
histories and stuff. For some strange reason, I keep assuming
that books were very rare and not available to non-monied people.
I don't know where I keep getting this from.
Quote:

It cannot have the meaning the ivy-stuffed heads say it is.

Indeed. Their meaning is along the "mutual adoration society" lines.

ah, thank you. A much better description.
Quote:

I ran across a person who had a major in science but dismissed coal
miners as unskilled workers. Where did this kind of attitude start?
And is it new?

It is new, and it isn't. Disdain towards people with dirt under their
fingernails goes all the way back to antiquity (and goes a long way
towards explaining the tendency of Greek scientists to prefer
theoretical discourse over experiments). What is new, dating to more
or less the second half of the 19th century, is the emergence of the
"intelligentsia" as a social class, with pretensions of superiority.
reading through various books of the period you see as recurring theme
the pretensions of the intelligentsia to be the modern day
aristocracy.

Yes. I have one of those. It was written by a Polish woman
who told about one of the German invasions around the turn
of the century. From her POV, her servants couldn't cope without
her guidance, but this made no sense. There was other strange
attitudes. There was almost a hatred of grocers who did manage
to get food for resale in the citified areas. There was no
appreciation for the grocers' accomplishments despite the laws
that made the actions fatal if caught.

Quote:
However, although all the pretensiousness of aristocracy
was there, the other attributes of aristocracy, namely wealth and
power, didn't quite materialize. In order to compensate, the
intelligentsia developed an intense disdain towards anything practical
as being lowely and undignified.

All this is a gross overgeneralization,

Yes, I understand.

Quote:
of course, with cheap amateur
psychology to boot. Take if for what it is worth.

It may be cheap psych but I am finding a strong correlation
with this kind of thought process and a 100% divorce from
reality. Take our crop of Democrats...One of them stood in
the middle of rubble of tunnel that fell apart, and declared
out loud, "The tunnels are safe." Hello?[ emoticon knocking
on wooden head] Where did you say you dropped your brains
off for dry cleaning? I am encountering instances of abject
stupidity almost weekly now. The rate has increased.

Quote:


You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.

Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.

Of course. But being told is not enough, they need to actually want
to do what they're told.

Of course. You don't want a design decision that will lose
sales by making the piece of gear emulate a boat anchor in Kansas.

In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.

Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.

What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.

The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.

Yep.

And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.

Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.

It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.

This "absence of the hardware" you're talking about is not necessarily
all bad thing.

Oh, no. I'm not assuming it is. Since it exists, there must
have been an advantage of survival.

Exactly.

A stable human society is made of a stew of followers,
spiced with a dash of leaders. With too many bright, independent
minded and critical individuals societies lose stability.

These are the anarchists; I seem to be tripping over this
attitude, right and left, over the past year.

Aha. Now, imagine what would happen if those would constitute, say,
10% of the society.

I don't have to imagine; I think I'm seeing 50% of society on
the east coast.
Quote:

Consider ancient Greece.

I have no information to do this. I'll have to watch out
for a book on this one. Didn't Greece have a common culture
rather than a common politics that unified it such that we,
wearing hindsight glasses, can clump it as a civilization?

Oh, it sure had a common culture and it sure qualifies as a
civilization. However, as society and political entity they were
hopelessly fragmented, thus they expendended most of their energies on
internal fighting, failing to become the great power they could've be
otherwise.

Right. The US avoided this by writing the Constitution and
getting everybody to agree to work within those rules.


Quote:
Instead, it fell to Rome, who had far fewer creative
geniuses but a much more appropriate ratio of sheep to shepherds, to
claim the high position.


hmmm...This one requires thought. Remember the sheep and dog
story somebody just told? I think your sentence needs to
also list the dog. Above a certain population an enforcer
is required. I hadn't thought about head count before now.

/BAH
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:54 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1152791554.445219.221350@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.

Sharia law is the softened interpretation of the koran.

No, it's more than that. It is the details. In the business
world, the equivalent of the Koran is the business plan; the
Shariah is the equivalent of all the design, functional, and
architectural specs written over time. Design decisions made
two decades earlier are not easily reversed but have to be
accomodated in the new design spec.

Quote:
basically
it's the koran after liberals have been at it for a millenium.

No. Have done any studying? The problem is that nobody
has been at it for the last four centuries (perhaps a few more).
That's why we are having all these problems. The religion is
going to evolve to reflect current times and the imams are
willing to kill everybody to not allow natural change.
Watch Mogadishu. It is the current place where leaders are
trying to impose the "good ol' days" which never existed.

/BAH
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:52 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.

Sharia law is the softened interpretation of the koran. basically
it's the koran after liberals have been at it for a millenium.
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <e95899$8qk_001@s778.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Quote:
In article <9ydtg.23$45.1420@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e92kro$8qk_001@s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <ahQsg.13$45.1124@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e901i0$8qk_001@s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <THxsg.6$45.657@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e8t5j5$8qk_001@s767.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <rDcsg.1$45.69@news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
In article <e8qpgk$8qk_001@s878.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <44ae9318$1@news101.his.com>,
FearlessFerret <ff@repliestonewsgrouponly.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

It is apparently heretical in this religion
to identify bullshit for what it is.

I think you will find this is a necessary component of any
religion. At least, any that include the concept of heresy.

Usually in the beginnings. After the religion has evolved
there comes a time when it learns how to exist with other
religions in the Western world. In the ancient world
there didn't seem to be much dispute about whose god was
bigger.

Well, the source of trouble is momotheism. Polytheistic religions
are, by nature, far more relaxed.

The religions that are giving the world the most
problems are based on the political leader also being the
religious head, thus the god.

Oh, in many ancient systems the political leader was also a god.
Note, though, "a god", not "the god". "The god" is a monotheistic
concept.

Right. I'm grateful for the correction. It should have been
written as "a god". I've been reading about North Korea and
it's politics and economies, etc.; I think the books were
dumped by a poli. sci. grad. Their political head had
established a religion. I think I've read that Khaddaffi(sp?)
has also established his own brand. And I think Nassar did a
similar thing. Of course, all the various popes did it.

Well, to be exact, they established themselves as God's emissarries,
but this is not a significant difference, in the present context. And
the kings ruled "in God's grace", of course.

Yes. I'm trying to think in practical terms as in how stuff
really gets done rather than the indirect addressing of
responsibility...and credit.

Well, the indirect addressing is valuable, as it affords nearly full
authority, yet escapes full responsibility.

Sure. I didn't intend to imply that it wasn't important; but
that's for the marketing people. I'm trying to figure what
people do to keep things working.

But, I agree, that's a technicality.

It's something that has to be included in the design spec but
will be useless unless the cold start has been thrashed out.
I'm still trying to define cold start essentially.

Not sure you can define a clear cold start here.

I'm not either Smile. It's my way of trying to identify key
elements.

We're talking about systems that evolved over long time.


Sure they evolved over a long time but disinegrated within
50 years. (I'm think specifically of the Roman Empire now.)
The thing to use as a measuring stick is trade. When
trade disintegrates from empire-wide to only locally with
neighbors, it is the end of that political, economic, and
cultural era. I'm trying to figure out how to define
a cold start; IOW, what is the list of requirements needed
to begin the next evolution of cooperative trade? Booty
is non-productive for the long-term. It's a nice carrot
but is only concerned with used stuff. It doesn't nothing,
and seems to be counterproductive, to prosperous economy.

Again, hard to say because there doesn't appear to be a clearly
defined cold start. And, that's going of on a tangent to the previous
issue.
Quote:

[emoticon rereads text] I'm not sure I'm explaining this well.
I've not spent enough time thinking about it; it requires a lot
more careful thought.

It's an odd (to me) thing. I still don't know how to run a governement
but this seems to be a common tactic.

Aha. And as you may recall (we've been over this in the past), when
you see a trend which is recurring in space (i.e. in various,
disconnected locations and cultures) and time (various historical
periods) then, no matter how odd it may appear, it has its reasons.

Yes. I've figured that the reason a representative democracy
works is because the "godhead" is replaced every two/four/six
years. That keeps the dirt, we call corruption, from becoming
ingrained into the tiles to the point where it can never be
clean without complete replacement. Political systems are
really like a kitchen floor.

Yes, very true.

Right now I've made the assumption that 95% of people are incapable of
analytical thinking w.r.t. politics matching reality; I won't go into
details but you'll understand what I intend to say.

Of course, though the 95% figure may be an underestimate:-)

yea, yea....Virgins, fairies and inside straights...again Wink.

As a result, the head of government has to use this tactic to herd the
populace towards overall goals. I don't like this one.

It is not a question of what's likeable but of what works.

I know. One of the reasons I don't like it is because this
only works if the general public is unaware of its existence.
This makes things peculiarly ironic.

Sure.

I'm still having problems with this one. It doesn't explain
third world people who do have to know all about politics in
order to survive. Also between the Revolutionary War
and the Consitutional Convention, the colonies did intensive
tests of different political systems and governing systems.
So everybody had to be very intelligent w.r.t. to this
stuff [I can't think of the word I want].

Not necessarily everybody, but certainly enough people.

More than 5%. Would it be as high 75%? I would think anybody
who had property would have a say, especially the women who
were running the farms.

I would say that yes, that was pretty much the demarcation line,
possession of property. And in economy like, say, New England's of
the 18th century, with little room for laborers and hired hands, we
may be talking about 50% of the population at least.

Quote:

The above observation also contradicts the general assumption that
an "educated" populace is needed for a democracy.

That depends on ...

This one has led me down a path of trying to define educated now.

Ahh, you're getting there now.

If you look at the list of the Framers of the Constitution, you find
quite a few who had no more than high school education. Granted, most
had some college, but rarely above a BA level. Yet, in their writings
you see clarity of mind and comprehension of reality which you'll
rarely find among best educated academics of today.

I had assumed that most of their training was done at home doing
real work.

That was big part, for sure.

Quote:
I haven't found out how they learned about European histories and
stuff.

Books, books, books.

Quote:
For some strange reason, I keep assuming
that books were very rare and not available to non-monied people.
I don't know where I keep getting this from.

You're confusing time frames, I think. Books ware rare and expensive

in the middle ages, when they very being copied by hand. But the time
frame you're talking about is more than 3 centuries after the
invention of the printing press. At this point prices were low enough
for common people being able to afford them. Heck, they already had
newspapers at that time, that tells you a lot about the cost of print.

Quote:
It cannot have the meaning the ivy-stuffed heads say it is.

Indeed. Their meaning is along the "mutual adoration society" lines.

ah, thank you. A much better description.

I ran across a person who had a major in science but dismissed coal
miners as unskilled workers. Where did this kind of attitude start?
And is it new?

It is new, and it isn't. Disdain towards people with dirt under their
fingernails goes all the way back to antiquity (and goes a long way
towards explaining the tendency of Greek scientists to prefer
theoretical discourse over experiments). What is new, dating to more
or less the second half of the 19th century, is the emergence of the
"intelligentsia" as a social class, with pretensions of superiority.
reading through various books of the period you see as recurring theme
the pretensions of the intelligentsia to be the modern day
aristocracy.

Yes. I have one of those. It was written by a Polish woman
who told about one of the German invasions around the turn
of the century. From her POV, her servants couldn't cope without
her guidance, but this made no sense.

Makes perfect sense, that's the intelligentsia's justification for
their claim to supremacy, "these commoners, they're like children,
without us they'll be lost". Sounds familiar?

There was other strange
Quote:
attitudes. There was almost a hatred of grocers who did manage
to get food for resale in the citified areas. There was no
appreciation for the grocers' accomplishments despite the laws
that made the actions fatal if caught.

Yes, for a member of the intelligentsia seeing "uncultured people"
succeed where the "refined" ones fail was a mortal insult.
Quote:

However, although all the pretensiousness of aristocracy
was there, the other attributes of aristocracy, namely wealth and
power, didn't quite materialize. In order to compensate, the
intelligentsia developed an intense disdain towards anything practical
as being lowely and undignified.

All this is a gross overgeneralization,

Yes, I understand.

of course, with cheap amateur
psychology to boot. Take if for what it is worth.

It may be cheap psych but I am finding a strong correlation
with this kind of thought process and a 100% divorce from
reality. Take our crop of Democrats...One of them stood in
the middle of rubble of tunnel that fell apart, and declared
out loud, "The tunnels are safe." Hello?[ emoticon knocking
on wooden head] Where did you say you dropped your brains
off for dry cleaning? I am encountering instances of abject
stupidity almost weekly now. The rate has increased.

Maybe. The question that comes to mind is formulated in one of Greg's
sigs, "are the idiots getting dumber or only lauder?"
Quote:



You mentioned above the issue of "how to run a government". Well, any
government, of course, has to have physical power at its disposal.
That's a necessary requirement, but it is not sufficient. Physical
power, shall we say, the power of coertion is inherently a negative
power. It may suffice to stop people from going in directions the
government disaproves of, but it is not sufficient for moving them in
the direction the government would like to pursue.

Right. It not unlike a business; you have figure out how
keep all the employees headed in the same direction. A few
can read the business plan and work using those contraints.
Most have to be told in detail daily.

Of course. But being told is not enough, they need to actually want
to do what they're told.

Of course. You don't want a design decision that will lose
sales by making the piece of gear emulate a boat anchor in Kansas.

In short, physical
power is a brake, not an engine.

Yep. That's when even the most cooperative becomes an ass.

What can serve as an engine is a
deep belief, on part of the majority (preferably "overwhelming
majority") of the population that the government does in fact know what
it is doing and which is the right direction to proceed. Now, this is
more than what people in general are willing to assume about fellow human
beings. But if said human being is believed to be a god, or to have a
direct line to god, then yes, people will be willing to follow them.

The absence of the hardware in the 95% has this as their only
return from that subroutine call.

Yep.

And, as a side benefit, belief in the divinite (or divine connection,
at least) of the ruler tends to enhance said ruler's longevity.

Nope. That happens only if the deviants of the religion are
taken of early. This is where I'm stuck because a CATCH-22 exists.

It is the absence of hardware of the 95% that allows deviants
to achieve control and power; Stalin, Hitler are examples of
individuals. The odd thing that is happening now is that
there isn't an individual who deviant but organized
religions where visciousness is a duty that has to be done
before entry to heaven or everlasting life or whatever.

This "absence of the hardware" you're talking about is not necessarily
all bad thing.

Oh, no. I'm not assuming it is. Since it exists, there must
have been an advantage of survival.

Exactly.

A stable human society is made of a stew of followers,
spiced with a dash of leaders. With too many bright, independent
minded and critical individuals societies lose stability.

These are the anarchists; I seem to be tripping over this
attitude, right and left, over the past year.

Aha. Now, imagine what would happen if those would constitute, say,
10% of the society.

I don't have to imagine; I think I'm seeing 50% of society on
the east coast.

Consider ancient Greece.

I have no information to do this. I'll have to watch out
for a book on this one. Didn't Greece have a common culture
rather than a common politics that unified it such that we,
wearing hindsight glasses, can clump it as a civilization?

Oh, it sure had a common culture and it sure qualifies as a
civilization. However, as society and political entity they were
hopelessly fragmented, thus they expendended most of their energies on
internal fighting, failing to become the great power they could've be
otherwise.

Right. The US avoided this by writing the Constitution and
getting everybody to agree to work within those rules.

Nice, but insufficient. Look how many other countries wrote
constitutions, since then, with no much effect. Heck, look how many
countries are on their third or fourth constitution. It is not a god
given law that whoever agreed to some rules today, will still agree
tomorrow. And given a sufficiently quarrelsome population, the above
is unlikely to happen.

Quote:

Instead, it fell to Rome, who had far fewer creative
geniuses but a much more appropriate ratio of sheep to shepherds, to
claim the high position.


hmmm...This one requires thought. Remember the sheep and dog
story somebody just told? I think your sentence needs to
also list the dog. Above a certain population an enforcer
is required.

Of course. That's not a problem.

I hadn't thought about head count before now.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
Math Freak
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Wed, 12 Jul 06 11:15:06 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

Quote:
You don't have to really
understand Islam to be a Moslem. Just pay your taxes
and curb your detrimental habits of under-belly and
alcohol and refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked and already you're a much
better individual. Go Islam.

So I have to "refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked" but you don't have to
refrain. This sounds like you are more special and allowed
to do viscious acts against other humans who have a lower
social status than you.


Iranians doing "viscious acts" against other humans?
And look who's talking.

Quote:
In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago.

Oh yes it did, it was called tribalism. Plus, a rapist
may also have a religion but who cares. He's a rapist
first. You're a pro-Israeli first. I mentioned Purim to
show how backward, thugs at best, those people have
been and for how long at that.

Quote:
Since you are
blaming Jewish ancestors for all your troubles

I don't have any troubles. You have, it seems. Go
around the world and ask who's the trouble-maker and
who's in trouble, Iran or USA; Iranians or the
Americans.

--

"doshmane dAnA bolandat mikonad
bar zaminat mizanad nAdAn dust"
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1pfcu7ktitv4p$.1594eeul9a0m6$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 06 09:26:18 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.


Pretending to be ignorant is an old scheme.

This tells me that I am correct and that you cannot
face the reality that Islam is getting corrupted.

Quote:

A practicing Moslem looks down on you very naturally,
hence all your confusion Smile

That attitude is what will cause the religion to self-destruct.

/BAH
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <2qcxafary35t.1cswokoxh6vr2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 06 11:15:06 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

You don't have to really
understand Islam to be a Moslem. Just pay your taxes
and curb your detrimental habits of under-belly and
alcohol and refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked and already you're a much
better individual. Go Islam.

So I have to "refrain from wishing others half-way across
the world killed and/or nuked" but you don't have to
refrain. This sounds like you are more special and allowed
to do viscious acts against other humans who have a lower
social status than you.


Iranians doing "viscious acts" against other humans?

Yes. The intention has been announced.

Quote:
And look who's talking.

In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago.

Oh yes it did, it was called tribalism. Plus, a rapist
may also have a religion but who cares. He's a rapist
first. You're a pro-Israeli first. I mentioned Purim to
show how backward, thugs at best, those people have
been and for how long at that.

Ah, you have to blame some random people who lived
thousands of years ago for your shortcoming. That
will not fix anything.
Quote:

Since you are
blaming Jewish ancestors for all your troubles

I don't have any troubles. You have, it seems. Go
around the world and ask who's the trouble-maker and
who's in trouble, Iran or USA; Iranians or the
Americans.

So now you depend on a popular vote to determine what is
morally right or wrong? I thought you were supposed to
use the Koran?

/BAH
Back to top
Math Freak
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:14 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:08:30 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

Quote:
In article <1pfcu7ktitv4p$.1594eeul9a0m6$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 06 09:26:18 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.


Pretending to be ignorant is an old scheme.

This tells me that I am correct and that you cannot
face the reality that Islam is getting corrupted.


Corruption is a shallow thing not too deep inside
heads, it is not a part of Islam. Islam is the bottom
of it all. Straight from gene level (well, what's left
of it after it passes through brain compartments all
the way up to conscious mind). You can use Islam the
way you want. But there are concessions to be made. The
ones that are hard for someone like you Smile You know,
the below-belly matters and that bottle thing in your
life. And money! Plus you ought to wrap yourself up if
you don't want me or others in turn unzip their deals
in front of your staring eyes; and you must shut your
mouth up when you have nothing to say Smile Hahahah :)


Quote:

A practicing Moslem looks down on you very naturally,
hence all your confusion :)

That attitude is what will cause the religion to self-destruct.


It does not come from religion. It comes from mature
humans who among other things also enjoy a more
advanced religion.


--

"sharmemAn bAd ze pashmineye Aludeye khish
gar bedin fazlo honar nAme karAmAt barim

fetne mibArad azin saghfe mogharnas barkhiz
tA be meykhAne panAh az hame AfAt barim

ghadre vaght ar nashenAsad delo kAri nakonad
bass khejAlat ke azin hAsele owghAt barim

dar biyAbAne fanA gomshodan Akhar tA key?
rah beporsim magar pey be mohemmAt barim"

- Hafez
Back to top
Math Freak
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:34 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:13:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

Quote:

Iranians doing "viscious acts" against other humans?

Yes. The intention has been announced.



Giving a rapist a good lesson is hardly viscious.


Quote:
And look who's talking.

In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago.

Oh yes it did, it was called tribalism. Plus, a rapist
may also have a religion but who cares. He's a rapist
first. You're a pro-Israeli first. I mentioned Purim to
show how backward, thugs at best, those people have
been and for how long at that.

Ah, you have to blame some random people who lived
thousands of years ago for your shortcoming. That
will not fix anything.

Your pro-Israeliness is not fixable honey, and your
pro-Israeliness was the subject, not my "shortcomings".
Life offered thousands of ways to a specimen like you
to prevent yourself from becoming one and ... . Grow
up.


--

"dar tarighe eshghbAzi amno AsAyesh balAst
rish bAd Andel ke bA darde to khAhad marhami

geryeye hAfez che sanjad pishe esteghnAye eshgh?
kandarin daryA namAyad haft daryA shabnami"

- Hafez
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:46 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <6qgzl041mrrt.17ipig70yv5ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:13:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:


Iranians doing "viscious acts" against other humans?

Yes. The intention has been announced.



Giving a rapist a good lesson is hardly viscious.

You are still following your usual posting pattern. By the
third post, you start to try to intimidate me with sexual
abuse. You still have not learned that this doesn't work.
Quote:


And look who's talking.

In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago.

Oh yes it did, it was called tribalism. Plus, a rapist
may also have a religion but who cares. He's a rapist
first. You're a pro-Israeli first. I mentioned Purim to
show how backward, thugs at best, those people have
been and for how long at that.

Ah, you have to blame some random people who lived
thousands of years ago for your shortcoming. That
will not fix anything.

Your pro-Israeliness is not fixable honey, and your
pro-Israeliness was the subject,

No, it wasn't. It is you who keeps bringing this one
up.

Quote:
not my "shortcomings".
Life offered thousands of ways to a specimen like you
to prevent yourself from becoming one and ... . Grow
up.

I am grown up. You and your ilk keep telling me
that you intend to murder me and mine and destroy our
way of living. Any talk or action to defend myself is
belitteled as being immature and, for some bizarre reason,
pro-Israeli. Your thinking is illogical and has absolutely
no basis in reality.

/BAH
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 12 [177 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:12 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts The ultimate 3ality Relativity 0 Wed May 21, 2008 10:53 am
No new posts The ultimate 3ality Relativity 0 Wed May 21, 2008 10:52 am
No new posts www.laloorabri.com "ULTIMATE DATING SITE" laloorabri1@gmail.com Math 0 Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:44 am
No new posts Nanotechnology Sensitization Program nstcchat@yahoo.com Electrochem 0 Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:52 am
No new posts Nanotechnology Sensitization Program nstcchat@yahoo.com Analytical 0 Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:52 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0579s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0045s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]