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 11 of 12 [177 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
Author Message
Math Freak
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Sat, 15 Jul 06 09:46:45 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

Quote:
In article <6qgzl041mrrt.17ipig70yv5ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
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.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.


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.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.


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.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.


--

"behar kojA ke ravi AsemAn hamin rang ast."
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <Scvtg.29$45.1693@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Quote:
In article <e95899$8qk_001@s778.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
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.

This is my usual style of trying to take a complex system apart
for the purpose of identifying the key components in order
to get something to work a little bit.

As for the tangent, I do get sidetracked easily these days.
<snip>

Quote:
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.

IIRC, one of the ways of training new people was through
the indentured servant process. Ben Franklin was indentured
to a printer and learned that trade. People bought their
way to America via years of promised labor. So these people
would also be talking and working when these conversations were
occuring. I also think another aspect of this is that promigenture
was eliminated. Everybody had to had to work to get their own.
Being aware of how the politics were straying was important to
making it possible to acquire property and making it possible
to keep it no matter who was ruling.



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.

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

Books, books, books.

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.

I haven't overlooked newspapers nor the fact that printing was
a common business. I think I was leaping from the bit of knowledge
that Ben Franklin started the notion of public libraries. Before
then libraries were private. Hence, if they were private, only
the owners had access to those books. Other than the Bible,
I assumed that people who have not yet acquired property would
not have an extensive library available to them.


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".

I beleive that is a direct quote. :-)

Quote:
Sounds familiar?

In Massachusetts and female? Are you kidding?!
Quote:

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.

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

I'm currently having a fight right now where somebody is insisting
that I could afford to waste money that I didn't have. This
is that cognitive dissonance again..isn't it?

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?"

Neither. It has become mandatory to be stupid. There have been
laws passed to make sure our brightest are either drugged or
hog-tied as kids. It is considered to be admirable to break laws
that deal with cooperation.

<snip>

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.

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.

The states weren't agreeable at all. There were border fights.
The territories were always fighting until enough coalesced into
deciding they needed to cooperate enough to be a state and member
of the union. Then the Civil War had to happen to settle the
transitions into the industrial revolution. There are still
states fighting over border definitions. The difference is
that they hire lawyers instead of soldiers and use weapons of
words rather than bullets.

I think the reaons the US' worked is because everybody who
did come to the US had a high intolerance level of being
told what to do with themselves. We're still allergic
to that.
<snip> sorry. this is getting too big.

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


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <e9d8ta$8qk_001@s850.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Quote:
In article <Scvtg.29$45.1693@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e95899$8qk_001@s778.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
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.

This is my usual style of trying to take a complex system apart
for the purpose of identifying the key components in order
to get something to work a little bit.

As for the tangent, I do get sidetracked easily these days.
snip

So do I, only this topic is growing too big already.

Quote:

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.

IIRC, one of the ways of training new people was through
the indentured servant process. Ben Franklin was indentured
to a printer and learned that trade. People bought their
way to America via years of promised labor. So these people
would also be talking and working when these conversations were
occuring. I also think another aspect of this is that promigenture
was eliminated. Everybody had to had to work to get their own.
Being aware of how the politics were straying was important to
making it possible to acquire property and making it possible
to keep it no matter who was ruling.

Of course. Being property owner meant being free. And, to large
extent, this is still true today.
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.

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

Books, books, books.

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.

I haven't overlooked newspapers nor the fact that printing was
a common business. I think I was leaping from the bit of knowledge
that Ben Franklin started the notion of public libraries. Before
then libraries were private. Hence, if they were private, only
the owners had access to those books. Other than the Bible,
I assumed that people who have not yet acquired property would
not have an extensive library available to them.

Not necessary extensive, but some. Wealthy people might've owned

thousands of volumes, average people just few dozens. But it wasn't
out of reach. In a society where disposable print (aka newspapers) is
available, print is affordable.
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".

I beleive that is a direct quote. Smile

It might be:-) I know the style, my family was Eastern European
intelligentsia.
Quote:

Sounds familiar?

In Massachusetts and female? Are you kidding?!

I was thinking more along the lines of Massachusetts Democrats.


Quote:
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.

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

I'm currently having a fight right now where somebody is insisting
that I could afford to waste money that I didn't have. This
is that cognitive dissonance again..isn't it?

Might well be, yes.
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?"

Neither. It has become mandatory to be stupid. There have been
laws passed to make sure our brightest are either drugged or
hog-tied as kids. It is considered to be admirable to break laws
that deal with cooperation.

snip

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.

The states weren't agreeable at all. There were border fights.
The territories were always fighting until enough coalesced into
deciding they needed to cooperate enough to be a state and member
of the union. Then the Civil War had to happen to settle the
transitions into the industrial revolution.

All true, yet there was enough common glue there to hold it. Barely
enough, but enough.

Quote:
There are still
states fighting over border definitions. The difference is
that they hire lawyers instead of soldiers and use weapons of
words rather than bullets.

And this difference is called *being agreeable*. Because in

principle, when the words and the lawyers failed to deliver to you
what you want, there is in principle the next option, which is use
bullets. Yet, since the Civil War this didn't happen.

Quote:
I think the reaons the US' worked is because everybody who
did come to the US had a high intolerance level of being
told what to do with themselves. We're still allergic
to that.

That's not good enough. The Greeks had ample measure of this. It is
the right medicine to prevent establishment of tyranny but, by itself,
it can have just the opposite (and equally detrimental) effect, this
of disintegration.

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: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1153227547.483785.146100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1tfrziumomalh.17em118zgwqhg$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 06 09:46:45 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

In article <6qgzl041mrrt.17ipig70yv5ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
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.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.

I have a problem whenever you lie.




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.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.

I know nobody is joking and I am taking your attitude very
seriously.


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.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.

You classify every person, who is not going to voluntarily be
your slave, as pro-Israeli. This includes Jews, Christians,
other Muslims, Hindu, Chinese to identify a few groups.

Lloyd identifies everyone who disagrees with him as a creationist,
born-again christians identify everyone of a different faith as
heathens. It's the standard dehumanizing we/they attitude practiced by
the most ignorant of fanatics since the dawn of time.

This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.

Quote:
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.

Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.

Quote:
However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.

Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.

What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.

/BAH
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
In article <1tfrziumomalh.17em118zgwqhg$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 06 09:46:45 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

In article <6qgzl041mrrt.17ipig70yv5ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
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.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.

I have a problem whenever you lie.




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.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.

I know nobody is joking and I am taking your attitude very
seriously.


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.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.

You classify every person, who is not going to voluntarily be
your slave, as pro-Israeli. This includes Jews, Christians,
other Muslims, Hindu, Chinese to identify a few groups.

Lloyd identifies everyone who disagrees with him as a creationist,
born-again christians identify everyone of a different faith as
heathens. It's the standard dehumanizing we/they attitude practiced by
the most ignorant of fanatics since the dawn of time.
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

Quote:
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.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.

I have a problem whenever you lie.
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.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.

I know nobody is joking and I am taking your attitude very
seriously.
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.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.

You classify every person, who is not going to voluntarily be
your slave, as pro-Israeli. This includes Jews, Christians,
other Muslims, Hindu, Chinese to identify a few groups.

Lloyd identifies everyone who disagrees with him as a creationist,
born-again christians identify everyone of a different faith as
heathens. It's the standard dehumanizing we/they attitude practiced by
the most ignorant of fanatics since the dawn of time.

This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.

No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.
For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell. and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.

Quote:
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.

Read the koran. This is exactly what is demanded in every line of
it.

Quote:
However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.

I have respect for their commitment, not their goals. I am
reminded of on september 11, Shrub refered to it as a "cowardly"
attack. there is nothing cowardly about those who volunteer to die for
their convictions. now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...

Quote:
What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.

No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed. and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1153239660.136610.41660@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.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.

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.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.

I have a problem whenever you lie.
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.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.

I know nobody is joking and I am taking your attitude very
seriously.
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.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.

You classify every person, who is not going to voluntarily be
your slave, as pro-Israeli. This includes Jews, Christians,
other Muslims, Hindu, Chinese to identify a few groups.

Lloyd identifies everyone who disagrees with him as a creationist,
born-again christians identify everyone of a different faith as
heathens. It's the standard dehumanizing we/they attitude practiced by
the most ignorant of fanatics since the dawn of time.

This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.

No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.

These are not ignorant people. The tactics show that there
is a broad knowledge of Western civilization's mores, laws,
and rules of engagement.

Quote:
For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.

I don't see much of this rhetoric. I do see a lot of martyr talk
with promises of heavenly rewards. I also see a very perverse
sexual identity crises. It's all males...middle class males.

Quote:
and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.

But the message isn't about inferiors. The incentive is all about
revenge. There is a huge difference because the latter ensures
control of the faithful.

Quote:

For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.

Read the koran. This is exactly what is demanded in every line of
it.

It is a middle class text that rather ignores those who do the work.
Those who do work are forced to break a lot of the Koran rules.
Especially the women. Male farmers have to be more practical than
the current interpretations of the Koran. Once upon a time,
women were leaders, too, and were not required to wear cover.
I have read that this clothes fashion was mimicing the Byzantine
styles but I've not verified that author's statement.
Quote:

However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.

I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.

Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration. I don't admire vermin. I don't
admire anybody who intends to kill me and destroy my way
of life just because it and I exist.

Quote:
I am
reminded of on september 11, Shrub refered to it as a "cowardly"
attack. there is nothing cowardly about those who volunteer to die for
their convictions.

They did not volunteer. Only the psychotic were the ones who
knew. What the minions are getting told is that their suicide
will be rewarded. This is contrary to Koran teachings. If
these suicides were all volunteers, why are they drugged so
they cannot think?

Quote:
now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...

These ideologues don't have convictions, they have power lust.
The Taliban ignored their convictions in favor of satisfying
their lust; and this was helped by Al Queda.
Quote:

What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.

No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed.

No. They are trying to preserve an interpretation of how it
"used to be"; but there are so many exceptions that they are
rewriteing the Koran.

Quote:
and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.

No. The Koran tolerates Jews and Christains; they are just taxed
more.

And killing is limited to soldiers, not the general populace. This
is another misinterpretation of the Koran. There was a time in
Islam's history when non-combatents were murdered. The group
was called the Assasins; they were allowed to exist as long
as their targets were limited to political heads of state. When
they started to kill non-political people, the sect was
eliminated. They had crossed the line. The current crop have
already crossed this line. It doesn't appear that fellow Muslims
are dealing with their own berserkers. This is understandable since
it does take time to react. I just don't think, with today's access
of WMDs, that the reaction will be in time to prevent an unrecoverable
mess. Instead, they are again unconsciously emulating the Europeans
who are letting the US take all the responsibility and blame and
do most of the work.

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


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <nNvug.2$25.230@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Quote:
In article <e9d8ta$8qk_001@s850.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Scvtg.29$45.1693@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
snip


Quote:
This is my usual style of trying to take a complex system apart
for the purpose of identifying the key components in order
to get something to work a little bit.

As for the tangent, I do get sidetracked easily these days.
snip

So do I, only this topic is growing too big already.

It gets even bigger. I've had to start learning about how
the federal reserve works. I'm having a very difficult time
of it. Smile I'm even going to have to dirty my hem and learn
about politics. yetcho.

<snip>

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.

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

Books, books, books.

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.

I haven't overlooked newspapers nor the fact that printing was
a common business. I think I was leaping from the bit of knowledge
that Ben Franklin started the notion of public libraries. Before
then libraries were private. Hence, if they were private, only
the owners had access to those books. Other than the Bible,
I assumed that people who have not yet acquired property would
not have an extensive library available to them.

Not necessary extensive, but some. Wealthy people might've owned
thousands of volumes, average people just few dozens. But it wasn't
out of reach. In a society where disposable print (aka newspapers) is
available, print is affordable.

Ah! And the Federalist and Unfederalist Papers were published
in the newspapers. Of course.

<snip>

Quote:
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".

I beleive that is a direct quote. :-)

It might be:-) I know the style, my family was Eastern European
intelligentsia.

Sounds familiar?

In Massachusetts and female? Are you kidding?!

I was thinking more along the lines of Massachusetts Democrats.

They are still trying to shove it down my throat. The poor
babies have been side-tracked a little bit. The bad news
is that Kennedy and Kerry aren't taking part in the
distraction.

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.

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.

The states weren't agreeable at all. There were border fights.
The territories were always fighting until enough coalesced into
deciding they needed to cooperate enough to be a state and member
of the union. Then the Civil War had to happen to settle the
transitions into the industrial revolution.

All true, yet there was enough common glue there to hold it. Barely
enough, but enough.

Oh, they had a common enemy. European acquisition.
Quote:

There are still
states fighting over border definitions. The difference is
that they hire lawyers instead of soldiers and use weapons of
words rather than bullets.

And this difference is called *being agreeable*. Because in
principle, when the words and the lawyers failed to deliver to you
what you want, there is in principle the next option, which is use
bullets. Yet, since the Civil War this didn't happen.

It's easier to send your pet lawyers to court than convince
your men to kill the guy in the next state who is supplying
your raw material.

Quote:

I think the reaons the US' worked is because everybody who
did come to the US had a high intolerance level of being
told what to do with themselves. We're still allergic
to that.

That's not good enough. The Greeks had ample measure of this. It is
the right medicine to prevent establishment of tyranny but, by itself,
it can have just the opposite (and equally detrimental) effect, this
of disintegration.

But the Greeks were not all inclusive. The people who did the
real work didn't have a say...did they?

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


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1153317120.831488.226840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:

This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.
No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.
These are not ignorant people. The tactics show that there
is a broad knowledge of Western civilization's mores, laws,
and rules of engagement.

Their tactics show that they watch the movies. If they wanted to
hurt us instead of making political statements, and knew anything in
particular about our culture and society, 20 men could bring us to our
knees.

For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.
I don't see much of this rhetoric. I do see a lot of martyr talk
with promises of heavenly rewards. I also see a very perverse
sexual identity crises. It's all males...middle class males.

You do not attend mosques. What do you consider "the great satan"
to be?

Nobody.

Quote:
In chechnya (one of the reasons that I respect and wish to kill
the muslim world is that they are a problem EVERYWHERE) it's women
mostly.

Huh?

Quote:

and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.
But the message isn't about inferiors. The incentive is all about
revenge. There is a huge difference because the latter ensures
control of the faithful.

Inferiors has many sides. they consider us to be morally inferior
subhumans.

This has its base in Nazism. That is a new attitude not an Islamic
one.

<snip>

Quote:
However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.

Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration. I don't admire vermin. I don't
admire anybody who intends to kill me and destroy my way
of life just because it and I exist.

Then it is NEVER possible to respect an enemy?

Not one whose goal is to first, destroy, then to self-destruct.
This comes under my category of abject stupidity; there is no
room for respect of that.


Quote:
You are therefore
doomed to lose every war you fight. One truth is that if we are
allowed to continue to exist, their way of life is doomed. Bill
clinton was every bit as much an enemy of islam

<snort> Now tell me another one.

Quote:
as is W. just on a
different front.

I see no evidence that Bush is an enemy of Islam. His primary job
is national security of US citizens and their possessions.

Quote:
Yes, I respect muslims, bin laden, and averyone else who stands
for what they believe, it's more than I can say about ourselves.

But the ideologues are not standing up for what they believe; they
are puling words to gain political power and thus, access to
monies and means.

Quote:
At
the same time, it's them or us, someone gotta die. I would far rather
it be the islamic world than the western.

This isn't a conflict between all of Islam and Western civilization...
yet. That is what Bin Laden is trying to foment with his little
spin doctoring lately.

Quote:

I am
reminded of on september 11, Shrub refered to it as a "cowardly"
attack. there is nothing cowardly about those who volunteer to die for
their convictions.
They did not volunteer. Only the psychotic were the ones who
knew. What the minions are getting told is that their suicide
will be rewarded. This is contrary to Koran teachings. If
these suicides were all volunteers, why are they drugged so
they cannot think?

They weren't. The 9-11 hijackers volunteered and went to a great
deal of effort to do what they did. Belittling them prevents you from
fighting as you need to.

Perhaps you should examine them again.

Quote:

now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...
These ideologues don't have convictions, they have power lust.
The Taliban ignored their convictions in favor of satisfying
their lust; and this was helped by Al Queda.

you are wrong. The koran sets down laws for society. All the
taliban did was read it and follow.

Does this include transforming females into whores?
Quote:

What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.
No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed.
No. They are trying to preserve an interpretation of how it
"used to be"; but there are so many exceptions that they are
rewriteing the Koran.

No, all they are doing is following it to the letter.

and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.
No. The Koran tolerates Jews and Christains; they are just taxed
more.

Show me.

Jews were the ones who did the business of business during the
Ottoman Empire. There were Jewish and Christian areas in the
cities. The Janissaries came from Christian lands..on purpose.
IIRC, the Grand Viziers were Jewish. Trade was done with non-Muslims.
Jews fled to Muslim-controlled lands when Europeans got bees up
their butt. If it were a pillar of Islam to kill all non-Muslims,
then those people wouldn't have moved there. There is (or was)
a special category for Jews and Christians because of their
relation to Abraham.
Quote:

And killing is limited to soldiers, not the general populace. This
is another misinterpretation of the Koran. There was a time in
Islam's history when non-combatents were murdered. The group
was called the Assasins; they were allowed to exist as long
as their targets were limited to political heads of state. When
they started to kill non-political people, the sect was
eliminated. They had crossed the line. The current crop have
already crossed this line. It doesn't appear that fellow Muslims
are dealing with their own berserkers. This is understandable since
it does take time to react. I just don't think, with today's access
of WMDs, that the reaction will be in time to prevent an unrecoverable
mess. Instead, they are again unconsciously emulating the Europeans
who are letting the US take all the responsibility and blame and
do most of the work.

Show me 1 line in the koran which says anything other than "kill
every non-muslim you find". this will continue until poor deluded
fools like you realize that this religious war is MANDATORY in their
religion.

I do not know how to read Arabic. So I cannot show you a line.
I'm talking about what I've read of its history.

/BAH
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

Quote:
This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.
No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.
These are not ignorant people. The tactics show that there
is a broad knowledge of Western civilization's mores, laws,
and rules of engagement.

Their tactics show that they watch the movies. If they wanted to
hurt us instead of making political statements, and knew anything in
particular about our culture and society, 20 men could bring us to our
knees.

Quote:
For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.
I don't see much of this rhetoric. I do see a lot of martyr talk
with promises of heavenly rewards. I also see a very perverse
sexual identity crises. It's all males...middle class males.

You do not attend mosques. What do you consider "the great satan"
to be? In chechnya (one of the reasons that I respect and wish to kill
the muslim world is that they are a problem EVERYWHERE) it's women
mostly.

Quote:
and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.
But the message isn't about inferiors. The incentive is all about
revenge. There is a huge difference because the latter ensures
control of the faithful.

Inferiors has many sides. they consider us to be morally inferior
subhumans.

Quote:
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.
Read the koran. This is exactly what is demanded in every line of it.

It is a middle class text that rather ignores those who do the work.
Those who do work are forced to break a lot of the Koran rules.
Especially the women. Male farmers have to be more practical than
the current interpretations of the Koran. Once upon a time,
women were leaders, too, and were not required to wear cover.
I have read that this clothes fashion was mimicing the Byzantine
styles but I've not verified that author's statement.

However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.

Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration. I don't admire vermin. I don't
admire anybody who intends to kill me and destroy my way
of life just because it and I exist.

Then it is NEVER possible to respect an enemy? You are therefore
doomed to lose every war you fight. One truth is that if we are
allowed to continue to exist, their way of life is doomed. Bill
clinton was every bit as much an enemy of islam as is W. just on a
different front.
Yes, I respect muslims, bin laden, and averyone else who stands
for what they believe, it's more than I can say about ourselves. At
the same time, it's them or us, someone gotta die. I would far rather
it be the islamic world than the western.

Quote:
I am
reminded of on september 11, Shrub refered to it as a "cowardly"
attack. there is nothing cowardly about those who volunteer to die for
their convictions.
They did not volunteer. Only the psychotic were the ones who
knew. What the minions are getting told is that their suicide
will be rewarded. This is contrary to Koran teachings. If
these suicides were all volunteers, why are they drugged so
they cannot think?

They weren't. The 9-11 hijackers volunteered and went to a great
deal of effort to do what they did. Belittling them prevents you from
fighting as you need to.

Quote:
now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...
These ideologues don't have convictions, they have power lust.
The Taliban ignored their convictions in favor of satisfying
their lust; and this was helped by Al Queda.

you are wrong. The koran sets down laws for society. All the
taliban did was read it and follow.

Quote:
What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.
No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed.
No. They are trying to preserve an interpretation of how it
"used to be"; but there are so many exceptions that they are
rewriteing the Koran.

No, all they are doing is following it to the letter.

Quote:
and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.
No. The Koran tolerates Jews and Christains; they are just taxed
more.

Show me.

Quote:
And killing is limited to soldiers, not the general populace. This
is another misinterpretation of the Koran. There was a time in
Islam's history when non-combatents were murdered. The group
was called the Assasins; they were allowed to exist as long
as their targets were limited to political heads of state. When
they started to kill non-political people, the sect was
eliminated. They had crossed the line. The current crop have
already crossed this line. It doesn't appear that fellow Muslims
are dealing with their own berserkers. This is understandable since
it does take time to react. I just don't think, with today's access
of WMDs, that the reaction will be in time to prevent an unrecoverable
mess. Instead, they are again unconsciously emulating the Europeans
who are letting the US take all the responsibility and blame and
do most of the work.

Show me 1 line in the koran which says anything other than "kill
every non-muslim you find". this will continue until poor deluded
fools like you realize that this religious war is MANDATORY in their
religion.
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

Quote:
This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.
No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.
These are not ignorant people. The tactics show that there
is a broad knowledge of Western civilization's mores, laws,
and rules of engagement.

Their tactics show that they watch the movies. If they wanted to
hurt us instead of making political statements, and knew anything in
particular about our culture and society, 20 men could bring us to our
knees.

For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.
I don't see much of this rhetoric. I do see a lot of martyr talk
with promises of heavenly rewards. I also see a very perverse
sexual identity crises. It's all males...middle class males.

You do not attend mosques. What do you consider "the great satan"
to be?
Nobody.

agree, bt it's pretty common rhetoric in the mosques of the world.

Quote:
In chechnya (one of the reasons that I respect and wish to kill
the muslim world is that they are a problem EVERYWHERE) it's women
mostly.
Huh?

chechnyan terrorists are primarily women.

Quote:
and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.
But the message isn't about inferiors. The incentive is all about
revenge. There is a huge difference because the latter ensures
control of the faithful.
Inferiors has many sides. they consider us to be morally inferior
subhumans.
This has its base in Nazism. That is a new attitude not an Islamic
one.

no, nazi-ism has it's base in this. as does islam and any number
of other fanatical groups. it isn't new, it is as old as the sands.

Quote:
However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.
Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration. I don't admire vermin. I don't
admire anybody who intends to kill me and destroy my way
of life just because it and I exist.
Then it is NEVER possible to respect an enemy?
Not one whose goal is to first, destroy, then to self-destruct.
This comes under my category of abject stupidity; there is no
room for respect of that.

more's the pity for you. if you can't respect them, you will
underestimate them. I respect them, as such, I want to see us join the
war as it must be fought.

Quote:
You are therefore
doomed to lose every war you fight. One truth is that if we are
allowed to continue to exist, their way of life is doomed. Bill
clinton was every bit as much an enemy of islam
snort> Now tell me another one.
as is W. just on a
different front.
I see no evidence that Bush is an enemy of Islam. His primary job
is national security of US citizens and their possessions.

You don't, that's because you understand nothing about it.
Britney spears is the ultimate enemy of islam. All the liberal
hand-wringing about the treatment of women is what guarantees there
will not be peace between islam and the west. not the bombs from
either side.

Quote:
Yes, I respect muslims, bin laden, and averyone else who stands
for what they believe, it's more than I can say about ourselves.
But the ideologues are not standing up for what they believe; they
are puling words to gain political power and thus, access to
monies and means.

and bombing targets, and committing suicide bombings, and other
things like this.

Quote:
At
the same time, it's them or us, someone gotta die. I would far rather
it be the islamic world than the western.
This isn't a conflict between all of Islam and Western civilization...
yet. That is what Bin Laden is trying to foment with his little
spin doctoring lately.

that is exactly what it has been for the last 1500 years. you
refuse to see it. many will die for your refusal.

Quote:
They weren't. The 9-11 hijackers volunteered and went to a great
deal of effort to do what they did. Belittling them prevents you from
fighting as you need to.
Perhaps you should examine them again.

Perhaps you should. I have never seen anything to suggest that
they were other than "warriors of allah" if you can find me a credible
cite, then we can talk.

Quote:
now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...
These ideologues don't have convictions, they have power lust.
The Taliban ignored their convictions in favor of satisfying
their lust; and this was helped by Al Queda.

you are wrong. The koran sets down laws for society. All the
taliban did was read it and follow.
Does this include transforming females into whores?

If by that you mean selling them as wives and otherwise treating
them as chattels, then yes. If you mean gang-raping them if they are
not virgins on their wedding night, then yes.

Quote:
What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.
No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed.
No. They are trying to preserve an interpretation of how it
"used to be"; but there are so many exceptions that they are
rewriteing the Koran.
No, all they are doing is following it to the letter.
and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.
No. The Koran tolerates Jews and Christains; they are just taxed
more.
Show me.

Jews were the ones who did the business of business during the
Ottoman Empire. There were Jewish and Christian areas in the
cities. The Janissaries came from Christian lands..on purpose.
IIRC, the Grand Viziers were Jewish. Trade was done with non-Muslims.
Jews fled to Muslim-controlled lands when Europeans got bees up
their butt. If it were a pillar of Islam to kill all non-Muslims,
then those people wouldn't have moved there. There is (or was)
a special category for Jews and Christians because of their
relation to Abraham.

historical misinterpretations and unislamic practices do not
change what is written in the book.

Quote:
And killing is limited to soldiers, not the general populace. This
is another misinterpretation of the Koran. There was a time in
Islam's history when non-combatents were murdered. The group
was called the Assasins; they were allowed to exist as long
as their targets were limited to political heads of state. When
they started to kill non-political people, the sect was
eliminated. They had crossed the line. The current crop have
already crossed this line. It doesn't appear that fellow Muslims
are dealing with their own berserkers. This is understandable since
it does take time to react. I just don't think, with today's access
of WMDs, that the reaction will be in time to prevent an unrecoverable
mess. Instead, they are again unconsciously emulating the Europeans
who are letting the US take all the responsibility and blame and
do most of the work.
Show me 1 line in the koran which says anything other than "kill
every non-muslim you find". this will continue until poor deluded
fools like you realize that this religious war is MANDATORY in their
religion.
I do not know how to read Arabic. So I cannot show you a line.
I'm talking about what I've read of its history.

reading arabic is un-necessary. it has been translated thousands
of times by people with every possible agenda. if you can't find 1
line in any of these translations, it means that there is no line that
can even be mistranslated to mean what you say.
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <e9l85h$8u0_001@s997.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Quote:
In article <nNvug.2$25.230@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e9d8ta$8qk_001@s850.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Scvtg.29$45.1693@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
snip

This is my usual style of trying to take a complex system apart
for the purpose of identifying the key components in order
to get something to work a little bit.

As for the tangent, I do get sidetracked easily these days.
snip

So do I, only this topic is growing too big already.

It gets even bigger. I've had to start learning about how
the federal reserve works. I'm having a very difficult time
of it. Smile I'm even going to have to dirty my hem and learn
about politics. yetcho.

snip

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.

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

Books, books, books.

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.

I haven't overlooked newspapers nor the fact that printing was
a common business. I think I was leaping from the bit of knowledge
that Ben Franklin started the notion of public libraries. Before
then libraries were private. Hence, if they were private, only
the owners had access to those books. Other than the Bible,
I assumed that people who have not yet acquired property would
not have an extensive library available to them.

Not necessary extensive, but some. Wealthy people might've owned
thousands of volumes, average people just few dozens. But it wasn't
out of reach. In a society where disposable print (aka newspapers) is
available, print is affordable.

Ah! And the Federalist and Unfederalist Papers were published
in the newspapers. Of course.

Yes, exactly.
Quote:

snip

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".

I beleive that is a direct quote. :-)

It might be:-) I know the style, my family was Eastern European
intelligentsia.

Sounds familiar?

In Massachusetts and female? Are you kidding?!

I was thinking more along the lines of Massachusetts Democrats.

They are still trying to shove it down my throat. The poor
babies have been side-tracked a little bit. The bad news
is that Kennedy and Kerry aren't taking part in the
distraction.

You mean the Bid Dig, I gather.
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.

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.

The states weren't agreeable at all. There were border fights.
The territories were always fighting until enough coalesced into
deciding they needed to cooperate enough to be a state and member
of the union. Then the Civil War had to happen to settle the
transitions into the industrial revolution.

All true, yet there was enough common glue there to hold it. Barely
enough, but enough.

Oh, they had a common enemy. European acquisition.

Common enemy always helps.


Quote:
There are still
states fighting over border definitions. The difference is
that they hire lawyers instead of soldiers and use weapons of
words rather than bullets.

And this difference is called *being agreeable*. Because in
principle, when the words and the lawyers failed to deliver to you
what you want, there is in principle the next option, which is use
bullets. Yet, since the Civil War this didn't happen.

It's easier to send your pet lawyers to court than convince
your men to kill the guy in the next state who is supplying
your raw material.

It is easier, till you lose in court. Keep in mind that half the
po=eople going to courts lose.
Quote:


I think the reaons the US' worked is because everybody who
did come to the US had a high intolerance level of being
told what to do with themselves. We're still allergic
to that.

That's not good enough. The Greeks had ample measure of this. It is
the right medicine to prevent establishment of tyranny but, by itself,
it can have just the opposite (and equally detrimental) effect, this
of disintegration.

But the Greeks were not all inclusive. The people who did the
real work didn't have a say...did they?

In a society where fighting was common place, the soldiers were "the

people who did the real work". And they had enough to say. No, it
wasn't the absence of all inclusiveness that tore Greece, it was the
high percentage of "my way or no way" people.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <e9lcu1$8qk_001@s1123.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
Quote:
In article <1153317120.831488.226840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

This attitude cannot be dismissed blithely. Saying the
word pro-Israeli is part of the political platform in Iran,
among other places because it produces the intended effect
without much difficulty; the intended effect is stop all
rational thinking about other matters. Even
Europe is accepting this kind of bizarre thinking in their
madness to try to placate Muslims by making them more equal
than everyone else. If this were purely a crank thinking,
I wouldn't spend a single bit dealing with it.
No, it cannot be blithely dismissed any more than the rest of the
ignorant fanatics throughout history could be.
These are not ignorant people. The tactics show that there
is a broad knowledge of Western civilization's mores, laws,
and rules of engagement.

Their tactics show that they watch the movies. If they wanted to
hurt us instead of making political statements, and knew anything in
particular about our culture and society, 20 men could bring us to our
knees.

For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.
I don't see much of this rhetoric. I do see a lot of martyr talk
with promises of heavenly rewards. I also see a very perverse
sexual identity crises. It's all males...middle class males.

You do not attend mosques. What do you consider "the great satan"
to be?

Nobody.

In chechnya (one of the reasons that I respect and wish to kill
the muslim world is that they are a problem EVERYWHERE) it's women
mostly.

Huh?


and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.
But the message isn't about inferiors. The incentive is all about
revenge. There is a huge difference because the latter ensures
control of the faithful.

Inferiors has many sides. they consider us to be morally inferior
subhumans.

This has its base in Nazism. That is a new attitude not an Islamic
one.

snip

However, also for the record, I have great respect for the islamic
world for it's strength and purpose.
Nuts. I have no respect for people who intend to destroy western
civilization and relish in their visciousness. Respect is to be
earned...by an individual, and not by an organization of religious
zealots. These types solve all their problems by killing people
who have nothing to do with causing those problems. Since the
problems will never solved using this tactic, the killing will
continue and escalate until there is no more opportunity.
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.

Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration. I don't admire vermin. I don't
admire anybody who intends to kill me and destroy my way
of life just because it and I exist.

Then it is NEVER possible to respect an enemy?

Not one whose goal is to first, destroy, then to self-destruct.
This comes under my category of abject stupidity; there is no
room for respect of that.

Very, very bad approach. Childish. You totally confuse "respect"

with "approve".
Quote:

You are therefore
doomed to lose every war you fight. One truth is that if we are
allowed to continue to exist, their way of life is doomed. Bill
clinton was every bit as much an enemy of islam

snort> Now tell me another one.

as is W. just on a
different front.

I see no evidence that Bush is an enemy of Islam. His primary job
is national security of US citizens and their possessions.

Yes, I respect muslims, bin laden, and averyone else who stands
for what they believe, it's more than I can say about ourselves.

But the ideologues are not standing up for what they believe; they
are puling words to gain political power and thus, access to
monies and means.

Even more childish.


It appears, unfortunately, that you've soaked only too well the
nonsense that is taught to kiddies in our culture, how "good people"
are those who act for what they believe in while "bad people" are
selfish, caring only for personel profit. So then, when you encounter
people whose actions, though apparently motivated by a belief/ideology,
you view as "bad", you rationalize your cognitive dissonance away by
stating "oh, they don't really believe in this, they just pretend to
do so in order to grab power". This is infantile nonsense. Good/bad
and selfish/selfless are orthogonal dimensions. The nun who goes to
work with leprosy patients in some hellhole in central Africa, for the
glory of God, and the nut who bombs abortion clinics, also for the
glory of God, are both selfless, willing to sacrifice their well being
and even their life for an idea. Idealism is not inherently good,
neither inherently bad, it is a motivating force (a very potent one)
and the results depend on the way in which the force is used. True,
there are people who use pretend idealism as a tool, to acquire power.
there are also people who sincerely believe their ideology, and
acquire power so as to advance this ideology (and these are the most
dangerous). If you'll take the Nazis for example (an exemption fro
Goodwin's law is in order, IMO, since this is relevant), there is no
doubt that there were many there for whom it was just a matter of a
cynical power grab. There is also no doubt that for many, including
many of the top ones, it was a deep and sincere belief. Joseph
Goebbels and his wife, for example not only committed suicide in the
bunker in Berlin (which could be rationalized away by saying "hey,
they knew they're gonners anyway") but took their kids with them, not
being able to tolerate the idea that the kids will grow up in a world
where Nazism doesn't rule. If you think this is not an act of true
believers, then I don't know how you would define one.

Of course, when confronted with such actions and still not willing to
admit that these people believe in what they're doing, we've always the
next rationalization available, namely "oh, they're just crazy". But
that's an empty phrase. All it means is "their worldview is so
different from ours that there is no room for coexistence between the
two". Sure. That's why they need to be eradicated, else they'll
eradicate us. But it in no way means that they don't truly, sincerely
believe in what they're doing and, in fact, it would've been a very
dangerous assumption to think that this is the situation. You cannot
deal with reality by trying to rationalize it away.


Quote:
At
the same time, it's them or us, someone gotta die. I would far rather
it be the islamic world than the western.

This isn't a conflict between all of Islam and Western civilization...
yet. That is what Bin Laden is trying to foment with his little
spin doctoring lately.

This isn't a conflict between *all* of Islam and Western civilization
yet but it is far, far more than a conflict with a person or a fringe
group. Tha'ts way beyond it. And putting too much weight on Bin
Laden is silly. A result of a generation of being "educated" on James
Bond movies, where you've an evil mastermind threatening the world, a
single brave agent taking him out, and all is well again. Would be
nice if reality would've been that simple, but it ain't. I'm quite
sure that, even if you manage to blow Bin Laden to smitherens
tomorrow, Islamofascism will keep going on. It is a movement, not a
person that you're dealing with.
Quote:


I am
reminded of on september 11, Shrub refered to it as a "cowardly"
attack. there is nothing cowardly about those who volunteer to die for
their convictions.
They did not volunteer. Only the psychotic were the ones who
knew. What the minions are getting told is that their suicide
will be rewarded. This is contrary to Koran teachings. If
these suicides were all volunteers, why are they drugged so
they cannot think?

They weren't. The 9-11 hijackers volunteered and went to a great
deal of effort to do what they did. Belittling them prevents you from
fighting as you need to.

Perhaps you should examine them again.

And you're wrong again here.

Quote:


now if their convictions weren't such an evil pile
of yak manure...
These ideologues don't have convictions, they have power lust.
The Taliban ignored their convictions in favor of satisfying
their lust; and this was helped by Al Queda.

you are wrong. The koran sets down laws for society. All the
taliban did was read it and follow.

Does this include transforming females into whores?

Where did you take this from?


Quote:
What these people are doing is going back to the "good ol days"
of the Assasins and are repeating that history. The difference
between the two times is the existence of modern means to kill
millions with one remote act. Thus, the honor that the old
Assasins had (killing in person) has been removed from the
creed.
No, they are trying to preserve the way of life dictated to them
by mohammed.
No. They are trying to preserve an interpretation of how it
"used to be"; but there are so many exceptions that they are
rewriteing the Koran.

No, all they are doing is following it to the letter.

and they are doing so by the methods set down in the
Koran. The koran demands only 2 classes of people, believers and
corpses.
No. The Koran tolerates Jews and Christains; they are just taxed
more.

Show me.

Jews were the ones who did the business of business during the
Ottoman Empire. There were Jewish and Christian areas in the
cities. The Janissaries came from Christian lands..on purpose.
IIRC, the Grand Viziers were Jewish. Trade was done with non-Muslims.
Jews fled to Muslim-controlled lands when Europeans got bees up
their butt. If it were a pillar of Islam to kill all non-Muslims,
then those people wouldn't have moved there. There is (or was)
a special category for Jews and Christians because of their
relation to Abraham.

You got part of the picture here, but not the whole picture. Jews and
Christians could indeed live in Muslim lands, but only as dhimmi.
Meaning, second class citizens, allowed some level of autonomy, on the
condition of an acceptance of Muslim supremacy and at the sufferance
of their rulers. That's all.
Quote:

And killing is limited to soldiers, not the general populace. This
is another misinterpretation of the Koran. There was a time in
Islam's history when non-combatents were murdered. The group
was called the Assasins; they were allowed to exist as long
as their targets were limited to political heads of state. When
they started to kill non-political people, the sect was
eliminated. They had crossed the line. The current crop have
already crossed this line. It doesn't appear that fellow Muslims
are dealing with their own berserkers. This is understandable since
it does take time to react. I just don't think, with today's access
of WMDs, that the reaction will be in time to prevent an unrecoverable
mess. Instead, they are again unconsciously emulating the Europeans
who are letting the US take all the responsibility and blame and
do most of the work.

Show me 1 line in the koran which says anything other than "kill
every non-muslim you find". this will continue until poor deluded
fools like you realize that this religious war is MANDATORY in their
religion.

I do not know how to read Arabic. So I cannot show you a line.
I'm talking about what I've read of its history.

You should read some more. The bit of "killing limited to soldiers,

not the general populace" must be coming from some PC textbook, not
history book. In truth, there was no such rule in any civilization,
not just the Muslim one. The concept of war as business conducted by
armies with the general population staying on the sidelines is a
relatively modern (dating possibly to the 18th century) European concept
and one which never survived long when colliding with reality.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net
science forum addict


Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:09 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

Quote:
For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.

I don't see much of this rhetoric.

I do. Unfortunately, it mostly appear to be coming from my own government.
I am a US citizen, and I love my country, but not so much that I think the
First Moron and his so-called neo-con cronies have the right to strut around
the world forcing our viewpoint down everyone else's throat, all in the name
of "I'm a 'Mur'can, an' if ya' ain't with me, yer agin' me!" Heck, in the
First Dodos viewpoint, we're such a great country that we have the right to
play word-games to ignore the Geneva convention and our own Constitution, as
long as his puppet Gonzales says it's OK.


Quote:
and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.

But the message isn't about inferiors.

I know this isn't what you're talking about, but that's exactly what the
neo-con message is about. We're so much better than those evil Muslims,
that we can lock them up on an island 90 miles offshore and throw away the
key...even though most of those locked up have not a shred of evidence
against them, and most of them probably had nothing to do with any acts of
terrorism. Yeah, we're letting some of them go now...after having taken
three years of their lives without so much as a "so long and thanks for all
the fish." How's that for a human rights record??? And we're so much
better than them damn' queers that we can refuse to allow them the single
most basic right that most cultures hold sacred--a family. And Christians
are so much better than athiests, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc., that they can
shove symbols of the Christian religion down everybody's throats whenever.
The list goes on, but at heart, it's all about proving to various groups
that are different than us how much better we are than them.


Quote:
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.

Read the koran. This is exactly what is demanded in every line of
it.

Might want to look in the mirror. That statement says more about you than
it does about the Koran. As most religion is based on allegory and analogy,
much of it can be interpreted in any way the reader chooses. And it appears
that you choose to blame the Koran for terrorism, rather than understand why
there is so much Arab resentment of US foreign policy. Sure, some of the
Koran can be interpreted as sanctioning violence...but so can the Old and
New Testaments of the Bible--you know, that great tome that the neo-cons use
as their justification for treating Jews, atheists, Muslims, gays, etc.,
badly. An eye for an eye, eh? That sure sounds to me like it condones
violence.


Quote:
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.

Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration.

No, respect entails admitting that, while you disagree with their goals,
methods and reasons, you can at least acknowledge that they feel that they
have valid reasons for doing what they do...and perhaps you could even admit
that you too might feel the same if you were in the same position. That's
one of the problems with US foreign policy. There is a fundamental lack of
understanding of why some groups of people in the world resent us so much.
It's easier to sell "they're wackos, and we can't possibly understand or
communicate with them", than to make the effort to understand them and at
least make an attempt to lessen their resentment. Don't get me wrong, I
think once somebody carries out a terrorist act, they deserve to be punished
for it...and death is the most appropriate punishment. However, wouldn't it
be nice for a change if the US behaved in this world in such a way that
people don't reach that level of resentment? And don't give me any of that
"they hate us for our freedom" crap that the First Dilhead has been
spouting. They hate us for the fact that we've been strutting around
shoving our values down everybody's throat for the past 50 years. Don't
forget, less than 50 years ago, we didn't used to have to worry about
terrorism. Since as you say the Koran has supposedly been teaching people
to be terrorists for about 900 years, what suddenly changed in the past 50
years? I would suggest Western arrogance, and US arrogance in particular,
is the answer, and that the formation of Israel was probably a catalyst.

Eric Lucas
Back to top
bill1
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:35 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

Quote:
For instance, hitler, stallin, the khmer rouge, or bin laden.
"you are better than everyone else" is an easy concept to sell.
I don't see much of this rhetoric.
I do. Unfortunately, it mostly appear to be coming from my own government.
I am a US citizen, and I love my country, but not so much that I think the
First Moron and his so-called neo-con cronies have the right to strut around
the world forcing our viewpoint down everyone else's throat, all in the name
of "I'm a 'Mur'can, an' if ya' ain't with me, yer agin' me!" Heck, in the
First Dodos viewpoint, we're such a great country that we have the right to
play word-games to ignore the Geneva convention and our own Constitution, as
long as his puppet Gonzales says it's OK.

Enough of the rhetoric does come from our own. That's a problem.

But... one thing to note is that there is not 1 non-muslim
country that has not been targetted by muslim terrorists this decade.
If it were just the US, I am realistic enough to shrug it off. but it
isn't. it's france, egypt, england, japan, china, russia. there just
isn't anywhere that isn't either victimized by or perpetrating
islamo-terrorism. The IRA were religiously motivated terrorists, but
they were at least focused on england. and the "great satan" crap does
come from a great deal of muslim mouths.

Quote:
and
from there "we should kill all the inferiors" is even easier. after
that, the pure enjoyment of killing takes over.
But the message isn't about inferiors.

I know this isn't what you're talking about, but that's exactly what the
neo-con message is about. We're so much better than those evil Muslims,
that we can lock them up on an island 90 miles offshore and throw away the
key...even though most of those locked up have not a shred of evidence
against them, and most of them probably had nothing to do with any acts of
terrorism. Yeah, we're letting some of them go now...after having taken
three years of their lives without so much as a "so long and thanks for all
the fish." How's that for a human rights record??? And we're so much
better than them damn' queers that we can refuse to allow them the single
most basic right that most cultures hold sacred--a family. And Christians
are so much better than athiests, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc., that they can
shove symbols of the Christian religion down everybody's throats whenever.
The list goes on, but at heart, it's all about proving to various groups
that are different than us how much better we are than them.

I agree that that message is being broadcast. The truth is that
we are NO better than the muslim world, in many ways, their culture is
much stronger and better than ours. however, the shrub's message that
"they hate our freedom" is not totally off the mark. their culture
looks upon things that ours sees as fundamentally guaranteed rights and
sees the deepest possible depravity and evil. we debate wether gays
should be allowed to marry, they debate wether gays should be allowed
to live. we debate wether abortion should be permitted, they debate
wether girls who are not virgins on their wedding night should be
stoned in the town square. I am not saying that we are better or
worse, I am saying that there are irreconcilable differences.

Quote:
For the record here, I AM an israel supporter, because the muslim
world has proven every time it has had the means that it is incapable
of functioning in the modern world.
Lack of capability is not the problem. The problem is losing
control, thus power, over certain aspects of Islamic life.
Read the koran. This is exactly what is demanded in every line of
it.

Might want to look in the mirror. That statement says more about you than
it does about the Koran. As most religion is based on allegory and analogy,
much of it can be interpreted in any way the reader chooses. And it appears
that you choose to blame the Koran for terrorism, rather than understand why
there is so much Arab resentment of US foreign policy. Sure, some of the
Koran can be interpreted as sanctioning violence...but so can the Old and
New Testaments of the Bible--you know, that great tome that the neo-cons use
as their justification for treating Jews, atheists, Muslims, gays, etc.,
badly. An eye for an eye, eh? That sure sounds to me like it condones
violence.

It is a condoning of violence. however, the old and new testament
are conflicted on this. the new testament is pretty peaceful, the old
is violent as s**t. in Islam, the "new testament" is the koran, which
dictates "god's law" of acceptable behavior and sets down all the evils
we see.
Just for the record, I have less respect for our own leadership
than I do for theirs. Bin laden is a committed and purposeful man,
Bush is a political toad.
Part of my issue is the "religion of peace" crap that I always
hear about how "tolerant" and "peaceful" islam is. it's crap, anyone
who simply reads the koran will be a vile monster. it is only by
misinterpreting it with the greatest rigor and sophistry that anything
peaceful in it can be extracted.

Quote:
I have respect for their commitment, not their goals.
Then you have a very different defintion of respect than I do.
Respect implies admiration.

No, respect entails admitting that, while you disagree with their goals,
methods and reasons, you can at least acknowledge that they feel that they
have valid reasons for doing what they do...and perhaps you could even admit
that you too might feel the same if you were in the same position. That's
one of the problems with US foreign policy. There is a fundamental lack of
understanding of why some groups of people in the world resent us so much.
It's easier to sell "they're wackos, and we can't possibly understand or
communicate with them", than to make the effort to understand them and at
least make an attempt to lessen their resentment. Don't get me wrong, I
think once somebody carries out a terrorist act, they deserve to be punished
for it...and death is the most appropriate punishment. However, wouldn't it
be nice for a change if the US behaved in this world in such a way that
people don't reach that level of resentment? And don't give me any of that
"they hate us for our freedom" crap that the First Dilhead has been
spouting. They hate us for the fact that we've been strutting around
shoving our values down everybody's throat for the past 50 years. Don't
forget, less than 50 years ago, we didn't used to have to worry about
terrorism. Since as you say the Koran has supposedly been teaching people
to be terrorists for about 900 years, what suddenly changed in the past 50
years? I would suggest Western arrogance, and US arrogance in particular,
is the answer, and that the formation of Israel was probably a catalyst.

There are other factors. Air travel for one, the oil trade for
another. Granted that us foreign policy hasn't made us any friends,
but how sure are you that our two cultures co-existing in peace and
harmony was ever in the cards?
The history of the middle east prior to ww2 was just like that
everywhere else, replete with wars and brutality. what I blame the
koran for is preventing them from advancing out of that time and
joining the modern one.
Some of the strongest grievances the terrorists have against the
US are things like "american boots in their holy COUNTRIES", and that
we tolerate gays and open sexuality. these aren't things that are real
subject to negotiation and settlement.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 11 of 12 [177 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:14 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: 0.0927s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0049s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]