Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:31 In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [.....] >Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >certifications for a piece of gear? I like radio just fine. Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal government preemptive control. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 12:33 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <98447$45672ede$49ecf18$343(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>In article <ca70$45662b70$4fe7352$26883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>> >>>No, just making a point about insults. >> >>Hardly. You selected a side in an argument that had nothing >>to do with you. > > > If you took it that way, I apologize. That was not my intent. Thank you. You have generally tried to maintain a rational discussion. That seemed like a grand departure. The lemming reference isn't an idle insult, but a comment that the person is heading over the cliff into the sea by following some invisible passion (in the case of the immediate discussion, the immediate discussion) blindly. I'm sorry the reference and meaning are lost to so many. It does have a substantial point to make, and in a humorous way. I note that BAH seemed to have understood it. Over the years others have understood it as well. > The point I was trying to make is that people should at least try to make > their insults entertaining for the rest of the readers. > > The lurkers are the ones that both sides have a chance to convince. You > can't convince them if they get bored and quit reading. IIRC I made this > point somewhere in the first week of this thread. While that's true, usually I'm just trying to have a discussion. Those who repeatedly form more of a distraction than they contribute have been openly killfiled.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 12:40 Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > In article <45686CC4.DA2FE2C9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>Although one could argue that the coal mining industry in Wales was >>>>reaching the end of the line in the 70's and 80's, due to cheap EU >>>>imports of coal - what was more galling was the fact that there were no >>>>contingency plans set up by government. Her government simply shut up >>>>shop in Wales without any investment in replacement/alternatives. >>> >>>Good Lord! You mean the cradle to grave gravy train ended? >> >>Mining was hardly a gravy train. >> >>Graham > > > Of course it was, those miners went down in fur-lined elevators to > recline in comfy settee's and watch daytime TV. > > Ignoring the fact that Welsh coal and steel built most of the British > Empire, of course. > (quick rule of thumb - Unsettled is an idiot) Quick rule of thumb: Marxist socialists like Puddledick and the dumb donkey come to the discussion ill equipped to deal with the issues because they won't read political science and economics texts, let alone wikipedia: "In politics, 'gravy train' refers to a depraved gorging on luxuries, since someone else foots the bill." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravy_train In this case, the "cradle to grave gravy train" refers to a socialist government providing for its charges. It is a common enough an idiom among the well read.
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 12:41 In article <ek9j8k$8qk_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >> The framers unwisely did not put any >>rules on radio communications. It was very short sighted of them. > >No,no,no. They were short-sighted by not including TV licenses. >Not anticipating radio comm was due to tin ears. The real problem is that they did not put anything in for the "sort of interstate" commerce. They left a huge gray area. [.... Hillary ....] >No,no. Futures. That means that the investment company bet >on when the drug indices would go up and when they would go down. Do you know how much money it was? The futures market is not a safe investment by any means. It is a zero sum game so there must be losers. I don't have any holdings in futures that I know of. If I do it woud be a very small fraction of my holdings. One reason I may have them is as a hedge. You can actually arrange things so that you win if the stock goes either direction. Only if it holds still do you lose. [....] >I'm now on my second bout of the flu. So my writing >is going to be less clear. > ><GRIN> Now you may say, "Oh, joy!" I got my flu shot. This time it didn't make me feel bad. BTW: Chicken soup really does work. It gives you the needed burst of energy. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 12:41
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <6mpgm2p3fhibvke3euu0tcgblrbkl7aakr(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:22:43 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> > [....] > >>>Whereas you 'know' what you've been told / indoctrinated to believe. >> >>--- >>Would you have him believe _that_? > > > It would be healthier if he decided to assume it for a while and see where > the thinking leads him. He can then make the choice about believing it > for logical reasons. Taking such things on as a matter of faith is not > healthy. Any blind acceptance is a recipie for disaster. |