On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:54:48 -0400, in alt.astrology, petey
<peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:43:19 -0400, in alt.astrology, petey
>> <peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Officer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:19:58 -0400, in alt.astrology, petey
>>>> <peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:32:38 -0400, in alt.astrology, petey
>>>>>> <peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <Lradnd0Qo4e9eVPVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>>>> petey <peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hmm, and how many times has Obama waffled up to now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many times has Dubya failed to "waffle" when he
>>>>>>>> should have? Not being able to change when new data
>>>>>>>> becomes available isn't an asset.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good point. Problem is, I like people who stick to their original
>>>>>>>convictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Waffling" is something women are famous for doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dead Wrong" is sticking to a belief even in the face of evidence
>>>>>> which plain shows you are completely and utter wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I once knew an idiot that thought his faith was stronger than fact.
>>>>>> He died from a s**** bite.
>>>>>
>>>>>I assume he was old enough too make that decision for himself without
>>>>>others forcing him to seek treatment against his will like "liberals"
>>>>>are known to do sometimes?
>>>>
>>>> Actually he wasn't old enough. Old enough would have to realize faith
>>>> can not over come a s**** bite, or defy gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Faith and belief lock people onto paths only the foolish and
>>>> controlled follow. By not allowing people to change, you condemn with
>>>> your own ignorance and stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if you are called stupid you will always be considered
>>>> stupid, and can you can not allow yourself to change.
>>>>
>>>> Life is a series of learning lessons, I don't think you hold to the
>>>> very same ideals now you had 20 years ago, and 20 years from now your
>>>> thoughts on a subject may have changed. I am willing to allow you to
>>>> change, learn and grow. Why do you not allow anyone else the same
>>>> degree of freedom. Why do you demand everyone be a servant of
>>>> yesterday, fighting the old battles and not trying to live for today.
>>>> I can think of dozens of things which people thought were true, and
>>>> are no longer considered truthful.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be part of humanity that has seem to vow not to change,
>>>> learn or grow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, your lame assed followup attempts are as feeble as your shallow
>>>> intellect.
>>>
>>>Boy, sure sounds like a case of "if you don't agree with me, I'll
insult
>>>you or take my toys and leave the sandbox." ;-)
>>
>> Or is it a case of having your shovel called a spade? Do you like the
>> examples of being boxed in and not able to change you mind as you
>> learned more facts? Or would you continue to "stick by your original
>> convictions".
>>
>> PErsonally I admire a person that can learn and adjust according to
>> the facts as he learns them Being able to change and abandon
>> convictions in the face of factual evidence that you are wrong seems
>> to a better quality than sticking to ones convictions.
>
>So, how do you explain the seven (or nine) hundred metric tons of "yellow
>cake" weapons grade Plutonium that MSNBC.COM ("liberal" news network on
top
"yellow cake" is semirefined uranium oxide. it yellow cake isn't
considered weapon grade. it has at least 10 more processes before
they can even separate the different isotopes.
MSNBC just flunked geology and chemistry. Out of seven tons of yellow
cake the amount of weapon grade uranium is about 100 lbs or so.
>of it all)) just admitted Saddam possessed? All ready to pack into
>warheads (sounds like WMD's to me). Maybe old "dumb" Dubya
>(who's "ba****ng" of started this whole thread) knew more than two dumb
>***** arguing on Usenet? If true, I'm (personally) kind of glad that
>old "Cowboy George" trusted his convictions under a lot of pressure not
to
>and stayed the course.
IIRC, During the WW2 it took the US about 50 tons of yellow cake to
make two bombs. To get the 50 tons of yellow cake the mines had to
produce about 300-1000 tons of basic uranium ore.
To produce plutonium one has to have a fast breeder reactor. Since
you seem to lack the basic background to discuss u/pu based weapons,
I suggest you admit you don't understand what you are trying to
discuss and just walk away, before you make a bigger fool of
yourself.
>>>Is attempting to insult someone a sign of this heightened intellect
that
>>>you supposedly posses? :-D
>>
>> Putting a person down for a lack of convictions isn't a sign of a
>> high intellect. Having a conviction is often a hinderance and the
>> problem is most people don't have enough facts to have a conviction.
>>
>>>I'm just yanking your chain. My life (personally) is more exciting
than
>>>childishly arguing with someone about stupid **** on Usenet.
>>
>> And I am yanking yours. or not.
>>
>> the challenge of the concept of a person holding to convictions based
>> on little or no evidence or knowledge is the question. IT is good or
>> bad. is a person sticking "original conviction" a quality to be
>> admired?
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
Are you playing dumb or is that your natural state?
>>>>>Sounds like a true definition of "freedom of choice" to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>And not to bring Danny Min's beliefs into this, maybe he's in a
better
>>>>>place now anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
--
Ak'toh'di
|
