On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:37:11 -0400, in alt.usenet.kooks, petey
<peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>> 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.
Note: you didn't admit you had any information wrong. How strong is
your convictions?
>> 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.
>
>Um, and didn't Jacques Chirac (the Frenchman) try selling one to Saddam
in
>the early Nineties before the Jews got involved and bombed the **** out
of
>it before they could actually get it into operation?
I don't know, did you ask the french government?
>And I'm actually quite surprised you know so much about "yellow cake"
taking
>into account on how much time you must spend on Usenet (loser?) waiting
for
>new messages to come in so you can insult them.
I do know "yellow cake" (uranium oxide) isn't plutonium. Plutonium
can not be found in earth's lithosphere as a natural occurrence. Any
1st year geology/physics/chemistry student could have told you that.
>>>>>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?
>
>Are you replying to your own sentence here, asshat? :-/
No, I asked you a question... as a second thought.
The only "asshat" seem to be you. is asshattery a sign of being a
person of convictions? Since the start of this discussion you seem to
feel that a person that waffles or changes their minds is a sign of
weakness and lack of conviction.
Now you are locked into everyone seeing you don't know (are ignorant)
what in the hell you are talking about. I almost thought about
reading the articles on MSNBC about the so-called missing "Yellow
Cake, which you called plutonium, and called it weapons grade ready
to make a bomb.
If you are what exists as the average american on the street, then
the US is doomed to fail.
>>
>>>>>>>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
|
