Bob Officer wrote:
> 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?
Actually, I personally really don't give two ****s about "yellow cake" and
Iraq as long as they stay in the stone age and give relative peace.
>>> 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.
So, ****, I got it wrong (sue me). Lemme guess, 10 minutes on Google
(that
I didn't take advantage of due to time constraints) to polish up
your "turd" of a rebuttal? I acquiesce to your superior (quick Google
search) superior intelligence in these matters.
>
>>>>>>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.
So, I assume you're just all chock full of the correct facts with all the
convictions you continually spout?
>>>>>>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.
Styx's "Too much time on my hands" comes readily to mind here.
> 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.
Naw, the US will only fail when they get as stupid as the Europeans and
elect "no substance to speak of" Obama as President (because it's
the "racially sensitive" thing to do), or run out of money fighting wars
that the Europeans should be fighting for themselves (Al Queda and Madrid
train bombing, plus other terrorist attacks perpetrated by them over
there)
because being "civilized" and "anti-war" is a nice way of saying we're
pushover pussies.
>>>
>>>>>>>>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?
>
>
|
