On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:03:36 -0400, in alt.astrology, petey
<peeteedee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
But, you voiced your convictions about the "Yellow Cake", as if it
was fact. Calling it weapons grade material. How strong are your
convictions or are you now just waffling?
>>>> 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.
Actually four years of college level geology and chemistry is my own
background, but believe it or not, the facts about plutonium were
high school level text book education 40 years ago.
This isn't about your knowledge. This is about waffling and
convictions, isn't it? Are you a man of your convictions, or are you
waffling?
Some other people would call you actions, (judging your actions and
those of other people) with two different standards, hypocritical.
Let me get this right, please. I am just trying to understand you.
You are saying you reserve the right to change your mind and not have
you convictions questioned or it be called waffling? (that is a yes
or no question)
>>>>>>>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 usually try to separate my opinions and facts. People can have and
voice opinions with all the facts. The difference as I see it I allow
people to change their opinions and minds without being hypocritical
about it and do not call it "waffling" or accuse the person of having
a "lack of convictions", like some other people do.
>>>>>>>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.
I never cared much for Styx's music.
A continual theme of yours is that I seem to spend so much time on
the net. I've wonder how you figured that out? Are you psychic?
>> 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
****, I dislike most of the european concepts. I wish you would "all
go back where you came from".
>elect "no substance to speak of" Obama as President (because it's
He wasn't my choice either...
>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.
Too bad the wars we are fighting are today, will tomorrow be seen as
counterproductive. What all we have done was to create thousand of
martyrs for their cause. Because of a general lack of understanding
of the history of the region, and a impossible set of constrained
national boundaries, drawn up by the British over 100 years ago, we
are left with a set of nations with dozens of different tribes/ethnic
groups which have never peacefully cohabited in an area.
It was silly and wrong to invade Iraq. Now we are trying impose a set
of rules in Afghanistan, on a group of people that have not ever had
a recognized central government. Once you leave the capital city's
area, you basically travel from one small war lord's kingdom to the
next. The older concept of city-states would be closer to what exists
in much of the area of the middle east, western asia, and the south
central are of the old USSR today. Central unified governments and
those national borders are just figments of western (USA/Euro-centric
minds).
--
Ak'toh'di
|
