On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:13:12 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...refer=politics


John

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
[...]
---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.


Things I read many years ago indicated Hitler felt, for some unclear
reason,
a kinship with or otherwise a desire to NOT attack Britain. Indications
were that he spent some time there in his youth. If I ever knew, I have
forgotten, exactly what reversed his intentions to not take the battle to
them.
[...]

I've just finished Shirer's 'Rise & fall of the third Reich'. What seems
clear from many quotes and minuted meetings, is that Hitler absolutely did
not want any UK involvement in the war.
It seems he admired what the British empire had achieved, saw the German and
British peoples as being of similar stock and envisioned the future of his
new German empire in terms of working very profitably with that of the
British, as a mutually beneficial, global trading bloc. (sort of like the
EC but sans politicians and interpreters .
Direct invasion of the UK was a logistical nightmare as we had the natural
advantage of being an island. The UK fleet still had control of the seas and
post 'battle of Britain' we had control of the air. 'Operation Sealion' was
quickly ditched after the Russians started causing trouble.
Looks like the Russians and RAF saved our skins.

Jim Thompson wrote:
(snip)
Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?
(snip)

No, King George seems to have a lock on that, although folks who believed his
"... is a threat" speech back in mid-2002 might still have scales over their
eyes. That said, Congress has better things to do than the Turn/Armenian thing,
it's just that they don't know it. I'm getting so I disdain *both* parties.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:40:09 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:13:12 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...refer=politics


John

I'm beginning to equate ignorance and Democrats... they go
hand-in-hand ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On 10/19/07 1:50 PM, in article , "john
jardine" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
[...]
---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.


Things I read many years ago indicated Hitler felt, for some unclear
reason,
a kinship with or otherwise a desire to NOT attack Britain. Indications
were that he spent some time there in his youth. If I ever knew, I have
forgotten, exactly what reversed his intentions to not take the battle to
them.
[...]

I've just finished Shirer's 'Rise & fall of the third Reich'. What seems
clear from many quotes and minuted meetings, is that Hitler absolutely did
not want any UK involvement in the war.
It seems he admired what the British empire had achieved, saw the German and
British peoples as being of similar stock and envisioned the future of his
new German empire in terms of working very profitably with that of the
British, as a mutually beneficial, global trading bloc. (sort of like the
EC but sans politicians and interpreters .
Direct invasion of the UK was a logistical nightmare as we had the natural
advantage of being an island. The UK fleet still had control of the seas and
post 'battle of Britain' we had control of the air. 'Operation Sealion' was
quickly ditched after the Russians started causing trouble.
Looks like the Russians and RAF saved our skins.



Thanks. Good refresher.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:08:57 +0000, Michael wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
(snip)
Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?
(snip)

No, King George seems to have a lock on that, although folks who believed his
"... is a threat" speech back in mid-2002 might still have scales over their
eyes. That said, Congress has better things to do than the Turn/Armenian thing,
it's just that they don't know it. I'm getting so I disdain *both* parties.

It's time for a "None of the above" candidate.

Cheers!
Rich

Eeyore wrote:


flipper wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

You're the one who's intentionally obfuscating and trying to divert
the obvious meaning.

LIAR.

The readily observable evidence proves otherwise.


The readily observable evidence is that you like to redefine the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Graham

LOL!!, look who's talking.

--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:12:22 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:


Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

---
You seem to be casting yourselves as lily-white, while ignoring the
fact that appeasing Hitler during WW2 was supporting tyranny.

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

---
You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?


---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.
---


I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be receptive to
any new ideas.


---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.


LOL!, good one ..


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

Eeyore wrote:


JimW52 wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:


LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

Did you purchase them or win them in an honorable war? We got some of
ours from a Republican God.



Why is Don Bowey so insecure ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

A strange question from someone who reacts so violently when his country
or his politics are critisised.

Jim


I reckon Jim T has finally totally lost it. It's one thing to call people he
doesn't agree with weenies, but to dismiss them as traitors illustrates total
mental confusion.

Graham


Not to say that you don't have any your self.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

Eeyore wrote:


Jamie wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


Invading Iraq was 'self defence' ???

Bwahahahahahhahahaa

As I've pointed out before, leave it to the left to defend a WMD
obsessed mass murdering dictator who spent 10 years violating over
13 mandatory U.N. chapter 7 resolutions and the terms of cease fire
for the second of two regional wars he started in addition to his
terrorist activities.

Yes, it was defense.

********.

Those sharing your opinion lost the free and open debate on the
matter.

********.

The vote was taken and duly recorded.


The USA doesn't count. You're governed by IDIOTS. Top flight Grade One ignorant
****wits.


Ouuuu.. I just love it when you talk dirty, BITCH!..

Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

You are out gunned and out manned!


I'm well aware how Americans rely on GUNS to get their way.

Graham

I'm beginning to see part of your problem.

"You just don't understand!"

Obviously you have demonstrated that several times while
shooting your self in the foot.

DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
P.S.
The reverse drive must be worn out by now in that transaxel of
what you call a pair of legs connected to something called an ass,
because, you sure do a lot of backing up!.

Btw, my spell check which I don't use very often tried to
correct "transaxle" to "transsexual" , maybe I should had
left it that way? Some how it sounds appropriate but I'll
reframe from that for now.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:09:45 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:08:57 +0000, Michael wrote:
[snip]
than the Turn/Armenian thing, it's just that they don't know it. I'm
getting so I disdain *both* parties.

It's time for a "None of the above" candidate.

Cheers!
Rich

I think every ballot entry should have a "none of the above" check box.
If "none of the above" wins, then try again with different candidates.

--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, TX

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:27:03 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...refer=politics


John

I'm beginning to equate ignorance and Democrats... they go hand-in-hand
;-)

...Jim Thompson

In the early days of this I could not understand why Democrats, who would
spit on on Bush if they had the chance, would not support something that
might lead to another reason to get out quickly. As usual there are a lot
of players pulling strings behind the scenes. Pelosi forgot to get this
approved by some of the real power brokers in this country.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...rmenian_issue/

From the above:
"The national Anti-Defamation League fired its New England regional
director yesterday, one day after he broke ranks with national ADL
leadership and said the human rights organization should acknowledge the
Armenian genocide that began in 1915."

--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, TX

flipper posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:06:01 -0400, Chuck Harris
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Where's the benefit to our country when a
Democratic-Party-dominated Congress is trying to pass a bill
chastising the Turks for Armenian "genocide" that occurred in
1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good
ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

Turkey is our one true ally in the region. Without their help,
the war in Iraq could not have been prosecuted.

So, the Democrats are trying to **** off Turkey so they will kick
us out of their country (we have a major base there), and will
make the war in Iraq more dangerous for our kids fighting it.

That sure looks like the reason and if it is then it dern near
amounts to treason.


Mean spirited? Yep! But with Democrats (most politicians,
actually) the ends always justifies the means.

-Chuck

Yes, as well as arrogant and vicious.

flipper wrote:

"Dan Coby" wrote:

As I also said in portions that I snipped, I do not agree with the actions
of the EU or Switzerland with regard to requiring the use of the word
'genocide'. I do support actions which encourage the Turkish government
to stop prosecuting its citizens under Article 301.

Yes, as well as my response that I agreed. But don't feign 'confusion'
about the rest when it's clear from the context you removed.

My post, to which you were replying. specifically listed the
French/Swiss laws and a comment about the E.U having a case of 'free
speech' pot-kettle-pot-kettle so it is no mystery what 'contradiction'
I was talking about.

There is no *EU* law about holocaust denial. It's down to individual countries to do that. Both
Germany and Austria have such a law btw.

" Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Spain and Switzerland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Graham

Rich Grise wrote:

Michael wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
(snip)
Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?
(snip)

No, King George seems to have a lock on that, although folks who believed his
"... is a threat" speech back in mid-2002 might still have scales over their
eyes. That said, Congress has better things to do than the Turn/Armenian thing,
it's just that they don't know it. I'm getting so I disdain *both* parties.

It's time for a "None of the above" candidate.

True in the UK too. 'Democracy' is failing.

Graham

Jamie wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.


I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be receptive to
any new ideas.

---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.

LOL!, good one ..

Sort of to be expected from an ignorant prick like you. Cheer on some more idiots whilst
you're at it won't you ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Jamie wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be receptive to
any new ideas.

---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.

LOL!, good one ..

Sort of to be expected from an ignorant prick like you. Cheer on some more idiots whilst
you're at it won't you ?

Graham


Now you want a cheerleader for your ignorant rants? It figures.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Eeyore posted to
sci.electronics.design:



Dan Coby wrote:

"Jim Thompson"
wrote

Where's the benefit to our country when a
Democratic-Party-dominated Congress is trying to pass a bill
chastising the Turks for Armenian "genocide" that occurred in
1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

It depends upon if you believe in freedom of speech. The bill is
not only about events that happened 92 years ago but about events
that are happening today.

Here is a quote from a BBC article on this topic:

"In Turkey, the penal code makes calling "for the recognition of
the
Armenian genocide" illegal. Writers and translators have been
prosecuted for attempting to stimulate debate on the subject."

The full article is at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm

When a country makes even discussing history a crime then those who
believe in freedom of speech should not be quiet.

Here is another article upon a Turkish journalist who was murdered
because
he wrote about the genocide:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6289275.stm

And Turkey couldn't wouldn't be allowed to join the EU with laws
like that on the statute book..

Graham

Make couldn't/wouldn't into shouldn't and you might get closer but it
will be anyway, you could have easily done better.

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
"Dan Coby" wrote:

As I also said in portions that I snipped, I do not agree with the actions
of the EU or Switzerland with regard to requiring the use of the word
'genocide'. I do support actions which encourage the Turkish government
to stop prosecuting its citizens under Article 301.

Yes, as well as my response that I agreed. But don't feign 'confusion'
about the rest when it's clear from the context you removed.

My post, to which you were replying. specifically listed the
French/Swiss laws and a comment about the E.U having a case of 'free
speech' pot-kettle-pot-kettle so it is no mystery what 'contradiction'
I was talking about.

There is no *EU* law about holocaust denial.

I didn't say there was.

You inferred it.


It's down to individual countries to do that. Both
Germany and Austria have such a law btw.

" Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Spain and Switzerland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

So much for 'free speech',

I do have a slight problem with the idea that 'free speech' allows people to preach denial of facts I
have to say.

Hey, surely you should be standing up for Ahmadinejad ?

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:48:06 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:44:49 GMT, JimW52 wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:26:09 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:22:51 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

On 10/18/07 10:06 AM, in article ,
"Eeyore" wrote:

[snip]

LOL ! Yeah well let us keep our Falklands then ! ;~)

Did you purchase them or win them in an honorable war? We got some of
ours from a Republican God.


Why is Don Bowey so insecure ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

A strange question from someone who reacts so violently when his country
or his politics are critisised.

Jim


Uhhh? Did you read what you wrote?

...Jim Thompson

Of course, but you clearly failed to comprehend it.

Jim

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:39:15 GMT, (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

Do Americans care? Anyway, it is just something to put pressure on
Turkey not to invade the relatively peacefull northern part of Iraq.

It would have just the opposite effect. Just on the suggestion of
such a bill Turkey recalled their ambassador. With no ally
relationship Turkey would feel free to invade Kurdish territories.

That doesn't matter. Turkey wants to become a member of the EU very
badly so they will do as the EU says -in the end-.

Such an invasion would cause even more trouble in this troublesome
part of the world.

Perhaps. Turkey has always felt that the Kurdish area of northern
Iraq was Turkish territory.

Sometimes I think division of Iraq into secular chunks is necessary...
but then I think of how wonderful the Israeli-Palestine situation
works :-(

That depends. The eastern part of Europe has been divided into several
smaller countries as well since the fall of the Sovjet Union. It took
a few years of war though. First they want to fight themselves free
and then they want to join EU. Go figure... So I guess the whole Iraq
thing is a natural way of dividing land.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:13:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jamie wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

---
Why? I have no quarrel with him, and regardless of what he posted,
(which was, after all, just someone else's opinion) the fact remains
that Hitler _did_ attack you.

IMO, an unavoidable consequence of his megalomaniacal desire for
power and empire, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Are you
really naive enough to believe that even if he professed admiration
for Britain he'd leave you alone when his ultimate goal was to
conquer the world?

And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be pals
with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?
---

I'd offer to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge but I doubt you'd be receptive to
any new ideas.

---
From your long and rather less than brilliant posting history, I
doubt whether an old dog like you has any new tricks to teach.

LOL!, good one ..

Sort of to be expected from an ignorant prick like you. Cheer on some more idiots whilst
you're at it won't you ?

---
Soliciting praise, are you?


--
JF

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:39:32 -0500, Joe Chisolm
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:09:45 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:08:57 +0000, Michael wrote:
[snip]
than the Turn/Armenian thing, it's just that they don't know it. I'm
getting so I disdain *both* parties.

It's time for a "None of the above" candidate.

Cheers!
Rich

I think every ballot entry should have a "none of the above" check box.
If "none of the above" wins, then try again with different candidates.

---
I'd like to see a ballot where you could vote _against_ a candidate
you didn't want to see in office and thereby nullify someone else's
"for" vote.


--
JF

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

---
Why? I have no quarrel with him

And that changes the facts of the matter does it ?

The fact is that he's right.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

............ the fact remains that Hitler _did_ attack you.

IMO, an unavoidable consequence of his megalomaniacal desire for
power and empire, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Are you
really naive enough to believe that even if he professed admiration
for Britain he'd leave you alone when his ultimate goal was to
conquer the world?

And it would be that much simpler for him to do so with Britain as an ally. Indeed with Britain
as an ally, it's so much more unlikely that the USA would have taken up arms against a 'Europe
Empire'.


And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be pals
with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?

Churchill certainly found the idea repellent which is all that matters historically. Heck, even
GERMANS found the practical aspects of the holocaust repellent when forced to view them.

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:33:49 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Who was appeasing Hitler DURING WW2 ?

You were.

You were kissing his ass with: "Go ahead and do anything you want to
to anyone else, but as long as you leave us alone we won't **** with
you.

I'm afraid you may have missed his typical leftie 'word game'. See,
rather than deal with the obvious meaning and substance of what you
said he's quibbling with "during" since it can be argued the appeasing
was 'before'.

If 'before' was what was meant then why not say so ?

Because it is blindingly obvious to even the most casual observer that
the operative 'meaning' was appeasement and "during WWII" is simply a
reference to the era, which everyone knows about as it's been
analyzed, discussed, and referenced a billion times over with "Peace
in our Time" having reached iconic status.

During has an explicit meaning. Stop obfuscating.

You're the one who's intentionally obfuscating and trying to divert
the obvious meaning.

LIAR.

The readily observable evidence proves otherwise.

The readily observable evidence is that you like to redefine the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

---
Hardly. He quite accurately pointed out that you were trying to
divert attention (instead of refuting its content) from the meaning
of my post by taking one word out of context.

He also quite accurately pointed out (as you're now proving) that
attempting diversion is typical of scurrilous wretches like you.


--
JF

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:56:32 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

............ the fact remains that Hitler _did_ attack you.

IMO, an unavoidable consequence of his megalomaniacal desire for
power and empire, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Are you
really naive enough to believe that even if he professed admiration
for Britain he'd leave you alone when his ultimate goal was to
conquer the world?

And it would be that much simpler for him to do so with Britain as an ally. Indeed with Britain
as an ally, it's so much more unlikely that the USA would have taken up arms against a 'Europe
Empire'.

---
Do you think he would have stopped with Europe?
You've obviously lost your mind if you believe that.

We would have _had_ to take up arms against Europe, and if you were
partnering with him you'd have been in our sights as well.
---

And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be pals
with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?

Churchill certainly found the idea repellent which is all that matters historically. Heck, even
GERMANS found the practical aspects of the holocaust repellent when forced to view them.

---
Never mind all your ****ing bull****, the question was:

"And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be
pals with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?"

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.


--
JF

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:52:20 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?

---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

---
Why? I have no quarrel with him

And that changes the facts of the matter does it ?

---
LOL, whether I had a quarrel with him or not, the _facts_ of the
matter wouldn't change one iota.
---

The fact is that he's right.

---
Now you're just trying to stir up **** in order to try to take the
heat off of yourself. Just more diversion, as flipper so accurately
pointed out, you miserable piece of ****.


--
JF

Jim Thompson posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:00:33 -0700, "Dan Coby"
wrote:

[snip]

I am bothered by many in this country (U. S.) that consider any
disagreement with the Bush government as being 'treasonous'. I
consider this a violation of the basic concepts of free speech that
this country has as one of its founding (and greatest) principles.

[snip]

It is certainly not treasonous to _speak_ of anything. But for a
governmental body (Congress), presently dominated by the pansy side
of our population, to attempt to create a BILL to antagonize one of
our best allies... that IS treason.

...Jim Thompson

If you made that current ally of the week you might be closer to the
truth. Over the long haul Turkey has not been a regular friend to
the US.
On the other hand authoring, let alone passing bills, to try to make
political points, that antagonize any other government for any cause
is despicable.

Eeyore posted to
sci.electronics.design:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to
remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you
?

Graham

The House of Lords would not allow anything so crass. There are
ordinary passports and there are rather different ones for the titled
nobility. You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

John Fields posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:39:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to
remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been
allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you
?

---
Better yet:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...%29_Act_198 3



John, do the citizens of Puerto Rico or Guam vote in US national
elections? Are they US citizens?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:35:48 GMT, JosephKK
wrote:

John Fields posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:39:40 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Falkland Islanders have continually expressed a desire to
remain British.

---
Again, the lesser of two evils.
---

Where's the tyranny in that ?

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been
allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you
?

---
Better yet:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...%29_Act_198 3



John, do the citizens of Puerto Rico or Guam vote in US national
elections?

---
No.
---

Are they US citizens?

---
Yes.


--
JF

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey

SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal opinion
(as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****; what
is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste of
space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well with
sloppy thinking (r 0.9).

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey

SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal opinion
(as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****; what
is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste of
space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well with
sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means, SED is a
newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are behaving as an
ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The readily observable evidence is that you like to redefine the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

---
Hardly. He quite accurately pointed out that you were trying to
divert attention (instead of refuting its content) from the meaning
of my post by taking one word out of context.

You mean by using the dictionary definition of the word actually.

If you didn't mean 'during', you shouldn't have used the word 'during' ! Just how
stupid are you ?

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

............ the fact remains that Hitler _did_ attack you.

IMO, an unavoidable consequence of his megalomaniacal desire for
power and empire, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Are you
really naive enough to believe that even if he professed admiration
for Britain he'd leave you alone when his ultimate goal was to
conquer the world?

And it would be that much simpler for him to do so with Britain as an ally. Indeed with Britain
as an ally, it's so much more unlikely that the USA would have taken up arms against a 'Europe
Empire'.

---
Do you think he would have stopped with Europe?

Do YOU think at all ?

There's certainly not much evidence for it. For heaven's sake do yourself a favour and learn some
history from sources that haven't been written by delinquent Americans.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

the question was:

"And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be
pals with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?"

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Absolutely NOT. Whatever made you think otherwise ? If you weren't so retarded, my previous answer
would have made that obvious.

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?
---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

---
Why? I have no quarrel with him

And that changes the facts of the matter does it ?

---
LOL, whether I had a quarrel with him or not, the _facts_ of the
matter wouldn't change one iota.
---

The fact is that he's right.

---
Now you're just trying to stir up **** in order to try to take the
heat off of yourself. Just more diversion, as flipper so accurately
pointed out, you miserable piece of ****.

You REALLY do need to get an education about history that's based on facts, not opinion.

Graham

JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted to
sci.electronics.design:
John Fields wrote:

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?

The House of Lords would not allow anything so crass. There are
ordinary passports and there are rather different ones for the titled
nobility.

What different passports are these ?


You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Simply not so. There are a number of constitutional monarchies in Europe. In
every case I can think of, the monarch is really quite popular.

Belgium, Denmark, Holland/Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco,
Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world

Graham

JosephKK wrote:

John Fields posted to sci.electronics.design:
Eeyore wrote:

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will you ?

---
Better yet:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...%29_Act_198 3

John, do the citizens of Puerto Rico or Guam vote in US national
elections? Are they US citizens?

LOL !

Graham