On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:48:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> Unless they're illegal immigrants, no, not really.
>>
> Yeah, its purely the illegals, who show up to work as farm hands, and
> ditch diggers, and the like, that home invade, rob banks, etc.,

Don't you *dare* put words in my mouth, Patrick.  I didn't say that, nor 
did I imply that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:23:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
>> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
>> discussion.
>>
> Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string
> theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a
> valid description of *anything* at all...

I don't believe I was involved in that discussion.  I certainly don't 
know a lot about string theory, and not nearly enough to compare a 
religion to it.

That is just a ludicrous statement/challenge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  But you're quite liberal.
> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>

Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the pond.

>> >  It is considered quite offensive here too but that doesn't stop me from
>> >  reading it in American books and hearing it from some Americans.
> True, just wanted to make sure you were aware, since I wasn't aware if
> that carried over to UK culture.:-)
>

It is not a word in common usage here. But I suppose most of us could 
guess its meaning.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29-1-2011 2:39, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:01 PM, andrel wrote:


>> No, I mean that in the Netherlands most gun related crimes are made
>> possible because there is a large enough market in the US to cheaply
>> produce them.
> Bingo! Was what I was saying before. I misread what you wrote.
> Dissecting it, Should have been "chance of", not "change", and well..
> maybe, "committed by those using cheap guns, manufactured with looser
> laws", or the like. Not to be too picky, but it didn't parse well, and I
> was probably a) half a asleep, or b) in a hurry, when I replied (maybe
> both.. I might have posted it on the way out the door to go to work).

Sorry for the typo. The spell-checker didn't get it because I changed on 
a chance that was an existing word.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 2:09 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>> This is what they think will "save the country"...
>>>
>>
>> I'm still no wiser.
>>
> Then, I guess I don't get precisely what your point/question is.
>
> Mine is that we are bankrupting the middle and lower class, nah, erasing
> the middle class

[Snip]

Now I understand and sympathise.
We have had similar situations since the Blessed Mrs T </irony> came to 
power.

> This isn't just a difference of opinion at this point.

[Snip]

They say Love is blind but it has nothing on Avarice.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 12:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >  But you're quite liberal.
>> Well, true, socially, I am fairly liberal.
>>
>>
> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
> pond.

Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political 
usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>> pond.
>
> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>

Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here 
depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:14:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/01/2011 6:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:04:09 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm! I forgot that, that word changes its meaning as it crosses the
>>> pond.
>>
>> Well, not really a change, but there are nuances (in terms of political
>> usage of the word) that perhaps aren't common over there.
>>
>>
> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.

Interesting - so which meaning were you using?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2011 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Yes, nuances is a better word. "Liberal" changes its meaning here
>> depending on whether it is spelt with a capital "L" or not.
>
> Interesting - so which meaning were you using?
>

With a small "l", Liberal is a political party. They used to be called 
Whigs now they are just little "c"s


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>
>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate 
> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.

I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many 
variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially 
given other studies that show the opposite.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message