Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2120747 > unrolled thread

Re: hey Brits!

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 04:08 -0700
    Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-06 14:51 +0000
      Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:35 -0700
        Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-06 19:05 +0000
          Re: hey Brits! Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-06 20:30 +0100
            Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:12 -0700
              Re: hey Brits! Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-07 15:59 +0100
                Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 09:34 +1000
                  Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 03:12 -0700
                  Re: hey Brits! Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-08 05:47 -0700
                    Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-09 18:41 +1000
              Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 09:25 +1000
                Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-08 19:03 +0000
        Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-07 09:15 +1000

#2120747 — Re: hey Brits!

On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
> >>>>>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
> >>>>>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
> >>>>>>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
> >>>>>>>>>>> evicted in formation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
> >>>>>>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
> >>>>> without much investigation - that the world would be a
> >>>>> better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
> >>>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them
> >>>> now would be to commit a new crime...
> >>>
> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
> >>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Of course they have.
> >>
> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
> >
> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the
> > western hemisphere.
> >
> 
> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are
> entirely British.

I think so.  So, which part of that determines where
the loud bang happens?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120812

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal
>> >>>>>>>>>>> territory for solar power but it is an option.  Imagine an
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Orange Lodge March being evicted in formation.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The
>> >>>>>>> "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without much
>> >>>>> investigation - that the world would be a better place if that
>> >>>>> "Plantation" had not happened.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
>> >>>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot
>> >>>> them now would be to commit a new crime...
>> >>>
>> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical international
>> >>> figure would ever consider such a thing?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Of course they have.
>> >>
>> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>> >
>> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>> >
>> >
>> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely British.
> 
> I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
> happens?

The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120847

On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> territory for solar power but it is an option.  Imagine an
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Orange Lodge March being evicted in formation.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The
> >> >>>>>>> "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without much
> >> >>>>> investigation - that the world would be a better place if that
> >> >>>>> "Plantation" had not happened.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
> >> >>>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot
> >> >>>> them now would be to commit a new crime...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical international
> >> >>> figure would ever consider such a thing?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> Of course they have.
> >> >>
> >> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
> >> >
> >> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
> >> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely British.
> > 
> > I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
> > happens?
> 
> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.

Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign
(go west).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120933

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:35:49 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W. 
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ideal territory for solar power but it is an option. 
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> formation.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> from.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.)
>> >> >>>>>>> The "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate
>> >> >>>>>>> "Plantation".
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>> >> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without
>> >> >>>>> much investigation - that the world would be a better place if
>> >> >>>>> that "Plantation" had not happened.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After
>> >> >>>> three centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else. 
>> >> >>>> To uproot them now would be to commit a new crime...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
>> >> >>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Of course they have.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>> >> >
>> >> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>> >> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely
>> >> British.
>> > 
>> > I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
>> > happens?
>> 
>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
> 
> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign (go
> west).

There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of here.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120952

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:35:49 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>> >> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>> >> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>> >> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W. 
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ideal territory for solar power but it is an option. 
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> formation.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> from.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.)
>>> >> >>>>>>> The "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate
>>> >> >>>>>>> "Plantation".
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>>> >> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without
>>> >> >>>>> much investigation - that the world would be a better place if
>>> >> >>>>> that "Plantation" had not happened.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After
>>> >> >>>> three centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else. 
>>> >> >>>> To uproot them now would be to commit a new crime...
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
>>> >> >>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >> Of course they have.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>>> >> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely
>>> >> British.
>>> > 
>>> > I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
>>> > happens?
>>> 
>>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
>> 
>> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign (go
>> west).
>
>There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of here.

How had can it be to modify the programme/circuity to make it fly to a
target in the west?



Les Hellawell
Greeting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote:
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121406

On Monday, 6 June 2016 20:30:21 UTC+1, Les Hellawell  wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:35:49 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>> >> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> >> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>> >> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> >> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>> >> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W. 
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ideal territory for solar power but it is an option. 
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> formation.
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> from.
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >>> >> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >>> >> >>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.)
> >>> >> >>>>>>> The "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate
> >>> >> >>>>>>> "Plantation".
> >>> >> >>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >>> >> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without
> >>> >> >>>>> much investigation - that the world would be a better place if
> >>> >> >>>>> that "Plantation" had not happened.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After
> >>> >> >>>> three centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else. 
> >>> >> >>>> To uproot them now would be to commit a new crime...
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
> >>> >> >>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> Of course they have.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
> >>> >> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely
> >>> >> British.
> >>> > 
> >>> > I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
> >>> > happens?
> >>> 
> >>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
> >> 
> >> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign (go
> >> west).
> >
> >There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of here.
> 
> How had can it be to modify the programme/circuity to make it fly to a
> target in the west?

You mean, without tripping the anti tamper switch 
that causes it to play "The Star Spangled Banner"
while counting down from thirty right in front 
of you?  It might be tricky.

Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American 
nuclear missile to attack America.  But I think 
I won't do it until I have more than one of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121456

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 6 June 2016 20:30:21 UTC+1, Les Hellawell  wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:35:49 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >>> >> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> >> > On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >>> >> >> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W. 
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ideal territory for solar power but it is an option. 
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> formation.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> from.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>> >>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.)
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> The "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate
>> >>> >> >>>>>>> "Plantation".
>> >>> >> >>>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>> >>> >> >>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>> >>> >> >>>>>
>> >>> >> >>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without
>> >>> >> >>>>> much investigation - that the world would be a better place if
>> >>> >> >>>>> that "Plantation" had not happened.
>> >>> >> >>>>
>> >>> >> >>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After
>> >>> >> >>>> three centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else. 
>> >>> >> >>>> To uproot them now would be to commit a new crime...
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
>> >>> >> >>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >> Of course they have.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>> >>> >> > I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely
>> >>> >> British.
>> >>> > 
>> >>> > I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
>> >>> > happens?
>> >>> 
>> >>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
>> >> 
>> >> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign (go
>> >> west).
>> >
>> >There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of here.
>> 
>> How had can it be to modify the programme/circuity to make it fly to a
>> target in the west?
>
>You mean, without tripping the anti tamper switch 
>that causes it to play "The Star Spangled Banner"
>while counting down from thirty right in front 
>of you?  It might be tricky.
>
>Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American 

made missile with British made 

>nuclear 

weapons

> missile to attack America.  But I think 
>I won't do it until I have more than one of them.

It would be madness and mass murder to launch such a vile
thing anywhere. We should scrap the damn things not renew
them as is currently planned. They never served any useful purpose and
young men should not be wasting their lives sat in submarines in the
depths of our oceans for months on end. We have far far better things
to spent our hard earned money on. (cue usual statement about how many
NHS hospitals we could build instead). 

As it is they wll probably cost a fortune to dispose of.




Les Hellawell
Greeting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote:
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121704

On 08/06/2016 00:59, Les Hellawell wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>


>>
>> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American
>
> made missile with British made
>
>> nuclear
>
> weapons
>
>> missile to attack America.  But I think
>> I won't do it until I have more than one of them.
>
> It would be madness and mass murder to launch such a vile
> thing anywhere. We should scrap the damn things not renew
> them as is currently planned. They never served any useful purpose and
> young men should not be wasting their lives sat in submarines in the
> depths of our oceans for months on end. We have far far better things
> to spent our hard earned money on. (cue usual statement about how many
> NHS hospitals we could build instead).

In a world with only two superpowers, our trifling arsenal only served a 
very marginal purpose if at all.


But today?  Nations with nuclear capability are proliferating -- and so 
is the threat.  It isn't so long ago that two demented dictators in the 
Middle East (Hussein and Gaddhafi) were actively working on developing a 
nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the UK.  Without the means of 
responding to that threat in kind, those loonytunes might well have 
ended up using their weapons, either as a threat or by launching them. 
For such nations, the old rule of Mutually Assured Destruction still holds.

Aside from all that, I am unhappy at leaving even more of our nation's 
security up to the Yanks.



>
> As it is they wll probably cost a fortune to dispose of.

We dispose of our old warheads quite routinely, and replace them with 
new ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121951

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 00:34:16 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 00:59, Les Hellawell wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> >>
> >> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American
> >
> > made missile with British made
> >
> >> nuclear
> >
> > weapons
> >
> >> missile to attack America.  But I think
> >> I won't do it until I have more than one of them.
> >
> > It would be madness and mass murder to launch such a vile
> > thing anywhere. We should scrap the damn things not renew
> > them as is currently planned. They never served any useful purpose and
> > young men should not be wasting their lives sat in submarines in the
> > depths of our oceans for months on end. We have far far better things
> > to spent our hard earned money on. (cue usual statement about how many
> > NHS hospitals we could build instead).
> 
> In a world with only two superpowers, our trifling arsenal only served a 
> very marginal purpose if at all.
> 
> 
> But today?  Nations with nuclear capability are proliferating -- and so 
> is the threat.  It isn't so long ago that two demented dictators in the 
> Middle East (Hussein and Gaddhafi) were actively working on developing a 
> nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the UK. 

But I gather they only spent forty-five minutes
trying to do that, so is it a real threat?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122026

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 00:34:16 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 00:59, Les Hellawell wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> >>
> >> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American
> >
> > made missile with British made
> >
> >> nuclear
> >
> > weapons
> >
> >> missile to attack America.  But I think
> >> I won't do it until I have more than one of them.
> >
> > It would be madness and mass murder to launch such a vile
> > thing anywhere. We should scrap the damn things not renew
> > them as is currently planned. They never served any useful purpose and
> > young men should not be wasting their lives sat in submarines in the
> > depths of our oceans for months on end. We have far far better things
> > to spent our hard earned money on. (cue usual statement about how many
> > NHS hospitals we could build instead).
> 
> In a world with only two superpowers, our trifling arsenal only served a 
> very marginal purpose if at all.
> 
> 
> But today?  Nations with nuclear capability are proliferating -- and so 
> is the threat.  It isn't so long ago that two demented dictators in the 
> Middle East (Hussein and Gaddhafi) were actively working on developing a 
> nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the UK.  Without the means of 
> responding to that threat in kind, those loonytunes might well have 
> ended up using their weapons, either as a threat or by launching them. 
> For such nations, the old rule of Mutually Assured Destruction still holds.
> 

But, even if we need a nuclear deterrent, is a SLBM the right kind for the modern world?

For a start the "invisibility" of nuclear subs, if it still exists, probably won't for long. The seas will soon swarm with semi-autonomous spy drones.

And against the new actors the old nukes are likely to prove too big. If we dropped a single Trident warhead on North Korea, for example, we'd kill at least hundreds of Chinese, and even more South Koreans. These nukes were designed for Armagedon where collateral damage was hardly an issue.

If we still need a nuclear deterrent a dozen Cruise Missiles with relatively small warheads would be a more credible one than Trident. And a hell of a lot cheaper.


> Aside from all that, I am unhappy at leaving even more of our nation's 
> security up to the Yanks.
> 

Especially while there's a danger of someone like Trump getting elected.


> 
> 
> >
> > As it is they wll probably cost a fortune to dispose of.
> 
> We dispose of our old warheads quite routinely, and replace them with 
> new ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122386

On 08/06/2016 22:47, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 00:34:16 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 08/06/2016 00:59, Les Hellawell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American
>>>
>>> made missile with British made
>>>
>>>> nuclear
>>>
>>> weapons
>>>
>>>> missile to attack America.  But I think I won't do it until I
>>>> have more than one of them.
>>>
>>> It would be madness and mass murder to launch such a vile thing
>>> anywhere. We should scrap the damn things not renew them as is
>>> currently planned. They never served any useful purpose and young
>>> men should not be wasting their lives sat in submarines in the
>>> depths of our oceans for months on end. We have far far better
>>> things to spent our hard earned money on. (cue usual statement
>>> about how many NHS hospitals we could build instead).
>>
>> In a world with only two superpowers, our trifling arsenal only
>> served a very marginal purpose if at all.
>>
>>
>> But today?  Nations with nuclear capability are proliferating --
>> and so is the threat.  It isn't so long ago that two demented
>> dictators in the Middle East (Hussein and Gaddhafi) were actively
>> working on developing a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the UK.
>> Without the means of responding to that threat in kind, those
>> loonytunes might well have ended up using their weapons, either as
>> a threat or by launching them. For such nations, the old rule of
>> Mutually Assured Destruction still holds.
>>
>
> But, even if we need a nuclear deterrent, is a SLBM the right kind
> for the modern world?

On reflection, you are correct.
Overkill is perhaps no longer the best solution.


>
> For a start the "invisibility" of nuclear subs, if it still exists,
> probably won't for long. The seas will soon swarm with
> semi-autonomous spy drones.

True .... at least until countermeasures are developed.


>
> And against the new actors the old nukes are likely to prove too big.
> If we dropped a single Trident warhead on North Korea, for example,
> we'd kill at least hundreds of Chinese, and even more South Koreans.
> These nukes were designed for Armagedon where collateral damage was
> hardly an issue.
>
> If we still need a nuclear deterrent a dozen Cruise Missiles with
> relatively small warheads would be a more credible one than Trident.
> And a hell of a lot cheaper.

Quite true.

The issue is whether we have the political will to invest in a programme 
to develop and build such missiles and the warheads to match.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121702

On 07/06/2016 22:12, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 6 June 2016 20:30:21 UTC+1, Les Hellawell  wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:35:49 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal territory for solar power but it is an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Plantation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without
>>>>>>>>>>>> much investigation - that the world would be a better place if
>>>>>>>>>>>> that "Plantation" had not happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After
>>>>>>>>>>> three centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.
>>>>>>>>>>> To uproot them now would be to commit a new crime...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course they have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>>> I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely
>>>>>>> British.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
>>>>>> happens?
>>>>>
>>>>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign (go
>>>> west).
>>>
>>> There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of here.
>>
>> How had can it be to modify the programme/circuity to make it fly to a
>> target in the west?
>
> You mean, without tripping the anti tamper switch
> that causes it to play "The Star Spangled Banner"
> while counting down from thirty right in front
> of you?  It might be tricky.
>
> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American
> nuclear missile to attack America.  But I think
> I won't do it until I have more than one of them.
>

Hmm ... maybe we could do so while on a cruise in North Korean waters? 
They'd never know...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122157

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:25:27 +1000, Alex W. wrote:

> On 07/06/2016 22:12, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 June 2016 20:30:21 UTC+1, Les Hellawell  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> There sure is. Go 300 degrees east and you end up 60 degrees west of
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> How had can it be to modify the programme/circuity to make it fly to a
>>> target in the west?
>>
>> You mean, without tripping the anti tamper switch that causes it to
>> play "The Star Spangled Banner"
>> while counting down from thirty right in front of you?  It might be
>> tricky.
>>
>> Okay, maybe it is possible to launch an American nuclear missile to
>> attack America.  But I think I won't do it until I have more than one
>> of them.
>>
> Hmm ... maybe we could do so while on a cruise in North Korean waters?
> They'd never know...

But the warhead will have "Made in Britain" and a broad arrow stamped on 
it, a dead give-away.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121098

On 07/06/2016 02:35, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 6 June 2016 15:51:57 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 04:08:53 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 5 June 2016 02:33:09 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>> On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sash and fly them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> territory for solar power but it is an option.  Imagine an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orange Lodge March being evicted in formation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The
>>>>>>>>>>> "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>>>>>>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without much
>>>>>>>>> investigation - that the world would be a better place if that
>>>>>>>>> "Plantation" had not happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
>>>>>>>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot
>>>>>>>> them now would be to commit a new crime...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical international
>>>>>>> figure would ever consider such a thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>>>>>
>>>>> Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
>>>>> I don't think they can be pointed towards the western hemisphere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely British.
>>>
>>> I think so.  So, which part of that determines where the loud bang
>>> happens?
>>
>> The human part that inputs the target's coordinates.
>
> Well, I'm proposing that there is no way to input a minus sign
> (go west).
>

Where is the minus sign?

  40° 43′ 0″ N, 74° 0′ 0″ W

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web