On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:45:42 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

After a week of not sleeping more than a few hours a nght, I really
don't care about an ocassional typo. Try it sometime, laying in bed in
pain all night and never going to sleep.

What's up with you then?

Pain in the arse (ass I suppose as he's a Yank).

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:04:00 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:


Bill's problem is that he is a puritan

Problem? If the definition of (2) below does apply, why would
it be a problem except for those who wish to promote immorality?

"Promote" in this context is a subjective word (as may also be
"morality"). It's usually used by those who want to repress something:
they usually claim that someone else is "promoting" it. (The obvious -
to me - example being that rather silly little book about a child with
two fathers; those with an axe to grind said it "promoted"
homosexuality, others that it promoted equality of treatment.)

well described as someone who lives in terror that somebody,
somewhere, is enjoying himself.

Not well described but a completely wrong description.

But with a grain of truth (-:. [FWIW, I don't find Bill puritanical,
even if I don't necessarily agree with him in this sub-thread.]

Definition of PURITAN

From which dictionary?

1 capitalized : a member of a 16th and 17th century Protestant group in
England and New England opposing as unscriptural the ceremonial worship
and the prelacy of the Church of England

2 one who practices or preaches a more rigorous or professedly purer
moral code than that which prevails

3. One who seems to want to suppress/limit some of the actions of others
who do not share his/her views. It is from this, initially informal but
long-standing, variant that we get the word "puritanical", which has
been around quite a long time.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you like making stuff there's always somebody ready to say that its
ridiculous. But, actually, I don't think it is. In fact, enthusiasms are good.
Hobbies are healthy. They don't harm anybody. - James May in RT, 6-12
November 2010.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Quite. it serves no purpose in the UK since it couldn't resolve any
likely voltage variations - even for those so anal they wanted to know.

(Why do [some] people insist on using that term - anal - for other
people who want to know something they don't, or similar? I find it
unpleasant. And no, I'm not one of those referred to in this case.)

Sorry to upset your finer feelings. It's commonly used for those who
wish information or whatever they can't act on. Or is by me.

It tends to be used more by Americans, I think. I appreciate you don't
mean much harm by it. But do you think that any desire for knowledge
that is not immediately of use must be mocked?

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*
[]
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you like making stuff there's always somebody ready to say that its
ridiculous. But, actually, I don't think it is. In fact, enthusiasms are good.
Hobbies are healthy. They don't harm anybody. - James May in RT, 6-12
November 2010.

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Sorry to upset your finer feelings. It's commonly used for those who
wish information or whatever they can't act on. Or is by me.

It tends to be used more by Americans, I think. I appreciate you don't
mean much harm by it. But do you think that any desire for knowledge
that is not immediately of use must be mocked?

That's an anorak. ;-)

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Don Pearce wrote:

Nobody gets VD deliberately. It happens as the result of an accidental
coming together. Just the same as a broken leg.

It's the result of omitting to wear a rubber johnnie, as supplied to all
troops free of charge. It's a sin of omission.

Bill

Don Pearce wrote:


Bill's problem is that he is a puritan - well described as someone who
lives in terror that somebody, somewhere, is enjoying himself.

You are so totally wrong. Your wrongness is in a class of its own. I am
basically a hedonist. But I'm a hedonist with a careful streak, because
to get the max pleasure out of life the life should be long and
unimpeded by injury. My main concern is that everyone should enjoy
themselves to the max. That means that they and others should avoid
actions that lead to a diminution of that potential enjoyment. So have
fun, but don't do things that might cause you and others great grief.

Enjoy fast driving, but do it safely.

Have a lot of sex, but don't catch AIDS and don't cause unwanted
pregnancies. But do have children because they are a joy.

Enjoy loud music, but be careful with your hearing.

Eat bacon, but be sure to take your statins.

Swim in the sea, but avoid strong currents.

Drink vodka, but not the type made in industrial units by crooks in Batley.

Be kind to animals, but don't shag them.

Help others for its own sake.

Masturbate, but not so much that you draw blood.

Learn to appreciate Shakespeare, but don't bore other people with it.

Bill

Saved and forwarded!

In message , Bill Wright
writes:
[]
basically a hedonist. But I'm a hedonist with a careful streak, because
to get the max pleasure out of life the life should be long and
unimpeded by injury. My main concern is that everyone should enjoy
themselves to the max. That means that they and others should avoid
actions that lead to a diminution of that potential enjoyment. So have
fun, but don't do things that might cause you and others great grief.

Enjoy fast driving, but do it safely.

Have a lot of sex, but don't catch AIDS and don't cause unwanted
pregnancies. But do have children because they are a joy.

Enjoy loud music, but be careful with your hearing.
And don't excessively bother others with it.

Eat bacon, but be sure to take your statins.
(If necessary.)

Swim in the sea, but avoid strong currents.
And jellyfish, sharks, and sewage etcetera.

Drink vodka, but not the type made in industrial units by crooks in Batley.
(-:

Be kind to animals, but don't shag them.
(-: (-:

Help others for its own sake.
That's a good one. It's satisfying. (Occasionally I've asked myself "why
am I doing this" - not showing-off helping like helping with computer
problems etc., but things like holding doors open or getting things down
off a high shelf for a short person; the only answer I can think of is
that it pleases me. But _why_ it does is puzzling.)

Masturbate, but not so much that you draw blood.
(-:

Learn to appreciate Shakespeare, but don't bore other people with it.
That's the one I might disagree with, but I certainly agree with the
sentiment.

Bill





John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You know what they say. In London you're never more than ten feet away from a
lying politician." The Downing Street rat, "quoted" by Rod Liddle in Radio
Times, 12-18 February 2011

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:27:38 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Nobody gets VD deliberately. It happens as the result of an accidental
coming together. Just the same as a broken leg.

It's the result of omitting to wear a rubber johnnie, as supplied to all
troops free of charge. It's a sin of omission.

I think you will find that the vast majority of people have sex
without a "Rubber Johnnie" (quaint) with no sign of VD. So your causal
link is a false one. Let me give you two scenarios:

1. I rode a motor bike for fun, but it turns out it had a fault and I
broke my leg.

2. I had sex with a woman for fun, but it turns out she had an
infection and I got VD in my oral mucus membranes.

In neither case would the standard prophylactic be effective, yet
somehow the first is ok, but the second is immoral? Only to a twisted
mind.

d

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

One point - this Nazi development (never a practical tool of war) was a
fighter not a bomber. Even in more modern times developing a stealth
bomber
was far more difficult and there was a delay of many years between the
first stealth fighter and the first stealth bomber.


How big a bomber and how unpractical a tool of war is a fighter sized
airplane that can't be seen until you are 20 miles off the coast and it's
carrying an atomic bomb?

Given the lack of effectiveness of bomb sighting and delivery in those days,
you needed a lot of big bombers to do any strategic damage at all.

The distance from the coast to London is 92 miles so it needs to go 112
miles to drop the bomb directly on London. If it was travelling 100 mph,
that would take enough time for it to be noticed and if a fighter got
lucky,
it would be shot down visually.

I thought we were talking about Germany bombing the US.

We were, but you had said that a single small airplane would not be a
practical tool of war, and I was refuting that. IMHO a single stealth
airplane, seeming appearing out of nowhere 10 minutes from London
with an atomic bomb would have been a very practical tool of war.

Especially if the US public was led to believe that there was another
one headed for the east coast of the US, for example New York City,
Boston, Washington DC, etc.

Or if there were two such airplanes, one hitting New York from Europe
and one hitting L.A. from "Japan" (not directly, obviously), that would
have been the end of the war.

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20 years?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:27:38 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Nobody gets VD deliberately. It happens as the result of an accidental
coming together. Just the same as a broken leg.
It's the result of omitting to wear a rubber johnnie, as supplied to all
troops free of charge. It's a sin of omission.

I think you will find that the vast majority of people have sex
without a "Rubber Johnnie" (quaint)
[humour]

with no sign of VD. So your causal
link is a false one.
The fact is that having unprotected sex runs the risk of catching a disease.

Your expression 'the vast majority of people' is a red herring, because
we were talking specifically about soldiers having sex with local women
whose medical history was unknown to them. In those circumstances the
chance of catching something is quite high. That isn't just my opinion;
it's an indisputable well-documented fact.

Let me give you two scenarios:

1. I rode a motor bike for fun, but it turns out it had a fault and I
broke my leg.

2. I had sex with a woman for fun, but it turns out she had an
infection and I got VD in my oral mucus membranes.

In neither case would the standard prophylactic be effective, yet
somehow the first is ok, but the second is immoral?

Yes because in the case of the sex you didn't use a rubber johnnie
despite having no knowledge of the woman's medical history. That, in the
context of you having a duty to society to keep healthy, is a clear sin
of omission.

In the case of the motorbike if you had reason to believe that the bike
was in good working order it would be a blameless accident. But if you
had failed to maintain the bike in good condition it would have been a
grievous sin taking it on the road, because of the danger to yourself
and others.

Only to a twisted
mind.

Bill