rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest
of us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping
that kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs
post, and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through
a bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am
sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to
discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick
regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to
rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably
will not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely.
==============
Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he
has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he
owed.



TnT


rick I will venture one more time into this morass. I am not sure
exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work
with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting
using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant
posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is
#1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that
number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. I don't
know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or
even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable
to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the
web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did
post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also
seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could
be different time zones.

I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I
have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I
realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post.
However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN
did not issue you an apology as I suggested, totally separate from all
this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the
greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first
situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact
provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed.

On 3-01-05 KMAN posted the following in response to other included
postings.

KMAN Mar 1, 8:24 pm


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/1/05 10:56 PM:

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
...snipsss...

My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom.

Can I please try again?

Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for
health
care?

If you will excuse and accept the following babble?

I deleted it.

Has he proven it?
A
Yes, he provided evidence, and there was other evidence available!

How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the
same as
proving something, Tinkerntom.

For example, your participation here in this newsgroup is something I
would
provide as evidence that you are suffering from mental health
problems. But
as I am sure you will agree, it doesn't prove it.

For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while
waiting
for
health care, and if the health care system had not responded so
slowly,
she'd still be alive?"

Yes, read about Diane Gorsuch below!

That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and
died
doesn't
mean that caused the death.

He never claimed that! If so show me Date and Time of rick's post!
I am
to tired to search any longer myself, having read and reread
probably
100 less than inspiring epistles by you two.

Sigh.

Well what would be the point of claiming that someone died while they
were
on a waiting list but the fact that they were waiting was not related
to the
cause of death!?!?!!??


Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health
care?

Yes, ask and answered previously and below!

How has he proven it?

Can you point me to an objective report (such as a coroner's report
or
inquiry) that says "Person X died because they were on a waiting list
and
their death was preventable if they had not been on that waiting
list"

Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the
waiting
that
caused them to die.

Now you are changing the question, rick never claimed this. He
claimed
that people died while their name was on a waiting list, waiting
for a
test or procedure that could have saved their life.

That's fine.

Point me to any objective report that says someone died because they
were
waiting for treatment that woudl have saved their life.

They still might
have lost their life, even if they had the procedure, because these
were seriously ill individuals with life threatening illness,
usually
cardiac or ontology, but that is a different issue entirely!

No, it isn't.

Before your deleted it, did you read it?

Your promise was posted as follows;

Feb 22, 7:03 am

"Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a
Canadian
reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in
wait
lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public
apology."

Sigh.

I am not a scumbag like rick.


I make a formal and public apology. The question, although badly
worded, was worded by yours truly, and, as worded,the requested burden
has been met.


Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat
bizarre
mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to
bring
some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more
widly
derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad
hominem
attacks and unreferenced accusations.

The Canadian health care system is excellent, and what some of the
articles
you quoted show is that the provincial and federal governments (and
more
importantly the general populace) see it as a top priority and are
determined to keep standards high.

Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and
testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to
say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct.
You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the
passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has
now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the
declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect.

Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political
position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the
same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that
you had not provided any evidence. I went out of my way to research the
first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and
screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize
to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your
claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as
stated above.

Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to
apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty.
Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very
apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of
fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however,
in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he
has modified his previous declarative statement.

I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your
intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the
second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. I would suggest,
to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow
him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you
acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further
acrimony and recriminations.

If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of
the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a
suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with
much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do
so. Your choice!

I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with
his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about
me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once!

Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as
his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me
set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!"
Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will
see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature
conversation! TnT