|
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets
medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. The only way to cut the cost of medical care is to cut jobs and downgrade the salaries of the people they keep. Nobody says that. Not true. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the current health care system. From records keeping, to nutrition and everything in between. A third of it's revenue!!! http://tinyurl.com/6lwxnr Which states in part: Home /Globe /Opinion /Op-ed James Roosevelt Jr. Breaking the cycle of waste in healthcare By James Roosevelt Jr. October 22, 2008 Email|Print|Single Page|Yahoo! Buzz|ShareThisText size – + IMAGINE what would happen if we learned that a major business was wasting a third of its revenue by grossly overspending while rewarding poor quality and mistakes. Everyone from the company's board members to its shareholders would be outraged. They would demand answers. And they would demand change. There is, in fact, such a business: healthcare. It is an industry in which everyone has a stake - as a patient, a payer, or a provider. And yet the stakeholders have been alarmingly quiet on the issue of waste and inefficiency. This is surprising because a staggering $760 billion -- more than the $700 billion bailout of the US banking system and a full third of the $2.3 trillion in annual healthcare spending - is wasted on things like medical mistakes, hospital-acquired infections, medication errors, overuse of emergency departments, and unnecessary lab tests and medical imaging. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Jul 23, 1:07*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? *Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. *Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. *I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. *If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. The only way to cut the cost of medical care is to cut jobs and downgrade the salaries of the people they keep. Nobody says that. A blog made the point that 1960s era medical care would be extremely cheap these days but we do not want that, we want 2009 medical care. In other words, what we pay for medical care provides funding for continuous advances. Some people will reply that the govt should fund such advances but they are not able to. The only way to fund real advances is thru people willing to risk large amounts of money on risky (in terms of success, not to the patient) technology. If an insurance policy was available for little money that said "We will only pay for medical care using technology available up to 1995", how many people would take such a policy only for care? Unfortunately, if we want continuous advances in medical care, then costs will continue to rise, it MUST. As the population ages, they get more and more wrong with them and new technologies are expensive. I do not know the solution to this problem. When people think that drug prices far exceed the costs of R&D, they do not factor in the costs of drugs and procedures that failed but cost huge amounts of money. Furthermore, R&D is really expensive. It is a joke in the R&D world that you should produce the most reasonable budget you can and then multiply it by Pi (3.1415...). However, it has been my experience that even this is too low and I always end up spending 3X more than that even. Unfortunately, if you are doing it under a govt fixed fee contract, you can never justify up front to the budgeting officer why the costs will be this high because you can never identify the sources of these increased costs beforehand, otherwise it wouldn't be research. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. What are you raving about? Most of our drugs would be made by large companies you are familiar with. Back in the 80s when Reagans' 'bum boy', Mulrooney was our Prime Minister, he caved-in to American interests and changed the protected patent on drugs from 7 years to 15 years. That meant that we couldn't throw out cheaper generic drugs to avoid the gouging from the major companies. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. I'm not sure I agree with that. Physicians have much higher risks and responsibilities in my opinion. Additionally, most of them are close to 40 years old before they get their practice established and their student loans paid off. Meanwhile they have been working very long hours at relatively low pay while they complete their residency requirements. I think the cost issue is elsewhere. I have seen first hand hundreds of thousands in treatments given to people diagnosed with conditions expected to be terminal in a year or two. There has got to be something wrong with that. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. What are you raving about? Most of our drugs would be made by large companies you are familiar with. Back in the 80s when Reagans' 'bum boy', Mulrooney was our Prime Minister, he caved-in to American interests and changed the protected patent on drugs from 7 years to 15 years. That meant that we couldn't throw out cheaper generic drugs to avoid the gouging from the major companies. Sure they are made by large companies. But it may take 15 years to make back the money spent in R&D. For the drug you are buying and for the drugs that failed to be a winner. Why should a drug patent time frame be less a patent on toys or a Sham-wow? |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. Most college professors I know and work with didn't spend 10 to 12 years of schooling before residency to obtain positions as professors. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and a 3-10 year residency depending on what the doctor wants to specialize in. A 1-2 year fellowship added if it's a specialty like anesthesia or surgery. That doesn't quite match up with Masters post-graduate time which is about 6 to 8 years total. The national average salary, adjusting for location, for an internist is $90K to $120K/yr. The national average salary, adjusting for location, for a college professor is about $90k to $110k/yr. You do go up the income scale depending on grants, research funding, publication, etc., depending on the specialty in college/university education much as you do in medicine - they are about the same with doctors having a slight edge in overall income - say, 5% or so. You also have to consider that doctors have to pay for their own commission/omission insurance, malpractice insurance, liability insurance and about half a dozen other insurances that affect their overall take home pay. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Jul 23, 5:07*pm, H the K wrote:
On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns *wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. I taught college Physics for two semesters. Easiest job I ever had and I had 15 "contact" hours whereas the normal load for a prof is 12. Not only was I finishing up my research too, I was writing two papers and job hunting and caving every weekend and still had a lot of free time. I dunno about doctors in training, I have heard it is grueling. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On 7/23/09 5:22 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, H the wrote: On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. I taught college Physics for two semesters. Easiest job I ever had and I had 15 "contact" hours whereas the normal load for a prof is 12. Not only was I finishing up my research too, I was writing two papers and job hunting and caving every weekend and still had a lot of free time. I dunno about doctors in training, I have heard it is grueling. Nice, but has nothing to do with what I posted. I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. But...I was not interested in full-time permament employment, or the tenure track or research. I was interested in earning some bucks while getting my master's. But that's not what i was talking about, either. BTW, I do have an idea for an invention...but all I have is the idea. What do you know about...plastics? I'm not kidding, either. :) -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Jul 23, 5:26*pm, H the K wrote:
On 7/23/09 5:22 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Jul 23, 5:07 pm, H the *wrote: On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns * *wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. I taught college Physics for two semesters. *Easiest job I ever had and I had 15 "contact" hours whereas the normal load for a prof is 12. *Not only was I finishing up my research too, I was writing two papers and job hunting and caving every weekend and still had a lot of free time. I dunno about doctors in training, I have heard it is grueling. Nice, but has nothing to do with what I posted. I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. But...I was not interested in full-time permament employment, or the tenure track or research. I was interested in earning some bucks while getting my master's. But that's not what i was talking about, either. BTW, I do have an idea for an invention...but all I have is the idea. What do you know about...plastics? I'm not kidding, either. :) -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. Write it down and sign and date it in the presence of a witness who also signs it as understanding the idea. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Right - more ignorant bull**** from the biggest bull****ter in the newsgroup. I know because I've been there - twice with two kids and my own education. I'll say it again - what you know about anything can be written on the tip of a sewing needle with a broad tip Sharpie - or what you can Google up. And I thought your wife was already a Dr. Dr. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:26:28 -0400, H the K
wrote: BTW, I do have an idea for an invention...but all I have is the idea. What do you know about...plastics? They already invented the butt plug and vibrator. Try again. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On 7/23/09 5:38 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Right - more ignorant bull**** from the biggest bull****ter in the newsgroup. I know because I've been there - twice with two kids and my own education. I'll say it again - what you know about anything can be written on the tip of a sewing needle with a broad tip Sharpie - or what you can Google up. And I thought your wife was already a Dr. Dr. You know? What you know is not "universally accepted knowledge." In the last two months, you've made a number of factual announcements here that are absolute provable bull****. Remember your claims about Husqvarna tractors? Bull****. You claims about the fuel burns on your etec? Bull****. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On 7/23/09 5:39 PM, Yogi of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:26:28 -0400, H the wrote: BTW, I do have an idea for an invention...but all I have is the idea. What do you know about...plastics? They already invented the butt plug and vibrator. Try again. I wasn't talking about an idea that would substitute for the fact that Viagra no longer works for you. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
In article ,
says... Most college professors I know and work with didn't spend 10 to 12 years of schooling before residency to obtain positions as professors. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. According to the accrediting bodies, you always have to be "one ahead" of your students. Anybody expecting to teach to students at a Masters level must have a Doctorate. Most Universities want (FT) individuals qualified to teach to the Graduate Level. They can always find part timers... usually new graduates to teach the lower classes.... Everybody I teach with had at least a bachelors and 20 years in the field before they were hired. Most were retired military. All of us have signed our name in log books that can be used as legal documents against us in a court of law. Even a physician doesn't sign a paper that attests to a 100% error free job every time. In fact, they have you sign reams of paper attesting to the fact that they are blameless... whatever.... Plus, a physician makes a mistake? One fatality. One of us or our students? Tens... hundreds... with the potential for thousands of fatalities. I'm tired of hearing whiny physicians that have never had a *real* job, any more than a PhD in Philosophy has, blubber about being sued.... they painted a target on their OWN back.... Again, consider when this "medical costs are out of hand" first came to light.... -- -- MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.4 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net...at/my_boat.htm |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
"H the K" wrote in message m... On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. Will she then be a Dr. Dr. Dr.? Fast track and you can get a PhD in 7 years. Nuclear Chemistry. Top school. Roommate before marriage was exactly that. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
Frogwatch wrote:
With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last 50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what really works. Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. I worked for a drug company and have seen the cost difference between what the drug can be sold for in the US and in Canada. Of course Cost differentiation of a product is a basic of micro economics. There are two facts that drive up the cost of health care. One is the cost of the staff to cover the required record keeping and the staff to keep up to date on the regulations. The drug drug companies I have worked for have had 30 to 40% of their staff in regulatory and QA/QC. Regulatory working to understand and comply to the regulations QA/QC enforcing the regulations. The second cost of drug comes from the 100% safe mind set of the people in the US. Nothing is 100% safe, but the law suits and the liabilities this mindset produces requires a staff of lawyers working for the drug company and excessive cost for liability insurance for the drug manufacturer, the hospital, the doctor, and the health care worker. As with nuclear energy they are killing the industry with government regulations. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
H the K wrote:
On 7/23/09 4:51 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: We need to first cut the incomes of physicians. They should be paid no more than college professor.... they have the same length of training. Really. Interesting. You could make an argument for PhD level, but the only reason you get a PhD is for research - not instruction. More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Most university employment ads I have seen for tenure track positions at the assistant or associate professor level require a doctorate, and those are for teaching positions. Obviously such jobs also may have a research component. Your "this is the way it is because I say so" pronouncements here are consistently close to or even over the edge, and are reflective of a closed mind. My wife will be getting her doctorate next year, as soon as her dissertation is completed and defended. Is that when you will take her name? |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: More ignorant bull**** from SW Tom. Right - more ignorant bull**** from the biggest bull****ter in the newsgroup. I know because I've been there - twice with two kids and my own education. I'll say it again - what you know about anything can be written on the tip of a sewing needle with a broad tip Sharpie - or what you can Google up. And I thought your wife was already a Dr. Dr. So did he. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:57:59 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: |With all the consideration of the govt being the party that sets |medical prices at Canadian levels, who will pay for the R&D? Most R&D |for med stuff is done in the USA because we pay for it and essentially |the USA subsidizes Canadian medicine because they do NOT pay for the |R&D, US citizens do. The govt will not pay for it and are not even |qualified to do so. Most advances in medicine and drugs over the last |50 years would never have been funded by the govt. I know from |personal experience that govt experts rarely know enough about what |really works. |Most medical R&D is funded by pvt companies who know they will make |money if the process works. If they cannot make a profit, no more |R&D, no advances in treatments, no new drugs. The obvious answer to your question has a lot to do with (I hope) the end of the Americans subsidizing everybody all over the globe through inflated prices and taxes designed to do just that.... Indeed. We pay for the R&D now. The rest of the world gets far better pricing for what we fund. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
H the K wrote:
.. I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. Damn, I thought U of Kansas was a bad school, but I can't believe they would allow an undergrad teach classes. Says a lot about Harry's education. -- Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:10:34 -0400, Just Regigie
wrote: H the K wrote: . I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. Damn, I thought U of Kansas was a bad school, but I can't believe they would allow an undergrad teach classes. Says a lot about Harry's education. Did you ever notice that Harry has pretty much done every job that eveyrone has done in the newsgroup and knows much more about it than the person who does it? That's one hell of a life he's had huh? |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:10:34 -0400, Just Regigie wrote: H the K wrote: . I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. Damn, I thought U of Kansas was a bad school, but I can't believe they would allow an undergrad teach classes. Says a lot about Harry's education. Did you ever notice that Harry has pretty much done every job that eveyrone has done in the newsgroup and knows much more about it than the person who does it? That's one hell of a life he's had huh? I was smart enough not to join the marine corps, moron. -- A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
Just Regigie wrote:
H the K wrote: . I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. Damn, I thought U of Kansas was a bad school, but I can't believe they would allow an undergrad teach classes. Says a lot about Harry's education. Harry's lies just keep getting more bizarre and unbelievable! |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
On Jul 24, 9:09*am, NotNow wrote:
Just Regigie wrote: H the K wrote: . I taught freshman English for two semesters, and I didn't even have a master's degree at the time. Damn, I thought U of Kansas was a bad school, but I can't believe they would allow an undergrad teach classes. * Says a lot about Harry's education. Harry's lies just keep getting more bizarre and unbelievable! My boss at my previous job was a Marine Corps Colonel (Res) with a PhD in physics. Under Bush 1, he was the Marine Corps nuke weapons expert and advised the JCS during Gulf War 1, not exactly a stupid man. During my time doing defense work, I met some of the smartest people I have ever known, all members of the military. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
H the K wrote:
You know? What you know is not "universally accepted knowledge." In the last two months, you've made a number of factual announcements here that are absolute provable bull****. Remember your claims about Husqvarna tractors? Bull****. You claims about the fuel burns on your etec? Bull****. SW Tom may make a mistake or two. That's very different then the foul amount of lies you've attempted to perpetrate on folks here. Aw, po widdle krause. You actually told the truth about a tractor, and no one believed you? And speaking about absolute provable bull****, you've now admitted in this thread that your wife was not a Dr. Dr., despite having claimed so some years ago. No one believed you when you said it. Johnson |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
Johnson wrote:
H the K wrote: You know? What you know is not "universally accepted knowledge." In the last two months, you've made a number of factual announcements here that are absolute provable bull****. Remember your claims about Husqvarna tractors? Bull****. You claims about the fuel burns on your etec? Bull****. SW Tom may make a mistake or two. That's very different then the foul amount of lies you've attempted to perpetrate on folks here. Aw, po widdle krause. You actually told the truth about a tractor, and no one believed you? And speaking about absolute provable bull****, you've now admitted in this thread that your wife was not a Dr. Dr., despite having claimed so some years ago. No one believed you when you said it. Johnson Hell, I don't believe his new claim about his wife, either! And notice if you will, he's never, ever tried to defend his idiotic lie about his father's fireboat welcome. |
Who is gonna pay for the R&D?
"H the K" wrote in message m... On 7/23/09 5:38 PM, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: .. Dr. You know? What you know is not "universally accepted knowledge." In the last two months, you've made a number of factual announcements here that are absolute provable bull****. Remember your claims about Husqvarna tractors? Bull****. You claims about the fuel burns on your etec? Bull****. There's a big difference between making a mistake, and telling outright lies. You have ONE example of Tom making a mistake, and it's about a stupid tractor. You will continue to regurgitate that until you die, trying to prove your superiority. You on the otherhand are incapable of telling the truth. You've been outed on so many lies, that it's impossible to keep track. All you are capable of doing is posting other people's work on this newsgroup, lying, or throwing 3rd grade insults at folks. You have no legitimate purpose being here. --Mike |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com