"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
==============
Of course you did. You don't like the truth, it hurts too much,
right?



Has he proven it?
=================
Yes...


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?"

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

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

Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the
waiting that caused them to die.
==================
ROTFLMAO Waiting doesn't kill tghem fool! The desease is what
kills them. Sometimes because they don't get the treatment they
need.

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM:


"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message


snippage...

Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a
coward
on
this issue
as well?
====================
Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians never
waiting
for treatment.

I never said that. Every health care system requires that
people wait.
==========================
Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews,
dolt.


What part of your claim:
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you
undersatnd?
You said it fool, 2/20/2005


Big lie there fool...

Never said it. Prove that I did.
================
See above fool. You made the claim, liar.

Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed
how
stupid you really are, and how much you lie?

Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel.
============================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are
still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise,
liar.

Post the entire quote.
==================
What I posted stands by itself. You lied.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar?

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..


snip...







If you are using cars as a justification for
assault
weapons,
then you are
comparing the two, fool. LOL.
==========================
No fool. It is you that is trying to justify
something
based on
what YOU determine to be a need. You failed.

You brought up cars, not me.
======================
No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You
lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant
spews...

You brought up cars. Check.
===============
LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar?

Nope. You brought up cars. Check.
======================
No

So you didn't bring up cars?
========================
Nice bit of dishonesty there fool.

So you didn't bring up cars?
=======================
You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything,
liar?

Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar..

"No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You lost, again, and now have you resort to your
ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..."

What is the need for assault weapons to the general public?
It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying
bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU
brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But cars
have many other valid and valuable purposes.
================
So do weapons.



But you don't want to address that, even though YOU brought it
up. Scum.
=================
No, you brought it up fool. As usual, you can do nothing but
lie.

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
.net...


snippage...



Why did you dishonestly delete the part about the lies you
made
about wait lines that I proved you made?
Didn't like seeing your stupidity again?

restore start
Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and
provide
proof
that it is a
lie.
===========================
That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health
care
system.

You did not quote me.
======================
Yes, I did. see other posts for today... Here, want to
see
it again?
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

You need to quote without the "... and ..." and you also
need
to provide a
link to the message so it can be verified. What a scumbag
you
are!
================
There was no "and" fool. You made that statemnet. Too abd
you're a proven liar, eh?
YOU made the statement. Now you're claiming you can't find
it?
You really are a loser, aren't you, liar?
restore end

Post the entire quote. Why did you need to delete the
beginning and end?
Weasel.
======================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."
Why are you concerned about whole quotes while you dishonestly
delete whole ones, fool?

Provide the entire quote. Scum.
====================
What I posted says it all. You lied.

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any
heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a
same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any
different from heterosexuals.

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Why should the
government dictate what can go on between two consenting adults in
private?

The restriction of rights is something you just choose to ignore.

What you are talking about is
preferences, not rights.

Only in the eyes of a bigoted, right-wing nutcase like yourself.

More importantly, your statement
suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not
instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors.

Your ability to warp the meanings of words into whatever you want is well
documented. This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

Mike

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses
to manifes

Trying to twist my words around again idiot? I never said that I am
forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not
contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God. Hence,
there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the
physical world. We have to deal with the sources of information
on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the
main source.

How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests?

Bible - see above.

According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible.

Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality,
where you are at a loss.

Non sequitur.

So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an
arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group
of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many
different source languages? Get a clue.

Mike

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

More
to come on that.

Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup.

Mike

Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf

I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada through a
poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private process
largely controlled by individual physicians."

The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the notions
of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example, when
"exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if it's in
Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list? Tink,
when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs you that
you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this is a day
other than Thursday).

But what is particularly interesting in the statement in question is
the part about it being an "entirely private process largely
controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad government
determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using his/her best
knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this is
exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say. Doctors in
Canada operate privately.

Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in
statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long waits are
the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading effect on
wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average housing
prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of selling
papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the story.
This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned, playing nicely
into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the system."

Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype!

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some recent
Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy about
waiting. Very
few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although this may be
related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also now be
changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access to
care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money
personally to reduce their wait time."

NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra
money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap Canadians
(just ask the folks in Florida)!

Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on,
supporting KMAN's points.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a gun in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought into that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Could you give me a short list so that I can understand what type of
communities you are speaking of? Thanks, TnT

Howsabout the Amish?

Can you certify that there are no guns in Amish communities? Can you prevent
me from taking a gun into an Amish community?

No, but as I understand the Amish would rather throw themselves in front of
your bullets until you run out of ammo than become a gun culture themselves.

You merely demonstrate how little you understand, about the Amish or guns.

And frankly I don't think a lot of Amish are getting shot - by internal
shooters or external shooters.

Cites?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser