|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 3/2/05 12:28 AM: snip... Now I'm after an apology from rick for repeatedly claiming that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. snip... As expected, you are too weak to apologize. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: snip... rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify his previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is not what he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new issue. ===================== He has already modified his ststement. After he was caught in his lie. the ststement was not out of context. It sauid exactly as I claimed. If you are waiting 2 years for a test ot proceedure that your doctor has already determined you need, then you are waiting for treatment. That is not what he said. He made the direct statement that no one waits for treatment. I said that in your specific example, no one is waiting for treatment. They are waiting for a specific test, while under the continuing care of the physician, and receiving the specific test sooner if it becomes essential to that care. You are being deliberately dishonest and you know it. You are a scumbag. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:04 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 5:21 PM: snip... 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. It says nothing because you have engaged in the ultimate scumbag tactic of posting a partial quote with no context and no reference. ======================== Then post the entire thing if you think it will change the statement, liarman. As it is, it stands alone as the statement you made It isnt' a statement. It's only six words that may or may not be part of an entire statement that you say I made. Post the whole thing, including headers. What are you afriad of? ==================== Nothing liarman, I posted your statement. Your lie. Too bad for you. I didn't lie. The people in your example are not waiting for treatment as the FULL quote fully shows. You are a supreme scumbag. |
Tink says:
============= I am aware as I said that a number of links support your contentions, and there are some that do not support you. ============= My apology to you. I thought you were attempting to present support for rick (I guess that's what happens around here when things get adversarial). Sorry, frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============= I am aware as I said that a number of links support your contentions, and there are some that do not support you. ============= My apology to you. I thought you were attempting to present support for rick (I guess that's what happens around here when things get adversarial). Sorry, frtzw906 I understand, hopefully the fog of war is clearing alittle, for the sake of a meningful discussion. I as you are aware have my positions that I feel strongly about, but I also know that knowledge is a growing reservoir, not a stagnant pond. To often I paddle about in my little pond and forget that there are some big lakes, rivers and oceans out there. TnT |
KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. See the context above again. It is not that complicated. I responded to your claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. They are not. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ==================== Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment. I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such thing as a health care system where no one waits for treatment. You owe me an apology. rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. See the context above again. It is not that complicated. I responded to your claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. They are not. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ==================== Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment. I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such thing as a health care system where no one waits for treatment. You owe me an apology. rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT Tinkerntom, you are mixing up two different situations. There was the situation where I was challenging rick to prove that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. What is happening above is an entirely different scenario. Rick accused me of stating that there is no one in Canada waiting for treatment. That is an absurd statement and I never made it. Being the sneaky scum that he is, he posted one sentence out of a long conversation without the relevant context to try and make him look like less of a liar. But as you can see from the context, all I was telling him was that in the case of Newfoundland that he was talking about, the people concerned were in fact under the constant care of a doctor and therefore were not waiting for treatment. |
Tink says:
============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Tink says: ============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 What would make things easier in the future is if I could send you my posts and you could edit them for me before posting! You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. But, hell's bells, it seems at least one American has cut through some of the myths of Canadian health care as a result of this, which is something eh?!? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com