A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a
whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment,
society disagrees with you.

Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that
dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact,
one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services;
prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to
act without the interference of government.

Somehow I doubt it.

For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed,
even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****.

Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision

In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision.

Er, no, in an anarchy the individual gets to make the decision. In any sort
of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the
greater needs of the society in which he lives.


There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states.

Only because the state has taken the right away.

The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist.



I'm a skilled logician

You misspelled incompetent.

No, you misread logician.


This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus.

Sez you.

There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not.

Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition.

There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

Pot, kettle, black.

--
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 Nisarel wrote:

Wilko wrote:

It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years,

He's not very good.

If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply. That's evidently not the case, and
never has been.

In fact, I'm very good at what I do, and I've been doing it for more than 10
years now.

--
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

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:42 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
==================
Nope. What you said is that no one is waiting for treatment.

Yes, in response to your allegation that the people featured in the story
were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all
persons in Canada.

You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do
it.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..



snip...


===

So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name
those valid and
valuable purposes of assault weapons?
======================
Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the
arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is
the perogative of eack person, liarman.

Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes
if you were not prepared to name them?

What a coward!
==================
Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of
what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product.

You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an empty assertion
unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:48 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
=================
No, the full quote backs up that you lied even more. You
seperate treatment from tests, and then claim that 'no one' is
waiting for treatment.

Yes, in response to your allegation that the people featured in the story
were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all
persons in Canada.

You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do
it.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:57 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM:

Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada?

I never said that.
====================
Yes, you did liarman.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete
statement.
==================
Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you
said in this one, liarman.



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. It's about a specific type
of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
============================
LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first
statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.'

NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT.
======================
That wasn't the statement you amde at that time, now was it,
liarman.

That's exactly the statement I made. See above. You blathered on about the
people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded
that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a
scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too
weak?

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in
your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in
fact they were all in current receipt of care.

Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are
too weak and too much of coward to do it.
======================
Nope. Where's yours, liarman?

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all
persons in Canada.

You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do
it.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle
on this
situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some
reading about
various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with
a variety
of European models (I now know the difference between the
Beveridge and
the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense,
all of
this has been useful for me.

It's too bad rick could never see the value in such
discourse.
====================
LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic
chest-thumping lies.

Perhaps you should stop telling them, then.
=====================
I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I'm not lying about anything.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
=====================
No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording,
liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you
cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1)
no one is waiting for treatment in Canada,

Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people
in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for
treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a
coward to admit it.
======================
Nope. that's not what you said

Yes it is.

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all
persons in Canada.

You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do
it.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:57 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM:

Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada?

I never said that.
====================
Yes, you did liarman.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete
statement.
==================
Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what
you
said in this one, liarman.



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. It's about a specific type
of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
============================
LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first
statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for
treatment.'

NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT.
======================
That wasn't the statement you amde at that time, now was it,
liarman.

That's exactly the statement I made. See above. You blathered
on about the
people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I
responded
that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So
stop being a
scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are
you just too
weak?
======================
Nope. Not too weak at all to expose your willful ignorance. Why
the sudden urge to drop your claims about no body dying, and
continue with a lie you have already taken back? Could it be you
don't want to return to your continued stupidity being exposed,
liarman?