"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=====================
Yes, you are, 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 don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a
fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the
post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question
allowed you to meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar
regardless of how you make your claim.



The way you have gone on and on about it has further cemented
your
reputation as a petty juvenile, and your refusal to apologize
for your
extreme dishonesty in saying I claimed that no one in Canada is
waiting for
treatment has added coward and scumbag to your character
traits.
====================
LOL No, I have proven you to be the liar that your are. Also
that you are willfully ignorant and plan to remain so.
This all started because YOU claimed no one in Canada was dying
because they are waiting for treatment. You lied then, and you
continue to lie. You can't seem to help yourslef, can you,
liarman? You now are trying to divert the discussion onto a lie
that you have now taken back, that no one is waiting for
treatment. Why can't you saty on focus of the original
discussion, liarman? Oh, yeah, because you've been proven to
have lied about that too!

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


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


snip..

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.
========================
Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment

No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for
treatment as
you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your
dishonesty is
further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag.
============================
Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now because you
must continue to blather on about this to deivert the discussion
from your original lie, no one is dying while on wait lists,
liarman. You have been proven to be a liar, and willfully
ignorant.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:21 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
===========================
You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have yet
to
back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies.
Talk
about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why now
must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again,
what
is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should I
presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can,
liarman?

What a weasel!
===============
No weasel about it, liarman. I don't claim to be the arbiter of
everyone elses ideas like you do.


You said assault weapons have value.
=======================
They do. Just like cars.


If you can't say what that value is, then your point is lost,
your argument
is once again defeated, and you can go home and clean your
guns.
=============================
Why does my value make any difference to you, liarman. You have
lost again. Again, unlike you, I don't claim to make the call
for everyone else. You can play at being the god you claim you
don't belive in all you want. I'm not delusional like you are,
and don't even care to pretend to be god.

Michael Daly wrote:
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various
manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God
_as_God_"

If you can't cope with that, it's your problem.

Michael, if you can cope with me and humor me a little, I would like to
ask you a few questions. You have addressed most of your post directly
to Scott, and if you do not wish to engage me, I will understand, and
respect yours and Scotts conversation.

I have been watching this particular thread with interest, as I spent
the last couple days frittering away my time with KMAN and rick. I saw
they are at it again tonight, and I decided to deal with something that
sounds much more interesting. You have been conversing with Scott since
2/21 and seem to be trying to get to some point that I am curious
about, but have not been able to acertain exactly what that point is.
It seems that you are saying something that is going over Scotts head
or experience. I believe that he has admitted that he is not a
particularly religious person, so his arguement is primarily academic.
You seem to be saying something more.

You have said, "no manifestations of God _as_God_", which I find to be
a very intrigueing statement. Are you arguing as well from an academic
position, or do you have something more in mind. I am not sure that
Scott can go beyond the academics on this subject. Are you really
interested, curious, or just playing head games with Scott?

I have included the link to the word "theophanies", and which gives a
brief study of the word.

http://www.carm.org/misc/plurality.htm

You say the theophanies are not really God_as_God appearing in this
world, time and space. Do you have some other particular incident in
mind, either past, present or future, that would accomplish the
desirable and acceptable level of verifiable proof to be considered not
only evidence, but God_as God revelation?

Have you experienced any such incident that is inspiring this line of
discussion, so as to be able to describe in a meaningful way for us?

Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the
separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell,
and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever,
or will ever occur?

If you could answer these questions, I would be interested in
continuing with your discussion later. TnT

Nisarel wrote:

Wilko wrote:


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


He's not very good.

Nope, he isn't, but he does seem to catch unaware newbies to this group
every once in a while... :-(

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

BCITORGB wrote:
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

Very good summary, and I appreciate your time and understanding. Though
it appears tha K&R are still at it! Sigh!

I will look forward to further dialog, and when time permits plan to
research the question Doctors working for the Gov.

I am also interested in cont. the discussion about MBPI. Till then, TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==================
No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and
jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle
of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded
mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they
offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love.
=============

Now that would freak me out, Tink, but I'd be ever-so grateful for
your
help anyway. But this leads me to another question having to do with
religion. I'm assuming, when you talk of religion, you're talking
about
Christianity, right?

OK, I know this was kinda faddish, trendy, and perhaps corny a year
or
two ago, but what about that "What would Jesus do?" query? Look,
here's
where I'm going with this. Those of us in the center, politically
(that
would be left to those in the red states), always kinda liked that
question. Even though we tended not to be the religious types, the
"What would Jesus do?" question appealed to many of us because, well,
the answer generally came out as "Whatever the socialists would do,
that's what Jesus would do."

Pick a social topic, Tink. Any topic. Let's say, healthcare plans.
You've now read about quite a few different public policy options.
"Which would Jesus choose?"

Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose?

And we could go on, and on, through a long laundry list of social and
public policy issues. My bet is, 90% of the time (at a minimum),
Jesus
would come down on the side of the left-wing liberals.

Whadda think, Tink?

WINK The lefties love you!

frtzw906

This is another great post, and I would love to go into depth, but that
will have to wait till later.

Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without
transgression of the law, throw the first Stone"

the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them.

Now I would like to ask you a question, Jesus told us not to
proselytize, but we are to witness. What does each mean, and what is
the difference? Would this have any bering on my statements about God's
love on RBP? TnT

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM:


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


snip...


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.
=====================
No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman.


You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a
coward to do
it.
+=================
No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh
liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada
have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie
you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want
to discuss your continued willful ignorance?

What happened is 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?
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not
the one that was blathering about it.

Yeah, you were.

You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment
in the story about people in Newfoundland. They aren't waiting 2 1/2 years
for treatment, and I told you so. Then you tried to say that I was stating
that no one in Canada waits for anything, which is not what I said at all.
You are a scumbag.

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=====================
Yes, you are, 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 don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to
meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of
how you make your claim.

All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting
2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty.

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


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


snip..

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.
========================
Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment

No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment
as
you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is
further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag.
============================
Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now

I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for
treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty.