KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of
us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that
kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post,
and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a
bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am
sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to
discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick
regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will
not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT

I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt -
what a
complete and utter asshole he is :-)

So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting
shot? TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would
you
know
that it is God that did this

If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was
something
that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person
or
any
other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know
that
"God" would be my first guess.

Mike

Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I
suspect
you
would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first
guess.
Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if
He
confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT

He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom
for
this
long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much
I
tried
to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such
an
extent
that I can't even do myself in!"

I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the
other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes
on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of
us!
TnT

So, work your magic!

All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were
not
waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as
mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about
those
good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever
waits
for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon,
despite his
total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a
scumbag.

I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you
said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified,
and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge
your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative"
statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners!
So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you
sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud!

Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of
a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-)

I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in
regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less
of you for your mis-speaks.

You just mis-spoke yourself.

In the current disagreement, rick is alleging that I claimed no one in
Canada waits for treatment. That is 100% false. I never said that.

In the previous disagreement, I tried to pin rick down on his ramblings
against Canadian health care and did not word me question to him very
carefully. I would not call that a "mis-speak" either, it was just a
carelessly worded question, and I apologized as promised.

Hey we have all done it, and you
acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of
you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome.

Geez, I feel like I was on the verge of going to the gas chamber and
Tinkerntom has just pulled me back from the brink.

However, I
would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little
that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and
certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in
regards to this.

Well, you can speak for me as well. Don't worry, it's almost over.

However I see no one else choosing to get between you
two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is
lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT

I am never alone in the sandbox. My sandbox is extremely full. Perhaps
that's why arguing with a simpleton scumbag like rick is a nice mental
break, believe it or not.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of
us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that
kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post,
and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a
bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am
sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to
discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick
regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will
not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT

I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt -
what a
complete and utter asshole he is :-)

So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting
shot? TnT

Tsk. There's that controlling religious attitude again...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink asks:
========
Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is
"liberaleralism".
===============

to be fiscally liberal is to be rather "free" with money.... a social
liberal, like me, would advocate "freedom" in social interactions....
a social liberal would look at victimless interations and suggest
that
people ought to be free to engage in them.... Note "liberal" comes
from
the latin "liber" or FREE.



frtzw906

Eye was tryen to poind out yur spellin, wich eye thimk has two much
"eral" in it! :) not to be picky, TnT

whoops... missed it....

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message


snip

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.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in
Canada is waiting for
treatment.
=================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my
response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you
claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
==========================
LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a
Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad
you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman?

It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article
itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions
specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't
know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only
responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't
talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said
no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is
what you claimed I said.
================
Yes, you did.

I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not
waiting 2.5 years for treatment.
========================
No, you did not, liarman.

Yeah, I did.
=====================
Nope.


You said:

"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."
=================
Yep, what part of 'they' don't you understand. Even you were
talking 'people' in your question to me that prompted this reply.



Then I said:

"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."
======================
Yes, and you are lying. People are waiting for treatment. Even
in the case presented, the doctor that orderwed the test doesn't
know what treatment to do because he had to know whether that kid
had a genetic component to his problem. He couldn't provide
treatment until he got the test.


Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation,
================
You have to make it first, liarman...

You said:

"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."
=================
Yep, what part of 'they' don't you understand. Even you were
talking 'people' in your question to me that prompted this reply.
You seeing double tonight, or just want to expose your lies more
than once?


Then I said:

"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."
======================
Yes, and you are lying. People are waiting for treatment. Even
in the case presented, the doctor that orderwed the test doesn't
know what treatment to do because he had to know whether that kid
had a genetic component to his problem. He couldn't provide
treatment until he got the test.





that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest
scumbag and you owe me an apology.
==================
No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would,
liarman. Where's yours?

Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment.
================================
Yes, you did, and you also claimed that no one was dying from
those waits. You're still lying, liarman.




I did not say
that. Your claim is false. Your refusal to admit your claim is
false makes you dishonest, and your continued dishonesty makes
you a scumbag and a coward.
==================
Nope...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message


snip



You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting
your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in
Canada is waiting for
treatment.
=================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't.
==============
Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you.

The only evidence that you presented was my response to
your
story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people
were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same
article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in
receipt of treatment,
=================
Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor
wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is
necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic?

"While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions
are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means,
said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.
==================
Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their
condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get
tests that will determine their treatment.

Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I
don't agree with you) you still owe me an apology for saying
that I claimed no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.
===========================
No fool, I don't. You made that statement, and have now
admitted your lie.

What lie?
========================
No one waits, and no one dies waiting, for 2, liarman.



I said that the people in Newfoundland are not waiting for
treatment, which is exactly what the doctor in the article
said.
=======================
No, he did not. Try reading with your eyes open sometime.



You are lying by claiming that I said no one in Canada waits
for treatment. I never said that. You are a dishonest scumbag.
======================
Yes, you did. Again, why such devotion to a lie that you have
already admitted to, and completely ignore the other lie you have
made, liarman? Already know you are wrong there too?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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



snip



"While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions
are being investigated and followed by other medical means"
====================
LOL Still doesn't mean they are getting the treatment they
need, liarman.

That is obviously debatable.
====================
LOL Not in the case presented.

Since one of the doctors quoted in the article says that the
patients are in care, it is highly debatable.
==========================
Yes, it was. The doctor stated in the article what he suspected.
To treat what suspects he needs the tests. Youreally are just
too stupid for this, aren't you. liarman?



But what is not debatable is what you accused me of saying:
that no one in Canada ever waits for health care.
=====================
Nope. that's what you said, liarman...

You haven't presented anything to that effect. You have only
mentioned my response to your Newfoundland article, scumbag.
Stop lying. Stop being a coward.
===============
I'm not liarman. You, on the other hand, remain too afraid to
discuss the real lie you made that started this with.




I never said it.
==============
Yes, you did liarman...


You are being dishonest. Just apologize and move on, you'll
feel better knowing you don't have to live every part of your
life as a coward.
======================

It's your dishonest lying that is going on.

1) I am not being dishonest.
===============
Yes, you are, liarman.

2) What other kind of lying is there? I suppose you think that
when rick lies, that's an honest lie? LOL!
====================
Everything you post, if you need to know, liarman...



? Why the
continued rehash of these lies when the real disucssion was
about
you claim that no one dies while waiting, liarman?

I already dealt with that, fool. I'm not a coward like you. Ask
Tinkerntom to point you to the post that you obviously missed.
================================
No, you haven't liarman. Tnt even told you that I was right, and
you are wrong. People die waiting for treatment in Canada,
liarman. You have yet to previde any refutation of the sites I
posted.


Too bad you lack the strength I demonstrated, scumbag.
==========================
LOL The liarman being afraid to discuss the real issue, is
brave? What a hoot!

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

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.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian community.
You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?


Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine. Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

--
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

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest
of us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping
that kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs
post, and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through
a bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am
sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to
discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick
regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to
rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably
will not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely.
==============
Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he
has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he
owed.



TnT