"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"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 :-)
====================
ROTFLMAO Really? Then since your lies have continued to be
exposed, what does that make you, liarman?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"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.
========================
And you have continued this part of the thread because you know
you have been proven a liar when you claim that no one dies
waiting for treatment. waits that even you now agree occur.
And, as I have explained to you, mu opionion is that the doctor
in the article does not know what the boys problem is, and needs
the test to determine his course of treatment. That you continue
to be so jingoistic in defence of the indefencable is what is
truly amazingly willful ignorance.

"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,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an
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!

I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least
in
regards to this issue, your reputation is intact,
==================
Except that he still lies about no one dying while waiting for
treatment.


and noone thinks less
of you for your mis-speaks. 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.
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. 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

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

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

So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd
go
along with it?

I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea.

So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based
on race.

Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy.

While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's
pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for
defending their very lives.

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes
of those who make the laws.

As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and
sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose
not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law
says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot
help or control.

Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may
not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to
someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that
attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with
those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes. Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated"
against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not
preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children.
Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted
to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that
is within the purview of the law.

So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.

Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME
sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control. On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to
regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape. Then
again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual
sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to
proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether
the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior.

What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize
as legitimately within the sphere of state control?

--
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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message

snip...


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 :-)
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! Where have I ever said that fool? I'd
bet I spend far more time in Canada than you do in the states.
It's you that has proven you hate of anything US, and your
unnatural devotion to anything Canadian despite its cost in
Candaian lives.




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.
======================
Yes, you did, and I have shown you where.



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.
=====================
No you did not, not in any post I saw, liarman. And, I had no
'ramblings' against the Canadaian health care system. I replied
to your "mis-speak" that no Canadaians are dying while waiting
for treatment. You then decided to keep up the lie, even when
evodence was provided that proved you wrong.



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.
======================
LOL And mental is what health problems you know all about, eh
liarman? And, if I was so simple you could have ended this the
first day. All you had to do was provisde the refutation of the
sites that say Canadians die waiting for health care. You
didn't, and you have still failed to do that.

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent.

Sez

The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS
Firearms and Violence Panel.

Notorious anti-gun polemicists.

snicker

You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you?

" WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control
proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces
violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to
support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on
253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a
survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own
independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between
restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms
violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and
all but one of its members were known to favor gun control."

You're mindlessly repeating John Lott's false and unsupported claims. You're
also plagiarizing
Lott's work by failing to provide proper credit.

Actually, it was a December 30, 2004 report by WorldNetDaily, and I'm
perfectly within my rights to quote from it.


--
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:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

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

So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be
registered, you'd go along with it?

I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea.

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

Quite right, as I said below.


This is
because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and
seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's
not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and
we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically New
Jersey and California.

Nope.

Wrong. Guns, specifically banned "assault weapons" were confiscated both in
California and in New Jersey.


You just spew one idiotic gunner myth after another.

Facts are inconvenient for you, aren't they?



...

What I might do when the government attempts to *confiscate* my
firearms is a different matter entirely.

You'd **** your pants.

No, that's something unarmed cowards like you do when faced with an armed
assailant.

--
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 Wilko wrote:

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... :-(

That must make you an "unaware newbie" Wilko.
--
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

KMAN wrote:
"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.

If I mis-spoke, I quickly apologize. And if you would kindly point out
where I specifically mis-spoke, I will apologize again!

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.

Whatever it takes!


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.

Ok, see you later. TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does,

I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He
chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God
manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself.

Really? How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself? Any cites which describe the "true manifestation" of God? Wouldn't
a biblical constraint on how God may manifest himself as "himself" be rather
limiting to, well, God? Why would God so restrict himself?

He wouldn't.

You are merely trying to impose an artificial limitation on the "legitimate"
manifestations of God as "himself" in order to tautologically support your
unsupportable argument.

All
manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc.

Well, since God is omnipotent and omnipresent (according to dogma), it would
seem to me that God can "be" anything he wants. In fact, he can (and indeed
is by many definitions) be EVERYTHING at once if he wants. He is, after all,
without limitation by definition. Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

You don't get it, you never will.

No, quite clearly, you don't get it. It is possible, however, that you
someday will.


--
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