KMAN wrote:
"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...

No control, just a suggestion! TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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 ****.

Poor snotty - did I make you cranky? The context of the discussion is
sexual behavior. Deal with that. I know, that means not lying, but
at least you can try.

Hey, dip****, you were the one who started with the personal invective.


In any sort
of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the
greater needs of the society in which he lives.

If all decisions are the responsibility of the greater society, that
pretty much eliminates all your claims about freedom.

Try parsing the sentence again. Look specifically for the word
"circumscribed." Now go look up the definition and see if it means "all."
Then get back to me.


If an individual cannot conduct his most private life according to
his or her own rules, then they have no freedom.
We're talking
about sexual behavior here - between consenting adults - in case
you plan on bringing up some ridiculous analogy.

Good thing you qualified your overbroad generalization.

So, let's analyze this a little bit. Here's a sceneario for you to discuss:

Two individuals engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their
home. Unfortunately, one of the partners (A) is infected with a sexually
transmitted disease, perhaps a deadly or debilitating one such as AIDS or
Syphilis. This partner knows full well of the infection, and fails to inform
the partner (B) of the health hazard, and takes no action to prevent the
spread of the infection.

Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according
to his or her own rules?"

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

What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they
cast into?

Good question. Generally speaking, "rights" are what the society agrees each
member has. Abstractly, one can claim just about anything as a "right," but
whether society decides to recognize and protect it as a "right" is another
thing entirely.

What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes
a right?

Nothing. I've not claimed that I arbitrate rights. I've not even said that I
disagree with your belief that interference with private consensual sexual
conduct ought to be beyond the purview of the law.

What I have done is to analyze your statements and respond to them in an
academic inquiry into the strength or weakness of your thesis.

However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state
Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights."


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

Sez you.

No, you make the bogus claims -

Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.

Factually speaking it is.

morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a
morphological difference.

Don't blame me if you used the wrong word.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus.

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Want more?

If you expect to win your case, you're going to need a LOT more. Knock
yourself out.


You throw out any claim, hoping that those who read it will be at least as
stupid as you are and believe it. However, those of us that are smarter
than you will always take you to task for your bull****.

Uh huh. Whatever.



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.

I say one cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist.

You are wrong...maybe.

You say that means that I say God does not exist. Hardly a case of
me not writing clearly enough.

Not a claim I made.


I say fundies are fools for wasting their time with ridiculous
"theories" of creationism.

And yet you cannot disprove their theories. Your statements are deliberately
insulting because you know that your argument is weak.

You say that I say anyone that
believes in God is a fool. Again - not my writing that's the
problem - it's your twisted mind at work.

It's implicit in your statements. Feel free to clearly state your beliefs if
you disagree.



There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

See above.

You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner.

High praise from someone of your ilk.

Yet
you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master
logician. Bull****.

When logic and reason fails you, invective and evasion is your course.


--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply.

We don't reply because you're good - we reply to reduce the
level of bull**** in the newsgroup. Every time you post,
misinformation is spread.

Only because you respond to my cogent and insightful comments.

--
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

rick 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.
==============
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


rick I will venture one more time into this morass. I am not sure
exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work
with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting
using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant
posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is
#1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that
number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. I don't
know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or
even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable
to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the
web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did
post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also
seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could
be different time zones.

I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I
have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I
realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post.
However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN
did not issue you an apology as I suggested, totally separate from all
this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the
greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first
situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact
provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed.

On 3-01-05 KMAN posted the following in response to other included
postings.

KMAN Mar 1, 8:24 pm


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/1/05 10:56 PM:

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

KMAN wrote:
...snipsss...

My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom.

Can I please try again?

Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for
health
care?

If you will excuse and accept the following babble?

I deleted it.

Has he proven it?
A
Yes, he provided evidence, and there was other evidence available!

How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the
same as
proving something, Tinkerntom.

For example, your participation here in this newsgroup is something I
would
provide as evidence that you are suffering from mental health
problems. But
as I am sure you will agree, it doesn't prove it.

For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while
waiting
for
health care, and if the health care system had not responded so
slowly,
she'd still be alive?"

Yes, read about Diane Gorsuch below!

That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and
died
doesn't
mean that caused the death.

He never claimed that! If so show me Date and Time of rick's post!
I am
to tired to search any longer myself, having read and reread
probably
100 less than inspiring epistles by you two.

Sigh.

Well what would be the point of claiming that someone died while they
were
on a waiting list but the fact that they were waiting was not related
to the
cause of death!?!?!!??


Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health
care?

Yes, ask and answered previously and below!

How has he proven it?

Can you point me to an objective report (such as a coroner's report
or
inquiry) that says "Person X died because they were on a waiting list
and
their death was preventable if they had not been on that waiting
list"

Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the
waiting
that
caused them to die.

Now you are changing the question, rick never claimed this. He
claimed
that people died while their name was on a waiting list, waiting
for a
test or procedure that could have saved their life.

That's fine.

Point me to any objective report that says someone died because they
were
waiting for treatment that woudl have saved their life.

They still might
have lost their life, even if they had the procedure, because these
were seriously ill individuals with life threatening illness,
usually
cardiac or ontology, but that is a different issue entirely!

No, it isn't.

Before your deleted it, did you read it?

Your promise was posted as follows;

Feb 22, 7:03 am

"Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a
Canadian
reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in
wait
lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public
apology."

Sigh.

I am not a scumbag like rick.


I make a formal and public apology. The question, although badly
worded, was worded by yours truly, and, as worded,the requested burden
has been met.


Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat
bizarre
mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to
bring
some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more
widly
derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad
hominem
attacks and unreferenced accusations.

The Canadian health care system is excellent, and what some of the
articles
you quoted show is that the provincial and federal governments (and
more
importantly the general populace) see it as a top priority and are
determined to keep standards high.

Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and
testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to
say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct.
You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the
passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has
now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the
declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect.

Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political
position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the
same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that
you had not provided any evidence. I went out of my way to research the
first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and
screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize
to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your
claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as
stated above.

Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to
apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty.
Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very
apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of
fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however,
in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he
has modified his previous declarative statement.

I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your
intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the
second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. I would suggest,
to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow
him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you
acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further
acrimony and recriminations.

If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of
the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a
suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with
much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do
so. Your choice!

I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with
his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about
me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once!

Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as
his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me
set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!"
Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will
see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature
conversation! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
============
Though if you had ask your real question
in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly,
without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff.
============

Sorry, Tink, my question WAS clear to begin with and there was
nothing
you had to plow through. But it appears you either still don't get
it,
or you don't want to get it, or you're jerking me about, or you're
not
interested in pursuing the discussion. At this point, if we were in
court, you'd be designated a hostile witness.

Look: I'll try to be as simplistic about this as I can. Let's pretend
that you and I are going to write a book called "JC Goes To
Washington". It's about a young politician who runs as an independent
and gets elected to the House of Representatives. Now, Tink, here's
the
hook in our book: every chapter will be about a different public
policy
issue. Of course there'll be a whole interesting assortment of
characters -- trade unionists, industrialists, NRA lobbyists, a host
of
politicians button-holing our hero in the corridors of power etc. JC,
our hero will listen to all sides of the issues (remember, one issue
per chapter). Then, at the end of each chapter, he'll have to decide
which way to vote. Of course he'll vote based on HIS teachings (a
"higher law"). So, at the end of each chapter we'll know where JC
stands on these issues.

Is that so hard to magine Tink? Are you game?

frtzw906

Game on!

First though, I regret that I was not able to get back to you sooner,
but felt I should try to address some of the other pressing issues, and
hope they can work things out. In addition, my truck blew a steering
hydraulic line today as if our recent discussion about breaking down
brought a subject lesson to light. Luckily I was not going down the
highway at the time, and was able to find a nice sunny flat parking lot
to work under the van. Seems that the Lord had figured my daily
schedule different than I had. One of those surprises I mentioned
before.

As to your question being clear, it may have been to you, and I
suspected what you were wanting to get to. I did not mean to be
evasive, but I did desire for a clear statement so that there would be
no future misunderstanding. I did not mean to jerk you around, or
indicate that I am not interested or willing to delve into these
issues, as difficult and sensitive as they may be. So I apologize for
any misunderstanding now and in the future if I take a step in my logic
that is not clear. Feel free to stop me if I am not clear, and
sometimes simple is good.

JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me
what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed.
Does this work for you?

If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT

TnT says:
========
JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me
what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed.
Does this work for you?

If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT
===========

In essence, we've strarted the first chapter. I asked about JC's
position on capital punishment. What I'm curious about, heathen that I
am, can we find anything in the bible which shows JC to have been for
or against capital punishment. My impression is that advocating for
capital punishment would inconsistent with everything (very little, I
admit) I've ever read about JC.

So, you're the Christian, you tell me.

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


snip...


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


rick I will venture one more time into this morass.
==================
thanks..

I am not sure
exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing
to work
with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am
posting
using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the
relevant
posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's
apology is
#1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though
that
number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply.
==========================
It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me.
It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me.
It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it
is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in
a post to you, I did not see it.


I don't
know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same
way, or
even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you
are unable
to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go
to the
web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed
KMAN did
post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I
have also
seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure,
it could
be different time zones.

I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his
post, I
have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand
out. I
realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this
post.
However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret
that KMAN
did not issue you an apology as I suggested,
=================
And to me, as he promised in several posts...


totally separate from all
this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the
greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the
first
situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had
infact
provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed.
==================
He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others
here continue to claim the information is false.




snip restored post, as I found it on google...



Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment
and
testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he
meant to
say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically
correct.
==================
And I have admitted that he has changed he statement.


You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from
reading the
passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which
he has
now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for
making the
declarative statement, and that it was infact technically
incorrect.
=================
Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong.
He, however continues to state that he never said it, period.



Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your
political
position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues
at the
same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his
claim that
you had not provided any evidence.
==================
I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and
impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions.


I went out of my way to research the
first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking
and
screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did
apologize
to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support
your
claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and
apologised as
stated above.
======================
Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting
the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his
wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology
about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that.



Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily
need to
apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the
difficulty.
Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very
apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the
misstatement of
fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange,
however,
in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge
that he
has modified his previous declarative statement.
========================
That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on
changing his tune. LOL



I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of
your
intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt
regarding the
second issue, if you continue as you have been doing.
====================
No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he
said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make
the statement at all.


I would suggest,
to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to
allow
him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you
acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid
further
acrimony and recriminations.

If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this
part of
the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is
only a
suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult,
with
much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose
to do
so. Your choice!
=====================
I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for
refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return.
Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources
that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead,
just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that
they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the
time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue
objectivly.



I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be
desired, with
his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks
about
me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once!

Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved,
and as
his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can
make me
set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the
inside!"
Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We
will
see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature
conversation! TnT
==================
Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere
with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up,
including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it
went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting
any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're
wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill.

rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


snip...


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


rick I will venture one more time into this morass.
==================
thanks..

I am not sure
exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing
to work
with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am
posting
using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the
relevant
posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's
apology is
#1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though
that
number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply.
==========================
It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me.
It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me.
It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it
is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in
a post to you, I did not see it.


I don't
know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same
way, or
even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you
are unable
to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go
to the
web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed
KMAN did
post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I
have also
seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure,
it could
be different time zones.

I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his
post, I
have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand
out. I
realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this
post.
However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret
that KMAN
did not issue you an apology as I suggested,
=================
And to me, as he promised in several posts...


totally separate from all
this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the
greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the
first
situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had
infact
provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed.
==================
He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others
here continue to claim the information is false.




snip restored post, as I found it on google...



Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment
and
testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he
meant to
say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically
correct.
==================
And I have admitted that he has changed he statement.


You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from
reading the
passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which
he has
now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for
making the
declarative statement, and that it was infact technically
incorrect.
=================
Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong.
He, however continues to state that he never said it, period.



Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your
political
position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues
at the
same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his
claim that
you had not provided any evidence.
==================
I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and
impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions.


I went out of my way to research the
first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking
and
screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did
apologize
to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support
your
claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and
apologised as
stated above.
======================
Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting
the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his
wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology
about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that.



Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily
need to
apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the
difficulty.
Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very
apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the
misstatement of
fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange,
however,
in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge
that he
has modified his previous declarative statement.
========================
That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on
changing his tune. LOL



I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of
your
intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt
regarding the
second issue, if you continue as you have been doing.
====================
No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he
said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make
the statement at all.


I would suggest,
to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to
allow
him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you
acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid
further
acrimony and recriminations.

If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this
part of
the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is
only a
suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult,
with
much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose
to do
so. Your choice!
=====================
I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for
refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return.
Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources
that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead,
just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that
they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the
time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue
objectivly.



I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be
desired, with
his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks
about
me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once!

Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved,
and as
his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can
make me
set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the
inside!"
Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We
will
see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature
conversation! TnT
==================
Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere
with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up,
including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it
went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting
any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're
wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill.




Thanks rick for the concise, to the point, and resonable response. We
will see how KMAN responds.

KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you
restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address
rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he
acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of
your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once,
though obtusely, the second restatement should be easier, if the first
was sincere!

And then shake hands, TnT

Tink says:
===============
KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you
restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address
rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he
acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of
your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once
================

Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a mediator, I'd
say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include pointing at
any side and saying "Now admit you lost!"

Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the expression
"Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink says:
===============
KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede?
Will you
restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you
address
rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and
though he
acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the
error of
your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so
once
================

Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a
mediator, I'd
say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include
pointing at
any side and saying "Now admit you lost!"

Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the
expression
"Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL
=======================
Problem for you is that your analysis is false. TnT didn't just
jump in and try to mediate, he was shanghaied by liarman and put
in the position to make a call, one way or another. If you had
been keeping an open mind, and reading for comprhension, you
would have seen posts where TnT was also on my case about my
posts...



frtzw906