|
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:22 PM: snip liarmans same old crap 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. Whatever you take from that article, I never said that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ============== Yes, you did. That you have now admitted your ignorance is fine, and we can move on to the rest of your lies, eh liarman? You are a liar, a scumbag, and a coward for refusing to admit that your accusation is false and apologize. ==================== Nope. I have posted nothing but the facts, liarman. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing but your willfully ignorant spew. |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/5/05 12:42 PM: 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 What the hell are you smoking? Reasonable? He's been reiterating a false accusation against me for several days now. He's a massive scumbag and the king of the assholes too boot. He can go suck eggs. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM: snip same old crap 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 Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment." ===================== It has been fool, many times now. It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist. You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist otherwise. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:30 PM: "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 really don't know what your problem is, that much is true. ========================== Actually, you've proven you know very little about anything at all, liarman... 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 was born in Evanston, Illinois. If not for the large number of "more guns, more jesus" crowd, I might like to live in the US again. I love NYC and think it is one of the greatest places on earth. I fully understand the trade-offs in Canadian health care. Like a lot of Canadians I'm advocating for even more resources for our health care system, and it is happening, although more slowly than I would like. But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. 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. No, you haven't. You showed me where I disagreed with you about whether or not the people in Newfoundland were waiting 2.5 years for treatment. I never said that no Canadians wait for treatment. If I had said that, obviously you would have posted my quote to that effect, but you can't, because I never said it, and you know it. You are a liar and a scumbag. ================== No, that's you, liarman. 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 That's because you are too busy being a scumbag and showing the world what an asshole you are - 100 times over! LOL. ============================= No, because you are too dishonest to come out and give one. You buried it in a response to someone esle, and you really only apologized for your ignorant wording, liarman. Talk about a dishonest 'scumbag,' you've got that title down pat, liarman. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM: 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, ======================== LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an apology. That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and showing what a coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate false accusations. ====================== No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me, liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.' You are the dishonest one here, liarman... Sorry you didn't care for the apology. As you well know, the point of my trying to pin you down on details about Canadian health care was to knock you off your childish unfounded rants. Tinkerntom helped me realize that the way I worded my demand you could make reference to people who died while waiting for a test and whether or not the actual waiting killed them or not, you would meet the burden of proof as worded in the demand. Therefore, I apologized. I'm not a liar and a coward like you are. You are insisting I said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment and you know I never said that. That makes you a liar, a scumbag, and a coward. |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:30 PM: "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 really don't know what your problem is, that much is true. ========================== Actually, you've proven you know very little about anything at all, liarman... 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 was born in Evanston, Illinois. If not for the large number of "more guns, more jesus" crowd, I might like to live in the US again. I love NYC and think it is one of the greatest places on earth. I fully understand the trade-offs in Canadian health care. Like a lot of Canadians I'm advocating for even more resources for our health care system, and it is happening, although more slowly than I would like. But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of asking the KKK for information on immigration policies. But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system is eroding, and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of will to turn that around, and I think that will be the direction of things. The vast majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where something as basic as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged. snip tired old crap FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is interesting to discuss. |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink on behalf of JC opines: ============ For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years,... ================== Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make JC's case for him.). Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue. But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this decision? frtzw906 I would suggest that you ask specific questions as in a news briefing, and I will respond with specific scriptures. That will help me stay on topic, and I will not send you a boat load of scriptures that do not address the specific question you are interested in. As you know, I have a very large boat! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink on behalf of JC opines: ============ For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years,... ================== Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make JC's case for him.). Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue. But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this decision? frtzw906 Frtwz, I just sent you a response to this post by you requesting specific question, and then rereading your post, and see that you ask such a question. Oops! I am also having server problems and so not sure this will post when I get done, but will try. If you get this then I guess the server started working again. :) Your question, would JC endorse capital punishment today? I have included a few scriptures following: Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to Creation. Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some one kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that man should die! Rom 13:1-2 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. In the current era, God affirmed the continuing authority of civil government, and that we need to be subject to that authority, which included punishment for evil deeds, some of that punisnment accomplished with the sword, implying death. Same theme in following verses. 1 Pet 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. So, yes I believe that Jesus would endorse the death penalty today as He has through out the ages. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com