"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined. Now, how about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



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.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss the
problems of your health care system.



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.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in
Canada.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me. And you still
haven't, liarman.


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.
==========================
LOL They were neither, liarman. It was YOUR responses that were
both. All you did was go nah, nah, nah you wrong. You never
once provided any sites that refuted the sites I posted.


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.
======================
BS liarman. I provided proof that people are dying while waiting
in line. You kept adamantly denying that fact.



Therefore, I apologized. I'm not a liar and a coward like you
are.
============================
Not anywhere I was likely to see it, liarman. You did not
apologize to me, as promised.



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.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted
your lie has already been determined. Now, how about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?

On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

what are
you familiar with the teaching about the Trinity?

I went to Christian schools for 11 years.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should not
be controled by the state.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself?

How about if it _says_ so. Try reading the Bible - it does describe
these things. And nowhere does it say "this is what God looks like".

Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

Once again, you prefer playing with words instead of addressing
the issue directly. If he manifests himself as a man, we cannot
tell it is God. That is exactly my point. We need a manifestation
that we can clearly identify as God and the Bible offers nothing
to help that.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.
No sex required. This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

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."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist. So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

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

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studies a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

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

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

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.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.
We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

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

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

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

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

what are
you familiar with the teaching about the Trinity?

I went to Christian schools for 11 years.

Mike

Is this Catholic or Protestant?

My only experience growing up with church, I went to Catholic Church
with a friend when I was probably 5 or 6. I remember setting with a
bunch of children, and we were instructed to set with our hands on the
hand rail in front of us. Which I figure something was going to happen
to cause us to fall off the bench, and we had to hold on so as to not
fall all the way to the floor.

I was curious to know what was going on, as the play began, and I
thought it was like the theatre! I ask my friend Scott. I then found
out why we held on to the rail. It made it a whole lot easier for that
lady in the funny looking black dress, to hit my hands with a ruler.
Then she hit me again cause I started to cry.

That was the last time I went to church, for over 10 years. I hope that
you did not get hit too many times in 11 years! TnT

Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side of
the street in Canada? TnT

On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

There would
have to be an imbalance in the political power, or else the
conservative part would not spring the money loose to pay the liberal
programs, and the liberal programs would be opposed to the economic
spending of the conservative.

Well, it is possible to fund social activities and still keep a
balanced budget and not generate massive amounts of debt. It
is just important to recognize that some social spending is in
the best interests of everyone (like good medical care for
the everyone or maintaining a decent level of employment to
reduce crime).

Mike