"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

snip boring old crap

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
No need, you lied and have retracked your lie. I have accepted that.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

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.

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.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

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


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

"rick" wrote in message news:xYWWd.3533

No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about your
ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not be able to
get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting' for treatment. I
pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of the system that is making
them wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that
NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada. Youlied then, and you are
lying now about your lie. You have already admitted that this was in
error. So, why not move on and refute that people are dying in these wait
lines that you now agree too.

Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting for health care,
because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare system?

If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless?

Mark

Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow. I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington" exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

On 6-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

No, the numbers are from the Canadian health system.

Bull**** - no attribution is given for the source of the numbers.
That is why they are unsubstantiated.

Mike

On 6-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT

Agreed. However, there's a big difference between driving like an
idiot (no consent on the part of other drivers) and having sex with your
partner.

Americans seem to welcome Big Brother in their bedrooms. Other countries
prefer privacy. Your choice.

Mike

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


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

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

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick.
If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

I am not interested in wading through any more K&r post to find
anything you are trying to discuss with me. Just my own personal
killfile system. Maybe a function of still using Google to post, Sory
that just the way it has to be.

If you want to discuss the following, drop the K&r crap. TnT

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus
do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say
that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be
able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present
scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not
that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to
blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day
practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so
we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling
on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength
of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or
at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you
not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if
some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments
about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off.
This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine
bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of

setting the terms of engagement.

Talk more later, maybe. TnT

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

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


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

I can see it now...

"Checkmate, Tinkerntom!"

"Ah, checkmate you say my friend! Well, I will tell you, I have had many
experiences in my life, and when you say checkmate to me, I find myself
wondering what qualifies you to make such a statement, and I wonder if you
know that God loves you. Before we proceed any further with this game, I ask
that you take back your last three moves, and that we start fresh. If you
are willing to proceed on that basis, I will look forward to continuing our
journey together!"

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

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

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick.
If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

I am not interested in wading through any more K&r post to find
anything you are trying to discuss with me. Just my own personal
killfile system. Maybe a function of still using Google to post, Sory
that just the way it has to be.

If you want to discuss the following, drop the K&r crap. TnT

Oops, there's Tinkerntom seeking to exert his power and control again. Tsk.
There's supposed to be only one god, and unless you think you are the second
coming, I'd suggest you need to step off.

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus
do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say
that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be
able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present
scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not
that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to
blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day
practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so
we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling
on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength
of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or
at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you
not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if
some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments
about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off.
This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine
bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of

setting the terms of engagement.

Talk more later, maybe. TnT

That would be the type of talk where you require me to meet your
expectations, but you accept none for yourself. Right?