|
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! Talk about having your head in the sand, and living in the past, and I'd say you and kman have the far more narrow provincial viewpoint.... frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. |
rick says:
============== It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events =========================== "rely" on?! what are you on about?! are historical data of no interest? and you'll note that the dutch study came out in 2004. frtzw906 |
rick says:
================= Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. =================== And who says you do? You've made the point, once, twice, or I don't know how many times, and I've accepted your assertion. Why do you keep telling us this? frtzw906 |
Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT Hm...... You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me. I resent that Wolfgang Is that what was going on with the "is, is" thing? I don't know what that means. Sorry Wolfgang, I did not mean to toy with you especially if English is not your mother tongue and you did not understand. I am refering to a statement made by our recent President Clinton, who when ask a question regarding the Lewenski affair, defined the meaning of the word -"is, as is." The whole definition was rediculous. You ask me to define near, and I thought you were toying with me, so I responded by refering to the previous situation. Now in addition to not understanding English, I understand that you may not be familiar with US geography, to know where Denver is located. Denver is in the state of Colorado, and the locations you listed are not near or adjacent to Denver where I live. I would not want to drive very far, several hundred miles, to get a drink. The Fins most likely have local pubs where they inbibe, or other locations close to their homes where they can enjoy their healthful libations. I begin to understand, Do you? Hm.......we'll see. and would certainly understand you resenting it. Now I hope that I am in fact understanding properly, and I did not intend to stir up any resentments. If I have yet to understand, please feel free to inform me for my understanding. "Would"? Not "do"? Why don't you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well, Actually, I don't drink. and I am sure you will feel better in the AM. Better......than.....? Wolfgang Actually I don't drink very much, nor advocate that others do so either. I hope that you are feeling better never the less, and that there was no insult intended. TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Sorry Wolfgang, I did not mean to toy with you especially if English is not your mother tongue and you did not understand. I am refering to a statement made by our recent President Clinton, who when ask a question regarding the Lewenski affair, defined the meaning of the word -"is, as is." The whole definition was rediculous. Oh, THAT! Yeah, I know all about that. You, on the other hand, are evidently entirely clueless. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! You ask me to define near, and I thought you were toying with me, Follow your instincts. The available evidence suggests they are considerably more reliable than your intellect. so I responded by refering to the previous situation. Um........I don't know what that means. :( Now in addition to not understanding English, Well, it IS my second language. I understand that you may not be familiar with US geography, to know where Denver is located. Denver is in the state of Colorado, and the locations you listed are not near or adjacent to Denver where I live. See, that LOOKS like English! :) But, your suggestion is not far off the mark. My familiarity with geography in general (let alone its multifarious sub-disciplines) is woefully lacking. I sometimes have a dreadfully hard time distinguishing between.....oh.....say, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Neenah and Menasha, Houghton and Hancock, Menominee and Marinette........etc. As to the question of proximity, I suppose it depends on how you define "near". Ogden, for example, is closer to Denver than is.......oh, I dunno......um.....Benares, let's say. But then, Idaho Falls is nearer than Ogden......to Denver, that is. I really don't know which of those.....Denver, Ogden, or Idaho Falls, that is......is closest to Benares. See what I mean about that geographically challenged thingie? I would not want to drive very far, several hundred miles, to get a drink. These days, I'd suggest that the drive back is the more critical concern. And, please do remember to buckle up, o.k.? After all, it IS our law. The Fins most likely have local pubs where they inbibe, Once again, you have the better of me. While I do retain a smattering of German, English (for all my deficiencies) is what I do best. If you would be so kind....... or other locations close to their homes where they can enjoy their healthful libations. One would hope so. Denver (if Mapquest is to be believed) is a long drive from Alavus. I begin to understand, Do you? Hm.......we'll see. and would certainly understand you resenting it. Now I hope that I am in fact understanding properly, and I did not intend to stir up any resentments. If I have yet to understand, please feel free to inform me for my understanding. Understood. Um.......well, maybe......sorta. "Would"? Not "do"? Why don't you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well, Actually, I don't drink. and I am sure you will feel better in the AM. Better......than.....? Wolfgang Actually I don't drink very much, You should try it some time nor advocate that others do so either. Nor would I. I hope that you are feeling better never the less, Just ducky, thank you very much. and that there was no insult intended. Yes, well, I'm sure we all concur. TnT Wolfgang |
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular world). ============================ LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for every Canadian. ====================== LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever... |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick says: ============== It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events =========================== "rely" on?! what are you on about?! are historical data of no interest? and you'll note that the dutch study came out in 2004. ===================== Here, let me help you out fool, since you are still dishonestly snipping all the posts just to make your replies to things that aren't said. restore... "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN, while I'm passing on interesting tidbits of info, I thought you might find this interesting: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm frtzw906 I might, if the link worked for me :-) end restore. That link is to a book report from the early 90s. Now, let me restore the last post yopu are pretending to reply to... restore... LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now! Talk about having your head in the sand, and living in the past, and I'd say you and kman have the far more narrow provincial viewpoint.... end restore... Again, when you begin to post honestly, come on back. Until then, you have nothing to add, except dishonest blather... frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick says: ================= Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. =================== And who says you do? ============== You... You've made the point, once, twice, or I don't know how many times, and I've accepted your assertion. =============== No, you haven't. review what you keep saying, instead of deleting it all the time... Why do you keep telling us this? ==================== Because, fool, in the parts of the posts you keep dishonestly deleting, you keep saying, or implying, that my review of Canadian wait lists is based on my desire to praise another system. It is you that has continued to defend a system that kills people just because the messenger isn't of the political persuasion that you like. Quite a narrow provincial viewpoint you have there, eh? frtzw906 |
rick, it is you who decided to reply to something i thought kman might
find interesting. kman indicated an inability to open the link. you clesarly were curious and tried it. you're right, it is exactly as you describe: early 90s data used to support an analysis of the reagan-bush era. so what? i never pretended it was anything more (or less). in recommending two links to kman, i suggested he might "find this interesting". whether he does (or did), is up to him. in recommending these links, i said nothing in support of (or against) the canadian medical system. the dutch study was recommended because it takes the discussion of healthcare systems a notch or two above the name-calling you had dragged this debate into. i thought kman, like me, could be interested. note again: no support (or lack of support) for the canadian healthcare system from me. you clearly have some kind of bone to pick with the canadian system. why don't you just get whatever it is, off your chest. i'm sure you'll feel better. did you not get your mri? was your joint replacement delayed for 3 months? did your mother die waiting for a cataract operation? whatever it is: please vent. as it stands, you sound like you're on the waiting list for some serious psychiatric care. you sound very bitter. on the positive side, i'd say there is hope for you. i think this is the second or third (i'm not counting) post from you where you haven't invoked the "strawman". trust me, in this regard, you're making real progress. cheers, frtzw906 |
rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you.
From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm SNIPPAGE.... I SAID ====================== I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless. ====================== SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT CHARACTERIZE THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement seems fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless." frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick, it is you who decided to reply to something i thought kman might find interesting. kman indicated an inability to open the link. you clesarly were curious and tried it. you're right, it is exactly as you describe: early 90s data used to support an analysis of the reagan-bush era. so what? i never pretended it was anything more (or less). ===================== Yes, you did. You used it as an attempt to claim that anyone that dared question you was living an insular life, without benefit of anyknowledge. Problem for you was that it just proved how provincial you are instead. in recommending two links to kman, i suggested he might "find this interesting". whether he does (or did), is up to him. in recommending these links, i said nothing in support of (or against) the canadian medical system. the dutch study was recommended because it takes the discussion of healthcare systems a notch or two above the name-calling you had dragged this debate into. i thought kman, like me, could be interested. note again: no support (or lack of support) for the canadian healthcare system from me. ================ The dutch study wasn't included in the post I replied to. You might know that if you didn't delete everything and then pretend what is in posts. you clearly have some kind of bone to pick with the canadian system. ===================== Nope. I just replied to idiocy that was trying to be spewed by jingoistic fools. why don't you just get whatever it is, off your chest. i'm sure you'll feel better. did you not get your mri? was your joint replacement delayed for 3 months? did your mother die waiting for a cataract operation? whatever it is: please vent. as it stands, you sound like you're on the waiting list for some serious psychiatric care. you sound very bitter. ================ Nope. i suggest that you must be because you cannot post honestly on the subject. Why is that? on the positive side, i'd say there is hope for you. i think this is the second or third (i'm not counting) post from you where you haven't invoked the "strawman". trust me, in this regard, you're making real progress. ================== How would you know? you're still living a delusion and 15 years in the past. Must have been the best years of your life, and you've gone steadily downhill since, eh? cheers, frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you. From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm SNIPPAGE.... I SAID ====================== I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless. ====================== SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT CHARACTERIZE THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement seems fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless." ==================== Nice proof of your dishonesty again, eh fool? You just can't post without imagining what you want others to have said, eh? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. Where is your source for this? The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one with Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more. It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then it disappeared from the radar. "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found,"*Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html "Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq Rockets filled with sarin were destroyed in Iraq after the Gulf War An artillery shell containing a small amount of the nerve gas sarin has exploded in Iraq. Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said the blast had caused a small release of the substance and two people had been treated for exposure to the agent. The substance was found in a shell inside a bag discovered by a US convoy a few days ago, he said. It appears to be the first evidence of nerve gas existing in Iraq since the start of the US-led war last year." BBC News, Monday, 17 May, 2004, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3722255.stm "It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED [improvised explosive device]. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it." The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq. U.S. probes discovery of shell believed to contain sarin gas "It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED [improvised explosive device]. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it." "The general said the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, would determine if the shell's discovery indicated Saddam possessed chemical weapons before the U.S. invasion last year. Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq." Monday, May 17, 2004 Posted: 9:08 PM EDT (0108 GMT) BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- 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 KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did *understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and tyranny. The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk) comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an unarmed citizenry would be. Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you. History is sometimes inconvenient for gun banners. I'm paraphrasing (and quoting) those who concocted our system of government. They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed our system to prevent precisely that. And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment. Holy sweet fancy moses. Indeed. The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies, male citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services. There was no armed forces. Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear of the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George Washington? There were no assault weapons. The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right. And there weren't more than 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours. There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a) suicides and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very small and getting smaller every year. Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada. If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they would rethink the whole thing. Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly aware of the potentials of firearms. Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily convertible" to fully automatic fire. Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious federal crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic." They were all, at best, semi-automatic. Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper." Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was the ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more good citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have occurred. Total up all the Americans killed in every war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between 1979 and 1979. Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the Jews of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond and you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed by firearms since 1776. That's NOT what the framers had in mind. Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with firearms, but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet. They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect themselves was to be armed. You really have no clue about American history, do you? -- 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 KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Science probably can either prove or disprove the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to the point that we can identify the concept. Religions define their gods quite well. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You're grasping at straws here. Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from science fiction. And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard. Nor does it disprove it. Thank you for restating what I keep on saying. You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your intellectual credibility somewhat. Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world. Well, not just yet, anyhow. That is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the existence of a deity. Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety. Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and wealth - all thanks to a fantasy! And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that science cannot explain. -- 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: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, since it appears YOU are unable to read, let me help you. From -- Feb 21, 2:23 pm SNIPPAGE.... I SAID ====================== I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless. ====================== SO, HAVE I, OR HAVE I NOT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT CHARACTERIZE THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AS THE BEST SYSTEM? I dunno, the statement seems fairly clear to me: "I agree: You have not held up the American model as being flawless." ==================== Nice proof of your dishonesty again, eh fool? You just can't post without imagining what you want others to have said, eh? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============== Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. ================== What you don't comprehend is that no doctor is required to participate in the national insurance scheme -- all doctors are free. Who pays them? And there certainly ARE government-employee doctors...and nurses...and administrators. Weiser says: ================= Doctors in the US don't go on strike ================ So, you're predicting that the 50,000 to 100,000 (and growing rapidly) unionized doctors in the USA (can you say HMO?) will never go on strike? Good luck on that one! You need to learn the distinction between a union and an HMO. HMO doctors can't strike because it's in their contract. Weiser, in reference to the USA, says: =============== Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are worth. =================== And you actually believe that, eh? Of course! It's perfectly obvious. If the patient didn't think it was worth it, they wouldn't use that doctor. I suspect it's more a case of what the consumer "must" pay, because, while you "talk to free market talk", "walking the walk" is quite another thing. You have yet to explain how/why the free market doesn't respond to such lucrative incomes with a greater supply of doctors. It does. We have lots and lots of doctors. However, it does take many years for the doctor population to respond to demand, which may result in temporary shortages. But, as soon as the new crop is trained, they become available to the market. Scott, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? It does. What in hell is wrong with you guys down there, that you can't get the capitalist system to work for you as far as the supply of doctors is concerned? Our doctor supply, like our lawyer supply, is just fine. Maybe if you could get these things right, we'd be inclined to follow your example. But, so long as the simple supply-demand thing remains a mystery to you, perhaps we'd best stick to a system that produces better results. When you get the kinks worked out, give us a call. Uh huh. -- 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 BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============== He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they risked nuclear conflict. =================== C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or this is Faux News drivel. Try CNN and the BBC Weiser says: ================= We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. ===================== BULL****! Really? Are you an intelligence agent with independent knowledge of what our intelligence apparatus knew and when they knew it? I think not. Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were telling a different tale? You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit motive to dissuade us from invading. They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They disagreed on Iraq. Who cares? We used OUR intelligence information, which we found more reliable and credible. Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had this figured out. The lie was transparent. Fortunately, you're not in charge of our intelligence system or our country. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/20/05 6:53 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: Let's debunk this: First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the press to describe semi-automatic long-guns that were visually similar to military BATTLE RIFLES or ASSAULT RIFLES. Modern military battle rifles and assault rifles are select-fire, shoulder-fired firearms that can fire semi-automatically or fully-automatically. You better tell your President, he uses the term assault weapons. And I think he knows what he means be it - he means weapons meant for killing a whole bunch of human beings quickly, slightly modified so that the trigger has to be pulled repeatedly instead of just holding it down. As I said, it's a coined phrase that's entered the lexicon for the express purpose of demonizing particular visual aspects of certain semi-automatic firearms. That the president may use it is not really relevant. A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. This is true. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. The "concealability" statement is empty rhetoric. No non-class III rifle legal in the US is less than 26 inches from end to end when in an operable configuration. Hardly "concealable." This is why, contrary to anti-gunner rhetoric, "assault weapons" are not the "weapons of choice" for drug dealers. In fact, rifles of any sort are very rarely used by criminals of any ilk. As for mobility in close combat, this is true. It's also true that folding or collapsible stocks are useful for storage and when carrying the firearm. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. "Spray-fire" is a rhetorical nullity, and the claim that a pistol grip "facilitates" firing from the hip ignores fundamental human mechanics. It's far easier to fire a Garand or a hunting rifle from the hip than to fire an AR-15 from the hip. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire Not just rapid fire, but at all times. Nothing wrong with stabilizing the firearm, it makes it easier to hit the target and gives the shooter better control over the point of impact, which make it safer. and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. Blatant hogwash and tripe! Only the Terminator can shoot a major-caliber rifle with one hand and expect to even come close to hitting anything by design. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. Yes, so what? A "barrel shroud" is nothing more than a different sort of stock, the purpose of which in any long gun is to provide a grip for accuracy and protection from burns, which, contrary to this hogwash, can occur after firing just a few rounds. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. Or during any other sort of fire. Stabilizing the weapon is of primary importance, and anything that facilitates it is good. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. Except, of course, suppressing flash. Hunters and sportsmen do shoot recreationally during low-light periods. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, Complete bull****. A flash suppressor does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the flash signature from IN FRONT of the firearm. It's purpose is to reduce the flash visible to the shooter, to prevent blinding during low-light shooting. an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. Whether it is "necessary" is not up to this twit to decide. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. Wrong. A "muzzle brake" performs that function, not a flash suppressor, although devices may be designed to provide both functions. Once again, maintaining control is a good thing. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, Er, no, actually, they are threaded to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle brake. That one can thread other objects on the same threads is not the same thing. which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Now here is a complete anti-gun biased falsehood. Silencers have plenty of utility for sportsmen. The major utility is that it reduces the muzzle report, which reduces or eliminates the need for hearing protection. Sound reduction is also useful in eliminating noise pollution and annoyance to neighbors. They are also used frequently when shooting varmints and vermin to avoid scaring them off with the muzzle report. Silencers are illegal Another blatant lie. Silencers are perfectly legal in the US. Anyone who is otherwise qualified to possess a firearm can own one. All you have to do is file the tax paperwork with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax and you can have one. so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. Untrue editorialism. As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a person would want a silencer and a barrel threaded to accept it. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. Well, unless you get too close to a bear, where it might have some utility. Still, it's a harmless feature. And I do mean harmless. I defy this twit to provide a single example of a civilian crime committed with an "assault weapon" with a fixed bayonet. It's a cosmetic item that poses no danger to the public, but might be useful if the particular arm had to be used by the militia or the military in close combat. ==== I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Ignoring for the moment that this almost never happens BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I note that you cannot refute any of my arguments. he can only "arm his posse" illegally, not from the local "gun shack," which is tightly regulated by the BATFE, and only if he can pass the background check, at which point the idea is that other law-abiding citizens will be similarly armed and able to take out the crack dealer before any harm is done. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. The important freedom to protect is MY right to have an assault weapon that I can use at need to kill the deranged crack dealer and his posse if and when he decides to shoot up the local park. That, and my right to have an assault weapon so I can defend the Constitution and my fellow citizens against tyranny. Heehee. You wish you were God, don't you? Nope, I'm just an ordinary citizen who understands his duty to his fellow citizens and his right to be armed for self-defense and the defense of others against violent attack. You are sitting in your living room right now with a grenade launcher just cursing the fact that the USSR collapsed before you had a chance to take to the streets and defend your fellow citizens. Nah, I donąt have a grenade launcher. They're too expensive and the ammunition's too hard to get. Besides, area weapons rarely qualify as proper self-defense arms. As for defending my fellow citizens, I do it every day by carrying a gun every day. It's often a pain, but it's my duty and my right and I take both seriously. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not available to the general public. So much for this line of crap. My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47." It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is, of course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which makes your ignorance entirely understandable. -- 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 |
Weiser, in reference to Canada says:
================= And there certainly ARE government-employee doctors ================= Yes there ARE. As there ARE in the USA. So what? Weiser says: ================== You need to learn the distinction between a union and an HMO. HMO doctors can't strike because it's in their contract. ================ I know the distinction: the HMO is the management. Now, while I also know that the USA is not particularly union-friendly, I also know that, once a contract has expired, union members can withhold their services. A strike by any other name... Which leaves the question: where is the HMO going to find replacement doctors on short notice? Can't strike eh? How little you understand collective power. Weiser says: ============== But, as soon as the new crop is trained, they become available to the market. =============== So, can we ever expect the supply of doctors to be such that the price goes down? Not bloody likely, I'll venture. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
rick says: =============== Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in Canada. ================= Everybody in Canada has heard about those clowns. Before citing them, you'd best find out who funds them. Once you've figured that out, you'll know which butts they're kissing. Clearly you get all your information from the CBC. 'Nuff said. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational. ======================== Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner drug-dealer. Why are you offended by the term assault weapons? Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their visual appearance. Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the (specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault weapons?" Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and the numbers are actually very small. If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences I'd be interested to see them. Then go look them up. -- 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 |
Weiser says:
================ Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary importance in the first place. ================ OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing? After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: " it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!" make up your minds. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
================ Clearly you get all your information from the CBC. ================= and your point is..... ? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: That is not even close to true. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Nope. Prove it. Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty. The invasion of Honduras was illegal. Nope. Prove it. Ibid. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government, and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis. Sophistry. Truth. Your rights may be deemed to exist independent of any government or document, but in real terms, you cannot enjoy those rights unless you are permitted to by governments and/or the majority and/or the tyrants that hold power. Individuals have nothing that can control this. Only civilizations do. This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our 2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does not "permit" anything. We, the People, empower representatives and bureaucrats to exercise strictly limited authority on a limited number of subjects. All else is reserved to the people themselves. If these bureaucrats transgress, we remove them from office. If they don't want to go, we use force to remove them. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the People, as a whole, ALWAYS have sufficient arms to achieve that end at necessity. Thus, the People do have something to "control" tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority, should peaceful means fail. That is precisely and exactly what the Framers intended. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have in mind? How about letting Californians live without artificial water shortages caused by agriculture taking the vast majority of what is available. Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming pools and Bluegrass laws? -- 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 |
Weiser says:
================ You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit motive to dissuade us from invading. ================ Could it be that the USA, which is corruptly in bed with the Saudis, had a motive to control oil supplies and thus invaded Iraq? Of course it could. Not only that, but that motive is much more credible that any motives ascribed to the French. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate your claim that US states have more power. Look it up yourself. It's in the Amendments section. The Canadian constitution has no amendments section. Indeed. However, the US Constitution does. You prove nothing, because you can't. You still don't have a clue about government on an international level. I don't live under an "international" government. I live under the government of the United States and no other. which US states have their ***own*** seats in the UN All 50 US states have seats, through the federal government. You can't read, can you? Of course I can. I just refuse to play into your specious logic. Not, of course, that I give a damn about the UN or what it thinks, or does. As far as I'm concerned, we should kick their sorry asses out of the US and tell them if their blue helmets get in our way we'll do to them what we did to Saddam's Republican Guards. -- 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 |
Weiser says:
====================== Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming pools and Bluegrass laws? ====================== Fair enough. But I think a "simultaneous" bashing of agriculture is appropriate. On the swimmings pools et al, Scott, I suspect you are absolutely right. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human beings. Why should they be? Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea. That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any theory that exists in the scientific community. Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact. There is _nothing_ in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous variation in species evolution. And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which drives evolution. What is it, pray tell? If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. 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... If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific community. So, if it's not gradual, it's sudden, right? Some paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the overlap is speculative at this point. Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe. But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes. If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect of biology. One would expect gross morphological changes to be more than "skin deep." Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution. Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and feed underwater. But they DO swim and feed underwater, and I doubt that their brains are grossly morphologically different from land iguanas. Can you demonstrate that marine iguanas are an evolutionary change rather than a simple behavioral adaptation based on the particular needs associated with the Galapagos ecosystem? For marine iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be evolution. Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue. Even if the theory of evolution is true, Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it. Any theory of evolution. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? Nice backpedal. You did. To wit: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not prove the existence of God. A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your intellectual credibility somewhat. Please quote where I have said anything of the kind. I have _never_ said that God does not exist. I have never said that belief in God is a sign of a lack of intelligence. "Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything." Sounds pretty derisory to me. I said that we can neither prove, nor disprove, the existance of God and that people who can't cope with that are fools. Well, since that's an incorrect statement, they are not the fools. There are two failures in your thesis: 1. That we have not yet proven the existence of God does not mean that we cannot do so. 2. Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God" is. For example, if one defines "God" as the physical universe, then we can indeed prove the existence of "God" because the universe exists. Many major religions have no problems with this view of God - the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and many others state clearly that belief in God is an act of faith. The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist. It's merely recognition of the difficulties in proving God's existence. If you ask those who have experienced "miracles," they will tell you that there is no belief involved, but that their experiences prove without any doubt that God does exist. The incidence of "miracles" that science cannot explain is not trivial. They also can deal with scientific enquiry that neither requires nor forces the existance of God. Well, not quite. Some Catholics (of personal acquaintance) deal just fine with the conundrum because they understand the limitations of human intellect and "scientific" enquiry. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: If it occurs, nothing changes. Another logical failure. If something "occurs," there is, ipso facto, "change." My masters thesis was in risk - all probability and stats. When we talk about probabilities and we have a reasonable sample (or a population) of data, an occurance does not change the underlying stats. We are talking about probability and stats here. Well, the context of the question is gone, but logically speaking one cannot have an "occurrence" without some "change." The simplest change is that something "occurred" whereas a state of no change would require that no "occurrence" occurred. If one can create hydrogen by fracturing water with electricity produced by solar panels, then the pollution budget may be lessened, And if meaningful amounts of energy are to be created, then you'd better be prepared to pave entire states with photovoltaic panels. As I recall, average solar flux is 1watt/m2. If we create a solar panel equivalent of, say, 15km2, we end up with (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not much on math) 225,000,000 watts of energy from the solar flux. With a panel efficiency of, say, 8 percent, we end up with something like 18 million watts of electricity per day, on average. With increases in panel efficiency yields can be substantially increased. I think NREL has a 30% efficient panel under development. I don't know what the rate of hydrogen production per watt of electricity is. Perhaps someone else does. Then there's always nuke plants...and I'm sure there are other ways to generate hydrogen than the inefficient electrolosis method. If you look at H2 as a complete package, the unsuitability of the stuff becomes apparent. It all depends on what we're trying to accomplish. The H2 economy advocates have successfully pulled the wool over many eyes. Again, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If the goal is efficient use of an energy source for transportation vehicle, hydrogen is not the fuel of choice. If, however, the goal is reductions in emissions, irrespective of fuel economy, then hydrogen may be the fuel of choice. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: surrendered gladly to US troops. This is a fiction that only you americans seem to believe. It's a fact well documented even by the liberal media. The vast majority of Saddam's troops surrendered immediately once they came under fire. Many surrendered without firing a shot. He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears. According to you he had spirited the WMDs to Syria. That kinda hinders a defense. Either he had weapons to fight back or he didn't. Which is it? He did. That he couldn't get his troops to fight for him to the death shows that his style of rule was ineffective at garnering loyalty. and he likely removed them to Syria, Given that the air was filled with american spy planes and satellite surveillance, how come there is no direct evidence for this. He had twelve years. The border is exceedingly long. There is not as much surveillance as you might like to believe. We barely managed to stop a truck convoy carrying nearly a billion in US cash and gold. US claims in the absence of anything resembling proof leaves a lot of us sceptical. So far we've only seen photos of broken down trucks. What makes you think we're under any obligation to provide you with anything, much less proof? along with billions in gold and cash, before the invasion. Which begs the question, why didn't he spirit mimself out to enjoy those same billions? Because he thought himself immune from US aggression, based on his experience in the first Gulf War. Because he was a megalomaniacal tyrant with delusions of grandure. Because he wrongly thought that the Iraqi people, and in particular his soldiers, would fight to the death to protect him. And, because he (and his brutes of sons) had a good thing going, what with the daily routine of abducting and raping and then killing young virgin girls and other perks of being a dictatorial tyrant. He miscalculated US determination and military power...twice. Again, this leads only to scepticism about such claims. Who cares what you think? Don't claim he had nowhere to go - Bin Laden's still out there protected someplace. He did go someplace. He went into a spider hole outside Baghdad. We caught him there. He just waited too long to try to get out because he thought we weren't going to win. just as they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every claim about nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have nuclear weapons seriously Taking them seriously and giving them credibility are two different things. Do you have some secret intel that indicates that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons? I'm sure the president would be glad to hear it. For now. We've got other things to do. Yawn, another excuse... Hey, we pick our battles based on OUR strategic decisionmaking, not on yours. That's why we're called a "sovereign nation." -- 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 |
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human beings. Why should they be? Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea. That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any theory that exists in the scientific community. Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact. There is _nothing_ in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous variation in species evolution. And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which drives evolution. What is it, pray tell? If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. 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... If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific community. So, if it's not gradual, it's sudden, right? Some paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the overlap is speculative at this point. Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe. But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes. If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect of biology. One would expect gross morphological changes to be more than "skin deep." Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution. Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and feed underwater. But they DO swim and feed underwater, and I doubt that their brains are grossly morphologically different from land iguanas. Can you demonstrate that marine iguanas are an evolutionary change rather than a simple behavioral adaptation based on the particular needs associated with the Galapagos ecosystem? For marine iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be evolution. Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue. Even if the theory of evolution is true, Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it. Any theory of evolution. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? Nice backpedal. You did. To wit: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not prove the existence of God. A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything. -- 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 =A9 2005 Scott Weiser Keep them on their heels Scott! It has been educational. TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Personal defense against criminal assault? Of course. Personal defense is an equal, if not preeminent consideration when protecting the RKBA. Defense of the nation comes second. That's what a "militia" defending against tyranical government is in your mind? Bizarre! No. What's bizarre is your ignorance of our system of government. The 2nd Amendment does not require one to be in a militia in order to exercise the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It's so much cheaper and more economical to do it that way than to try to close the border. But the solution you propose is for us to close our border. Indeed. Sorry, your problem - you fix it. Stop blaming everyone else. We intend to make it your problem, so that you have to spend your money to fix it or risk losing a major segment of your economy when we have to do it. If we close the border with Canada, it will be CLOSED. Nobody in, nobody out. It's much cheaper for us to force you to fix it than to do it ourselves. -- 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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard. I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for one of your friends. No, I certainly don't mistake you for one of my friends. One insult deserves another. When you choose to descend into ad hominem attack, I'm perfectly capable of responding in kind. The choice is up to you. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com