| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1571
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#1573
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap. Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it. And it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the cost of his own life. Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice. Which would be, evidently, you. The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to turn that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing. And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody would have been able to stop the killer. Guns are merely inanimate objects and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they are used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill. They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of ill. |
|
#1574
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. That is a lie, and you are a liar, because I never said that. You are a scumbag and a coward for continuing to repeat your false accusation. ========================== Nothing false about my statement, liarman. Why you continue to blather on about it is only because you cannot discuss the rest of your lies, that no one is dying while waitung for treatment in Canada. Why do you refuse to discuss that lie of yours, liarman? |
|
#1575
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donıt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. I wasn't talk about all of Canada. And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in identifying bird species than they are in guns. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when it's not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Amazingly enough, thus far my walking around without a gun hasn't gotten anyone killed. But your advocating that other people not be allowed to walk around with guns almost certainly has. ROFL. OK, you are really losing it now. And I really didn't think you had room for progress in that area. Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. And, it doesn't work. What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. Why are assault weapons needed? I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. That's not what I said. That's what you implied. Not even close. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****? No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's required. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. Heehee. What a group of saints they are. Indeed. You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Hold on their pardner. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. You have a tyrant now. I don't think you know what is meant by "culture." I do. But the question is whether you do or not. I questioned you first. You can have a culture that includes guns without having a gun culture. Since you have yet to define "gun culture" your statement is non sequitur. Actually, it's not a non sequitur at all. Just because a term in a particular statement has not been defined that alone does not establish the information that follows as illogical. Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. My utopian icon? Who or what are you talking about now? You mean Gandhi? I think you brought him up, not me. But just because the world is a violent place full of gun nuts doesn't mean Gandhi was wrong...in fact, the state of the world might be proof that he was right. Er, no. I disagree. Me, I'll achieve peace through superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey. ROFL. The myth of the violent stranger in the bush. That's not who is going to kill you. That's who kills most of the people in the world. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. Somehow I thought you would say that. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun. You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of your own family Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? When fire extinguishers and insurance start killing people, get back to me. You miss the point, again...predictably. Let me know. - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. And why would that be an issue for you? It will probably be an issue for you, and the person you kill. Um, I believe we're talking about suicide here, so the only person killed would be me. How often do you think about it? Or you'll put a big hole in some person you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your chance to be a hero gunslinger. I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? There's an awful lot of lucky people. Yup. Some not so lucky though. Maybe it's not luck. Nor do the vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where concealed carry is made lawful. Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky, and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when you're in public. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of them get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute? No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL. Strawman argument that has been conclusively disproven by facts and history. It's hard to argue my most recent assertion though! Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. I disagree. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. Sorry, gun nuts like yourself have nothing to do with the freedoms I enjoy. Wrong. Not only that, but apparently you've got a major god complex too! But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it Oh, that's just beautiful! , at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can you? Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT! What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting the opportunity to kill someone with your gun. one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for being too trigger-happy? That would explain a lot, particularly your latest furious outburst. |
|
#1576
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/8/05 8:05 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. That you are trying to slink away from your false accusation is glaringly apparent. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. The only statement you have referenced is the following: === 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. === I did not say that no one in Canada waits for treatment. You are lying. And this conversation is over. You are a scumbag, and determined to remain as such. |
|
#1577
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 8:05 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. That you are trying to slink away from your false accusation is glaringly apparent. ========================== LOL Where am I going? I've been right here, exposing your willful ignorance and lies. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. The only statement you have referenced is the following: ====================== Yep, and it is not during the post about Nfld, now was it liarman? It's a discussion about the convenience of waiting, and whose convenience the wait is for. In your case, it's the convenience of the health care system. === 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. === I did not say that no one in Canada waits for treatment. You are lying. And this conversation is over. You are a scumbag, and determined to remain as such. ===================== Yes, you did, liarman, as you have just again proven... Why you continue to blather on about it is only because you cannot discuss the rest of your lies, that no one is dying while waitung for treatment in Canada. Why do you refuse to discuss that lie of yours, liarman? Still trying to dodge this lie too, I see, liarman. |
|
#1578
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article 1110340422.0f166db598e207fc9e839e738f0d5c7b@terane ws, Nisarel at
wrote on 3/8/05 10:53 PM: Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: But it cannot step one inch outside the boundary we the people have established. Patriot Act. It's leaped way outside it. Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on protected rights? You're that ignorant? I find it interesting the the New York City Council (that's the city where most of the people in 9/11 actually perished) want the Patrio Act revoked. They obviously aren't as informed as Scott Weiser, but they seem to feel rather strongly that it infringes on fundamental rights and liberties. I find the most recent version of their resolution quite well written. http://www.nycbordc.org/resolution0389-2004.html Even the American Library Association is getting radical! http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...=/ContentManag ement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891 A search on Patriot Act infringe on rights or some such combination will give you a plethora of links to hundreds of organizations that have come forward (at obvious risk) to stand up against the anti-freedom (aka Patriot Act) act. It's so ironic that at the very same time as US troops are fighting on foreign soil - according to their President's revised mission to secure freedom for the Iraqi people - freedoms in the USA are at one of the lowest points in decades. |
|
#1579
|
|||
|
|||
|
BCITORGB wrote: Tink, commenting on my new view of JC: ================= I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions. Yes, and Good. ====================== But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely saying that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me. I believe it is better to figure out what is not right and fix it, than to think every thing is Ok, and find out that it is not! I think it is good that your incorrect notions are exposed for being incorrect, then we can work on figuring out what is the truth. Your notions may be comforting, and make you feel all warm and fuzzie, but if they are false, they will eventually get you in trouble. For example, if you were getting ready to go on a boat trip, and were going to rent a boat. Now, I knew the guy that ownes the rental fleet, rents boats that were poorly maintained. Would you rather have me tell you that the boat you are going out in had a hole that had been patched with paper-mache. Or would you rather have me not dampen the excitement of your trip, and let you get out in the deep water, where the paper mache gets wet and falls out, and exposes the hole. And the boat fills with water, and things go from bad to worst? Now if you were operating on misconceptions about God, would it be right for me to let you continue, without at least trying to warn you. You may find that some very long held misconceptions, get disturbed, but hopefully, you and your boat do not end up at the bottom of some very deep water. Now, obviously if you are content to paddle around in the farm pond, a little hole may not be anything to worry about. A lot of Christians like to paddle around in their little ponds, and they may even be the best boater in the pond. Not that I would want to trust them, and their experience in deep water! Now all that I have addressed so far is why it is good to have our notions disturbed. As to the exact nature of those notions, and maybe more important, the true notions, that may take a bit longer to consider. Suffice to say that the Scriptures say that "God is Love", so if you have already jumped to a conclusion that "God is not Love," then I would expect that your conclusion is incorrect, due to incomplete data, and probably other continuing silly notions. Tink wonders: ==================== I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. ==================== I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the people around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc. Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were "silly notions". The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature and character of God. The apparent expression ot peoples faith is another matter, which I must tell you many Christians have a few silly notions about as well. So if you end up with some accompaning silly notions about how Christians are, and maybe should be "from the society around me", I am not surprised! However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then, if not love and peace, is the true nature of JC? frtzw906 Let me start to answer your last question, by asking you a question. I am going to go out on a limb here and make a big assumption, If I am wrong, please let me know. Have you ever heard the Scripture, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would you say that this phrase sets a high mark to strive for in the New Testament? Do you think we should try to live according to this Scripture today? Actually that is three questions, I was never that good with math! Answer these questions for me, and I will be able to answer your last Question above. BTW, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and curiosity! TnT |
|
#1580
|
|||
|
|||
|
KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in our lies and cowardice. There may be the proverbial Freudian slip! TnT |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
