|
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snipsss... My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom. Can I please try again? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? If you will excuse and accept the following babble? I deleted it. ============== Of course you did. You don't like the truth, it hurts too much, right? Has he proven it? ================= Yes... For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?" That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and died doesn't mean that caused the death. Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the waiting that caused them to die. ================== ROTFLMAO Waiting doesn't kill tghem fool! The desease is what kills them. Sometimes because they don't get the treatment they need. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No So you didn't bring up cars? ======================== Nice bit of dishonesty there fool. So you didn't bring up cars? ======================= You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything, liar? Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar.. "No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..." What is the need for assault weapons to the general public? It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But cars have many other valid and valuable purposes. ================ So do weapons. But you don't want to address that, even though YOU brought it up. Scum. ================= No, you brought it up fool. As usual, you can do nothing but lie. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... snippage... Why did you dishonestly delete the part about the lies you made about wait lines that I proved you made? Didn't like seeing your stupidity again? restore start Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and provide proof that it is a lie. =========================== That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health care system. You did not quote me. ====================== Yes, I did. see other posts for today... Here, want to see it again? "...No one is waiting for treatment..." You need to quote without the "... and ..." and you also need to provide a link to the message so it can be verified. What a scumbag you are! ================ There was no "and" fool. You made that statemnet. Too abd you're a proven liar, eh? YOU made the statement. Now you're claiming you can't find it? You really are a loser, aren't you, liar? restore end Post the entire quote. Why did you need to delete the beginning and end? Weasel. ====================== "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Why are you concerned about whole quotes while you dishonestly delete whole ones, fool? Provide the entire quote. Scum. ==================== What I posted says it all. You lied. |
On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any different from heterosexuals. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Why should the government dictate what can go on between two consenting adults in private? The restriction of rights is something you just choose to ignore. What you are talking about is preferences, not rights. Only in the eyes of a bigoted, right-wing nutcase like yourself. More importantly, your statement suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors. Your ability to warp the meanings of words into whatever you want is well documented. This dishonesty on your part is despicable. Mike |
On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses to manifes Trying to twist my words around again idiot? I never said that I am forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God. Hence, there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the physical world. We have to deal with the sources of information on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the main source. How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests? Bible - see above. According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible. Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality, where you are at a loss. Non sequitur. So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many different source languages? Get a clue. Mike |
On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: More to come on that. Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup. Mike |
Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada through a poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private process largely controlled by individual physicians." The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the notions of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example, when "exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if it's in Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list? Tink, when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs you that you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this is a day other than Thursday). But what is particularly interesting in the statement in question is the part about it being an "entirely private process largely controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad government determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using his/her best knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this is exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say. Doctors in Canada operate privately. Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long waits are the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading effect on wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average housing prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception" To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of selling papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the story. This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned, playing nicely into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the system." Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype! NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some recent Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy about waiting. Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although this may be related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also now be changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access to care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money personally to reduce their wait time." NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap Canadians (just ask the folks in Florida)! Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on, supporting KMAN's points. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there! Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a gun in it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought into that community from outside. I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a place with no guns. Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense. -- 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:
Could you give me a short list so that I can understand what type of communities you are speaking of? Thanks, TnT Howsabout the Amish? Can you certify that there are no guns in Amish communities? Can you prevent me from taking a gun into an Amish community? No, but as I understand the Amish would rather throw themselves in front of your bullets until you run out of ammo than become a gun culture themselves. You merely demonstrate how little you understand, about the Amish or guns. And frankly I don't think a lot of Amish are getting shot - by internal shooters or external shooters. Cites? -- 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:
Scott says: ==================== You offer anti-capitalist propaganda from Communist China about "income disparity" as evidence? Are you not aware that this is but thinly veiled justification for taking rich Chinese out and putting a bullet in the back of their heads because they have presumed to make a profit in a Communist/Socialist society? You're going to have to do MUCH better than that. ============= I suggest that your reaction to info from China is an over-reaction. I'm sorry, but it's impossible to over-react to propaganda from China. They are very, very dangerous, and I don't intend to underestimate them at all. Any self-respecting communist is turning over in his grave at the sight of what is happening in China today. Unless they knew, as the current leaders do, that one can present a surface appearance of "democratization" without actually allowing it to happen. All you ever see is what they WANT you to see. What goes on in China out of your sight is entirely communist. China may be many things -- totalitarian to start -- but it is hardly communist. That's what they want you to believe. You're wrong. It may have considerable vestiges of communism but they are vanishing at a rapid rate. The victims of that move are just so much trash to be discarded. These victims would never know they are in a country that is supposedly communist. What is happening in China can best be compared to England in 1850 (and the Chinese peasants are the Irish of the year 2005). How much time have you spent in China, outside the prescribed tourist/business areas? None, I bet. Scott, don't let the name of the country put you off. Right now the relationship between the capitalists and the government borders on a love-in. So they would have us think. So, fair enough, reject my source re poverty and crime, but please acquaint yourself with what is going on in China. It is hardly the "red" Chine of a foregone era. Are you sure? -- 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 Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT crime victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for self-defense vary from the FBI approved number of more than 80,000 per year (which is almost twice the incidence of violent assaults) to more than two million per year by Kleck, Lott et al. Kleck's DGU research is suspect because his estimate produces a rate of DGU woundings far in excess of what is actually observed. Prove it. Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent. Sez you...and HCI. Unfortunately for you, both authors have been extensively peer-reviewed and their methodology, data and conclusions are sound. -- 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 Nisarel wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote: Why are North American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison population? It's hard for them to afford a decent lawyer. Or, they commit more crimes. -- 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:
============== How much time have you spent in China, outside the prescribed tourist/business areas? None, I bet. ============ I could ask you the same. In my case, I'll answer honestly: "None." But, every working day I come in contact with dozens of recent immigrants from China. Each day, I have multiple discussions about life in China. These people span the entire spectrum from pro-government to anti. Further, a close acquaintance (venture capitalist) travels to China at least once every month. He most often travels into the countryside as he's interested in mining. We frequently discuss his observations. I think my sources are credible. And yours? frtzw906 |
Weiser on poorer minorities in jail:
================ Or, they commit more crimes. ======================== Which begs the question: "Why?" frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any different from heterosexuals. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment, society disagrees with you. As it happens, I agree with you. But effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric argumentation you provide. Why should the government dictate what can go on between two consenting adults in private? Why shouldn't it? It's not proscribed that power by the Constitution. In fact, most such statutes are at the state level, and you can avoid liability by simply moving to a state where homosexual sodomy is not unlawful. Those who advocate such intrusions by the state point to a number of social ills that result from deviant sexual activity as justification for the proscription. Whether they are correct or not is a matter of debate, but ultimately the Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision. If you don't like the decision, you can try to get different people elected to change the law. Until then, the law prevails, even if you don't agree with it. That's the way civilizations work. And so long as the law is applied uniformly to all persons, no particular individual's "rights" are infringed improperly. If, on the other hand, sodomy was forbidden ONLY for those who are homosexual (thus requiring a sexual orientation test before conviction can occur) then THAT would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But that's not the case. The restriction of rights is something you just choose to ignore. What "restriction of rights" are you referring to? There is no "right" to engage in homosexual sodomy in several states. Laws proscribing such conduct have been enacted and upheld for a very long time. Some particular activity is not a "right" just because you think it ought to be. Whether those laws still reflect the will of society is a different matter entirely. I don't ignore the issue, I merely deconstruct your sloppy logic. You are free to post better arguments if you're able, which I doubt. What you are talking about is preferences, not rights. Only in the eyes of a bigoted, right-wing nutcase like yourself. This is why you are not worth debating. You presume that because I deconstruct your shoddy thinking that this means I hold a certain viewpoint to be true. That's a mistake. More importantly, your statement suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors. Your ability to warp the meanings of words into whatever you want is well documented. In other words, I'm a skilled logician and debater and you're not. I'd have to agree. This dishonesty on your part is despicable. What dishonesty would you be referring to? -- 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 |
Nisarel says:
================ Fraser Institute: a far-right wing ideological think tank that is not known for unbiased research. =============== This was pointed out much earlier in this thread, but the right-wing fundamentalists here refuse to accept that characterization. As I've pointed out to them: check their funding to see whose ass they're kissing. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses to manifes Trying to twist my words around again idiot? No, you do that quite successfully all by yourself. I never said that I am forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God. Well, you're still wrong. Hence, there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the physical world. Wrong. We have to deal with the sources of information on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the main source. How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests? Bible - see above. Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of God in the Bible, you must therefore be woefully ignorant of the contents or simply too stupid to understand what is written. According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible. Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality, where you are at a loss. Non sequitur. So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many different source languages? Not necessarily, but I certainly know more about it than you do. So do most ten year old Sunday School children. Get a clue. I'll take "Theology" for $800. -- 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 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: More to come on that. Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup. I'll do as I please, not as you please, as anybody with any tenure here can tell you. Fact is that the issue of the New Zealand Mudsnail has some very direct impacts on this group, which I'll inform you about when the time is right. -- 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 on poorer minorities in jail: ================ Or, they commit more crimes. ======================== Which begs the question: "Why?" Um, because they choose to? -- 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 Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT crime victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for self-defense vary from the FBI approved number of more than 80,000 per year (which is almost twice the incidence of violent assaults) to more than two million per year by Kleck, Lott et al. Kleck's DGU research is suspect because his estimate produces a rate of DGU woundings far in excess of what is actually observed. Prove it. I take it you haven't actually read Kleck's DGU research. Yes, I have. Kleck even notes that the DGU research produces wounding rates far in excess from what actually occurs. And, he explains why this does not impeach his conclusions as well. Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent. Sez The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms and Violence Panel. Notorious anti-gun polemicists. They have yet to disprove his work. you...and HCI. Unfortunately for you, both authors have been extensively peer-reviewed and their methodology, data and conclusions are sound. snicker "extensively peer-reviewed" That's a quote from an idiot who doesn't have a clue. Lott's gun research was exhaustively reviewed by a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences. Who are all exceedingly biased on the issue of guns. They found that his results don't hold up, that the data contains errors, and that the statistical methods he used contain significant flaws. All of which claims he has authoritatively refuted in his subsequent editions. It's always funny to find an ignorant gun-nut fool like you. It's not funny at all to find anti-gun nut fools like you. You're dangerous and you get people killed. -- 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 Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote: Why are North American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison population? It's hard for them to afford a decent lawyer. Or, they commit more crimes. Prove it. Not interested. It's Canada's problem. -- 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:
=========== Um, because they choose to? =========== Why? frtzw906 |
Nisarel asks of Weiser:
============ So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? ================ Nice one! LOL frtzw906 |
Nisarel says:
============ But their research and position on marijuana was quite atypical. They support the legalization of it. ============== One of the few times I agreed with them. The paranoid in me asks: "What corporate interests are lurking behind that recommendation?" LOL frtzw906 |
Several years trouble free. Had to call support about 4 times in about
as many years. Good service. Can't complain. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... I'd guess it's for much the same reason that there so many Zulus in South African prisons. So it's settled then: it's the dialect. No. Van Diemen's Land has simply gotten too expensive. Wolfgang |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one: http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it? Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation... here, I give you another from utoronto "...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517 consecutive coronary bypass patients following the establishment of a provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31 patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal myocardial infarction (88)..." "...Waiting lists are a source of frustration to physicians who feel themselves deprived of the ability to deliver clinical care in an optimal fashion (95), a situation which may also raise issues of medico-legal liability (30). Moreover, physicians are uncomfortable with the ethically ambivalent role into which, as a profession, they have unwittingly been cast. On the one handm they are required to act as the patient’s advocate, while on the other, they are expected to ration scarce health resources on behalf of a constrained system..." So, despite the american paper above that says doctors are indendent, that conclusion isn't entirely supported by reality as the resources they must use are not under their control. http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf "...There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients. Adjusting for age, sex, and waiting time, patients waiting for valve surgery had a significantly increased risk of death compared with patients waiting for CABG alone..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9616340 "...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now clear that queuing according to this system limits the risk of death for patients awaiting surgery. Currently about one in 200 to 250 patients will die while awaiting isolated coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..." http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada through a poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private process largely controlled by individual physicians." The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the notions of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example, when "exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if it's in Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list? Tink, when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs you that you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this is a day other than Thursday). But what is particularly interesting in the statement in question is the part about it being an "entirely private process largely controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad government determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using his/her best knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this is exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say. Doctors in Canada operate privately. Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long waits are the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading effect on wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average housing prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception" To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of selling papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the story. This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned, playing nicely into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the system." Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype! NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some recent Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy about waiting. Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although this may be related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also now be changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access to care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money personally to reduce their wait time." NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap Canadians (just ask the folks in Florida)! Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on, supporting KMAN's points. ===================== No, it does not. frtzw906 |
Wolfgang:
============== Van Diemen's Land has simply gotten too expensive. ============ Walloons in jail? Zulus in jail? Van Diemen's Land? I sense a common thread. Lowlandic languages!!!! The Walloons wouldn't speak Nederlands. The Zulus balked at Afrikaans. But van Dieman got his`man Tasman to lay a bit of Hollans on the natives south of Oz... Cool. After all that, it's still in the dialect. frtzw906 |
rick says:
=============== Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it? Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation... ============== No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait times is exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc. The entire article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying. NOTE: "very long waits are the exception" NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see additional public funds used to reduce wait times" And, central to their argument, because they preface the article with it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult to define. And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the American system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate for the market system in health care either. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. This is because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically New Jersey and California. Further, nothing in the Constitution prohibits gun registration, and indeed most guns are "registered" through the Form 4477 you have to fill out when you purchase a new gun from a dealer, although this system has been kept deliberately cumbersome so the BATFE would have great difficulty in using the forms as a way to confiscate firearms. However, if gun registration is imposed over the objections of gun owners, I will then, of course, obey the law...while I work extra hard to unseat those who approved it and get the law repealed. What I might do when the government attempts to *confiscate* my firearms is a different matter entirely. -- 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: =========== Um, because they choose to? =========== Why? Because that is their will and desire? -- 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 |
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/1/05 3:35 PM: TnT, your are clealy trying to make KMAN's case aren't you? Did you even READ these sources? "Interpretation: Patients awaiting CABG in Ontario are at a much greater risk of death than the general population. However, when compared with thousands of other patients living with coronary artery disease, they are at similar or decreased vital risk." from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/162/6/775 Duh! where are people dying in line-ups here? It says: "at a much greater risk of death than the general population"... well, hardly surprising, right? THEY'RE FRIGGIN' ILL!!!!! OF course they're at greater risk! BUT, "at similar or decreased vital risk." when compared to others who are also ill. KMAN must be loving these! frtzw906 LOL. I'm loving your analysis, anyway. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent. Sez The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms and Violence Panel. Notorious anti-gun polemicists. snicker You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you? " WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control." WorldNet Daily "It should come as no surprise to most readers that "objective" government studies are often anything but. In fact, the game is an old one: If you put the right people on a panel, and ask them the right questions, you can pretty well be assured of getting the answers you want. That appears to be what is going on with a Clinton administration-inspired National Academy of Sciences study bearing the innocuous title of "Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms," which opens its formal hearings on Thursday. According to the NAS, "The goals of this study are to 1.) assess the existing research and data on firearm violence; 2.) consider how to credibly evaluate the various prevention, intervention and control strategies; 3.) describe and develop models of illegal firearms markets; and 4.) examine the complex ways in which firearms may become embedded in the community." Conspicuously absent from these goals is any research into the benefits of firearms becoming "embedded" in communities, as demonstrated by the research of scholars like John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and Gary Kleck of Florida State University. Most of the people selected for the panel have reputations as good scholars, but none of them have specialized in firearms policy. Most of them have reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, has been described as "rabidly antigun." The panel also includes former Jimmy Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti ‹ a long-time antigun advocate, and a strong supporter of America's leading gun-prohibition group, Handgun Control, Inc. (formerly known as "the National Council to Control Handguns," and recently renamed "The Brady Campaign"). The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is James Q. Wilson ‹ a distinguished scholar (but no specialist in gun policy), who has said that most gun control doesn't work, but who expresses almost no concern for the rights of legitimate gun owners who are harmed by ineffective laws, and who supports high-tech spy cameras to find people carrying guns. (Notwithstanding the fact that handgun carrying is legal in 33 states by statewide law, and is allowed in many of the rest, on a county by county basis.)" By Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds. You can say the NAS study wasn't biased all you want, and it will be a lie still. -- 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 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick says: =============== Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it? Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation... ============== No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait times is exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc. The entire article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying. NOTE: "very long waits are the exception" ===================== That wasn't the discussion, now was it? Nice strawman. NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see additional public funds used to reduce wait times" And, central to their argument, because they preface the article with it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult to define. And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the American system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate for the market system in health care either. ================ So now we have the truth about why you are so eager to embrace this report. It neglects to find, or tell, the whole truth about the Canadian system because they, like you, are agenda building. Nice that you like to show your stripes so well. Here, let me restore a couple of sites that you don't want to see... "...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517 consecutive coronary bypass patients following the establishment of a provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31 patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal myocardial infarction..." http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf "...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now clear that queuing according to this system limits the risk of death for patients awaiting surgery. Currently about one in 200 to 250 patients will die while awaiting isolatedcoronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..." http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf Plus, you failed to reply to kmans claim that no one waits for treatment in Canada. frtzw906 ================== I notice that you dishonestly deleted all the info that says that Canadians die on wait lists. the site you keep refering to now, which I had posted before anyway, does not claim there are no deaths from waiting. The sites I provided, and you deleted, do. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 3/1/05 3:35 PM: TnT, your are clealy trying to make KMAN's case aren't you? Did you even READ these sources? "Interpretation: Patients awaiting CABG in Ontario are at a much greater risk of death than the general population. However, when compared with thousands of other patients living with coronary artery disease, they are at similar or decreased vital risk." from http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/162/6/775 Duh! where are people dying in line-ups here? It says: "at a much greater risk of death than the general population"... well, hardly surprising, right? THEY'RE FRIGGIN' ILL!!!!! OF course they're at greater risk! BUT, "at similar or decreased vital risk." when compared to others who are also ill. KMAN must be loving these! frtzw906 LOL. I'm loving your analysis, anyway. ====================== Which is just agenda building, and strawmen... Why not respond to the sites I posted that prove you are a liar? Oh, yeah, you're too afraid, eh? |
|
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:49 PM: snip Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. There are stories about health care issues in the media all the time. Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care would definitely make the front page. ================== It has before fool. Never. Prove it. ======================= Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim. I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message snippage... Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a coward on this issue as well? ==================== Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians never waiting for treatment. I never said that. Every health care system requires that people wait. ========================== Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews, dolt. What part of your claim: "...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you undersatnd? You said it fool, 2/20/2005 Big lie there fool... Never said it. Prove that I did. ================ See above fool. You made the claim, liar. Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed how stupid you really are, and how much you lie? Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel. ============================ "...No one is waiting for treatment..." That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise, liar. Post the entire quote. ================== What I posted stands by itself. You lied. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar? Only a scumbag posts the middle of a quote with no context or reference. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:20 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No So you didn't bring up cars? ======================== Nice bit of dishonesty there fool. So you didn't bring up cars? ======================= You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything, liar? Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar.. "No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..." What is the need for assault weapons to the general public? It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But cars have many other valid and valuable purposes. ================ So do weapons. What are the valuable purposes of assault weapons that are comparable to the valuable purposes of cars? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com