|
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. See the context above again. It is not that complicated. I responded to your claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. They are not. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ==================== Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment. I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such thing as a health care system where no one waits for treatment. You owe me an apology. rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. ====================== That's the problem, he continue to claim he never made the statement that he did. He continues to try to get around it by tap dancing. He has never said that he made a mistake, or that he mispoke, he keeps claiming he never said it. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT Tinkerntom, you are mixing up two different situations. There was the situation where I was challenging rick to prove that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. =============== Which has now been proven over and over. What is happening above is an entirely different scenario. Rick accused me of stating that there is no one in Canada waiting for treatment. That is an absurd statement and I never made it. ======================= LOL Even after Tnt tried to give you a way out, you still insist on lying. You just can'r help yourself, can you, liarman? Being the sneaky scum that he is, he posted one sentence out of a long conversation without the relevant context to try and make him look like less of a liar. ================= LOL The context made the statement even more declarative you ignorant liar. But as you can see from the context, all I was telling him was that in the case of Newfoundland that he was talking about, the people concerned were in fact under the constant care of a doctor and therefore were not waiting for treatment. |
rick, you're sticking to this like baby **** to a blanket. grow up, put
some pampers on, and spare the rest of us... don't you get it?the topic is dead! over! finito! basta! fertig! frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM: Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. ================== Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you said in this one, liarman. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ============================ LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.' NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. Stop being such a scumbag. |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT Tinkerntom, you are mixing up two different situations. There was the situation where I was challenging rick to prove that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. =============== Which has now been proven over and over. What is happening above is an entirely different scenario. Rick accused me of stating that there is no one in Canada waiting for treatment. That is an absurd statement and I never made it. ======================= LOL Even after Tnt tried to give you a way out, you still insist on lying. You just can'r help yourself, can you, liarman? Being the sneaky scum that he is, he posted one sentence out of a long conversation without the relevant context to try and make him look like less of a liar. ================= LOL The context made the statement even more declarative you ignorant liar. It was declarative that you were misrepresenting the information in the story about the people in Newfoundland. All of those people were under care, as it states in the article. Stop being a scumbag. You owe me an apology. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. But as you can see from the context, all I was telling him was that in the case of Newfoundland that he was talking about, the people concerned were in fact under the constant care of a doctor and therefore were not waiting for treatment. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick, nobody gives a ****! =================== Yes, it's very apparent that you and liarman don't care that people are dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick, you're sticking to this like baby **** to a blanket. grow up, put some pampers on, and spare the rest of us... don't you get it?the topic is dead! over! finito! basta! fertig! ===================== But just because you say it's over doesn't mean that Canadians aren't still dying while waiting for treatment, eh? frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 3/2/05 12:28 AM: snip... Now I'm after an apology from rick for repeatedly claiming that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. snip... As expected, you are too weak to apologize. =============== As expected, you're too stupid to understand the facts than have been presented to you, eh liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Tink says: ============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 What would make things easier in the future is if I could send you my posts and you could edit them for me before posting! You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, and 2) that no one dies waiting for treatment in Canada. You lied on both counts. But, hell's bells, it seems at least one American has cut through some of the myths of Canadian health care as a result of this, which is something eh?!? ================ But at least 2 Canadians here continue to ignore the facts of Canadaian health care. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. I provided sites that showed the problem, and all I got from the very start were lies. Try having a reasonable discourse with yourself. frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Tink says: ============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 What would make things easier in the future is if I could send you my posts and you could edit them for me before posting! You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Well done, Tink! KMAN, on Mar 1, 9:46 pm, in responding to you, thanked you for your conciliatory and well-reasoned post. In his`response, KMAN reiterates what I said to rick quite some time back: this could be a useful discussion on healthcare systems that we could all learn from. rick was unwilling to broaden the scope of the discussion, ======================= LOL No one, especially you and liarman, wanted to 'widen' the scope of the discussion. All you wanted to do is shut it down! Never once did either of you present anything that represented the 'other side' of the debate. All you had was this site's too right-wing, this site's too union... All you had was the notion that somehow all I wanted to do was praise some other system. that was your projection, not reality. and that's when I opted out for a bit. I wasn't interested in being a part of his incessant name-calling. ==================== liars are just that, liars. And when they insist on their lies, despite the evidence, they are fools, or worse. It is you and liarm,an that have from the beginning unwilling to look at the information and accept it. Anyway, thanks again, Tink, frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: snip... rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify his previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is not what he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new issue. ===================== He has already modified his ststement. After he was caught in his lie. the ststement was not out of context. It sauid exactly as I claimed. If you are waiting 2 years for a test ot proceedure that your doctor has already determined you need, then you are waiting for treatment. That is not what he said. He made the direct statement that no one waits for treatment. I said that in your specific example, no one is waiting for treatment. They are waiting for a specific test, while under the continuing care of the physician, and receiving the specific test sooner if it becomes essential to that care. ================== Nope. What you said is that no one is waiting for treatment. Your next sentence indeed seperates treatment from tests, which makes you statement that no one is waiting for trewatment even more a lie. You are being deliberately dishonest and you know it. You are a scumbag. =============== No, you are a liar that just can't help himself. besides, the proof has been presented that Canadians even die waiting for the treatment that you said they don't wait for. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: in article t, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 10:58 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... 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. ========================== It wasn't from the middle, liar, it was'nt out of context, liar. I provided the the reference by date and time you said it, liar. Thanks for proving yet again that lies are all you have, since the facts are not on your side. You could have easily pasted the entire context, including headers. Instead you posted a piece of a statement without the information that preceded it or came after. A scumbag tactic. KMAN, I went back and reviewed the exact post in context, and I agree with you both on this one. You did say that "No one is waiting for treatment." And as I copied it to this post, I took it completely out of context in order for it to say what rick wanted it to say. Obviously the power of cut and paste is being abused! Right. He was deliberately dishonest. He knew I was responding specifically to the story about Newfoundland, where the people are not waiting for treatment, they are waiting for a specific type of test while continuing to receive care. However I also realize that in the heat of battle, you may again have spoken (written) to quickly, and left yourself vulnerable to rick to make this assertion. At the same time I have seen you attempt to clarify your statement, which rick should be willing to accept, since we all have made similar missteps. Lord knows I have! rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify his previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is not what he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new issue. As someone said earlier, Geesus! You guys must have been on a real bender on 2/20, since both of these misunderstandings started at the approx. same time. Hopefully we can now put this behind us, having learned the power of misspeak and misstep. TnT I've moved on from the statement about "wait lines" and dying, Tinkerntom. But rick owes me an apology for being deliberately dishonest in stating that I claimed no one in Canada has to wait. ======================== ROTFLMAO Yet you still want to claim that no one is dying in these wait lines that you now admite to! You are the dishonset liar here, liarman. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... === So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name those valid and valuable purposes of assault weapons? ====================== Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the perogative of eack person, liarman. Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes if you were not prepared to name them? What a coward! ================== Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product. I leave the socialist dictattorship to you, liarman. And, why do you continue to be the dishonest poster that you are known to be by deleteing responses, and then replying like they weren't there, eh liarman? Just can't help yourself, can you? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM: Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. ================== Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you said in this one, liarman. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ============================ LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.' NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. ====================== That wasn't the statement you amde at that time, now was it, liarman. Now that you've gotten on board with people DO wait for treatment, and sometimes for excessive time. (or do you agree with that yet) How is your refutation that no one dies waiting for their treatment coming along? Readly to present it yet, or have you finally seen enogh of the real facst to sgree about that too? Stop being such a scumbag. ================= Stop being such a liar, liarman... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... rick, I believe that you owe KMAN an apology for being so quick to beat him up when he misspoke. You were correct to recognize his untenable position intitially, and confront him with it, but he has since modified and clarified that statement, and you owe him the civility of his response when he recognized that he had misspoke. If he did not initially recognize his misspeak, he definitly has at this time. I would recommend that you allow his retraction, so that you can get on with a meaningful discussion, unless you appear intransient and bring disrepute on your obviously defendable position. TnT Tinkerntom, you are mixing up two different situations. There was the situation where I was challenging rick to prove that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. =============== Which has now been proven over and over. What is happening above is an entirely different scenario. Rick accused me of stating that there is no one in Canada waiting for treatment. That is an absurd statement and I never made it. ======================= LOL Even after Tnt tried to give you a way out, you still insist on lying. You just can'r help yourself, can you, liarman? Being the sneaky scum that he is, he posted one sentence out of a long conversation without the relevant context to try and make him look like less of a liar. ================= LOL The context made the statement even more declarative you ignorant liar. It was declarative that you were misrepresenting the information in the story about the people in Newfoundland. All of those people were under care, as it states in the article. ===================== Not waht you said at the time. Stop being a scumbag. You owe me an apology. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ===================== No liar, I don't owe you anything. Liars get everything they deserve, liarman. But as you can see from the context, all I was telling him was that in the case of Newfoundland that he was talking about, the people concerned were in fact under the constant care of a doctor and therefore were not waiting for treatment. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? |
BCITORGB wrote:
rick, nobody gives a ****! Amen! (To stay in the general direction that some of this thread has been steered ;-) ) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Tink says: ============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 What would make things easier in the future is if I could send you my posts and you could edit them for me before posting! You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said then, liarman. You can explain it now all you want, but your are still a liar, liarman. I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? |
Michael Daly wrote:
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: This dishonesty on your part is despicable. What dishonesty would you be referring to? Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely bogus. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the statements into something they are not. There are your deliberate misquotes. You have not conducted yourself in any way that would lead anyone to trust anything you write. It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years, sometimes being more effective, often becoming ever less effective over time, except towards newbies, because the regulars here started to ignore him. He thrives on creating discord and tension, savouring attention and responses. Looks like every new generation of posters learns the same lessons about Weiser eventually: Don't feed the sick puppy! http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
riverman wrote:
"Larry C" wrote in message oups.com... Let's start on the easy stuff. The only two educational groups that are consistantly Democratic are the people with no High School education and the Post Graduates. High School Dropouts and College Professors. The College Educated have consistantly supported the Republicans by a large margin. I'm not sure where you got this statistic, or its relevancy. If it IS true, then it says that the more educated you are (dismissing the HS dropouts, who we can agree are 'uneducated', yes?), the more likely you were to register Democrat, not necessarily to vote Democrat. Do you have any stats about the correlation between education level and how people voted? I looked, but kept getting that "IQ" red herring. Anyway, looking at the urban distribution of how people voted this last time (overwhelmingly, the urban areas were proKerry) I'd think that the tilt of the college educated (BA and MA) vote this time went to Kerry. Let me know if you have a source. I'll be absolutely stunned if the majority of people with college diplomas voted for Bush. You may find what you need he http://www.geocities.com/blue_vs_red_2004/ Scroll down to where it says voting and education. Interesting, isn't it? People with higher education voted for Kerry. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I'll do as I please, not as you please, How about respecting the charter of the newsgroup. Pot, kettle, black. If you want to discuss invasive species, take it to a relevant newsgroup - there are such groups in the sci.* categories. This is a relevant newsgroup for the discussion of the New Zealand Mudsnail in Boulder, CO. When I'm prepared to discuss the issue, you will immediately discover why this is so. -- 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, I've got sites for you....
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/27/St..._on_decl.shtml and http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2004/04-109.htm "Criminal cases decreased by 10,000 in the first half of 2004. Gov. Jeb Bush credits tougher sentencing laws." Tougher sentencing laws, NOT possession of guns is considered to be the relevant factor. "However, murders increased 5.3 percent in the first half of 2004 to 456, compared with 433 in 2004. Guns were used in 62 percent of the slayings, the FDLE report said." WOW!. Less crimes with possession of guns, eh? "The FDLE report comes on the heels of the FBI's Uniform Crime report for 2003, which showed a drop in violent crimes nationwide, although Florida's murder rate was up slightly in 2003, climbing to 5.4 per 100,000 people compared with 5.3 per 100,000 in 2002." Soooo.... Nationwide drop in violent crimes but murder rates up in Florida. I forget now, do they have liberal gun laws in Florida or not? Compare Florida with a gun-control state like California... Florida: murder rate up slightly in 2003. BUT California: Overall, violent crime offenses decreased by 3.4 percent from 2002 to 2003. Homicides decreased 1.5 percent. Whaddya thinking, Scott? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of God in the Bible, Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_" Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does, your statement is non sequitur. -- 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 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Canada [...] prove that Really? Please provide a reference that clearly proves that guns in Canada have been confiscated as a result of registration. If it hasn't, which I doubt, it will. -- 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 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: 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. Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact, one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services; prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to act without the interference of government. Somehow I doubt it. For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed, even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****. Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision. Er, no, in an anarchy the individual gets to make the decision. In any sort of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the greater needs of the society in which he lives. There is no "right" to engage in homosexual sodomy in several states. Only because the state has taken the right away. The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist. I'm a skilled logician You misspelled incompetent. No, you misread logician. This dishonesty on your part is despicable. What dishonesty would you be referring to? Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely bogus. Sez you. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the statements into something they are not. Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition. There are your deliberate misquotes. Such as? You have not conducted yourself in any way that would lead anyone to trust anything you write. Pot, kettle, black. -- 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:
Wilko wrote: It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years, He's not very good. If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply. That's evidently not the case, and never has been. In fact, I'm very good at what I do, and I've been doing it for more than 10 years now. -- 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 et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:48 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:04 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 5:21 PM: snip... 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. It says nothing because you have engaged in the ultimate scumbag tactic of posting a partial quote with no context and no reference. ======================== Then post the entire thing if you think it will change the statement, liarman. As it is, it stands alone as the statement you made It isnt' a statement. It's only six words that may or may not be part of an entire statement that you say I made. Post the whole thing, including headers. What are you afriad of? ==================== Nothing liarman, I posted your statement. Your lie. Too bad for you. I didn't lie. The people in your example are not waiting for treatment as the FULL quote fully shows. ================= No, the full quote backs up that you lied even more. You seperate treatment from tests, and then claim that 'no one' is waiting for treatment. Yes, in response to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:57 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM: Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. ================== Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you said in this one, liarman. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ============================ LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.' NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. ====================== That wasn't the statement you amde at that time, now was it, liarman. That's exactly the statement I made. See above. You blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet another lie http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html I never made that claim, =========================== Yes, you did. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but". Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. |
|
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:57 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/1/05 11:32 PM: Still claiming no one waits for treatment in Canada? I never said that. ==================== Yes, you did liarman. "...No one is waiting for treatment..." Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement. ================== Yes, it does fool. Your next sentence even emphsised what you said in this one, liarman. Example: What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to be the biggest idiot on the planet! To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick is an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my sentence about waiting. Here is more of the context: ====== As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. ============================ LOL You just made my point for me, liarman. Your first statement is declarative. 'No one is waiting for treatment.' NO ONE IS WAITING FOR TREATMENT - IN THE EXAMPLE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. ====================== That wasn't the statement you amde at that time, now was it, liarman. That's exactly the statement I made. See above. You blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ====================== Nope. Not too weak at all to expose your willful ignorance. Why the sudden urge to drop your claims about no body dying, and continue with a lie you have already taken back? Could it be you don't want to return to your continued stupidity being exposed, liarman? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com