|
Michael Daly wrote: On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Does this mean that you do believe in God? I am an agnostic. I have no basis for belief and no basis to deny. Sorry if that's a bit ambiguous, but that's where I rest. And is this God the same God that you are referring to now the same God, as mentioned and quoted in this statement, "the Judeo-Christian God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with"? The Judeo-Christian God is the one I am discussing, to the exclusion of others. There are so many gods out there, with different histories and forms that we have to narrow the field to one I am more or less familiar with. Mike Again very fair, understanding that you are more or less familiar with teaching about tne Judeo-Christian God, that as an agnostic you believe exist, but which you do not believe you can personally know, what are you familiar with the teaching about the Trinity? I am not asking whether you prescribe to the teaching, just whether you are familiar with that teaching. Again I apollogize if I am nitpicking, but I don't want to make any unwarrated assumptions about you, your understanding, and what you believe about the Judeo=Christian God you say exists. TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. ================ Yes, you did. But it's nice to see you have admitted your lie. You owe me an apology, but you are too big of a coward and scumbag to do it. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ================== Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine their treatment. But it doesn't matter if we agree on what the article is saying. The point is, I was only responding to what you said about the article, I never said that no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment. You know this. You owe me an apology. But you are too big of a scumbag and coward to do it. ================= No, I don't. I'm not the one that is continueing to lie, liarman. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote: Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Just to confuse the issue further, there is such a thing as a liberal conservative. The Economist states that its political position is such. Unfortunately, the use of the terminology in the present US political environment makes the term a contradiction and most Americans would have trouble with it. Mike In the last political cycle, there was talk here of being liberal on social issues, and conservative on economic issues. I am not sure if that is just a smoke screen for not knowing what you believe, and wanting to sound on the cutting edge of neuvo-politics! There would have to be an imbalance in the political power, or else the conservative part would not spring the money loose to pay the liberal programs, and the liberal programs would be opposed to the economic spending of the conservative. A real schizophrenic political animal! TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. ====================== No, it does not. "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means" ==================== LOL Still doesn't mean they are getting the treatment they need, liarman. What does that mean to you, fool? LOL. ==================== That you have a reading problem. It doesn't say they are recieving the treatment that they need, liarman. Besides, it doesn't matter if we disagree on that article. The fact is, that's all I was commenting on - your response to that article. And you know it. So stop being a dishonest scumbag and coward and apologize. ======================== Nope. It's your dishonest lying that is going on. Why the continued rehash of these lies when the real disucssion was about you claim that no one dies while waiting, liarman? |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. ================ Yes, you did. I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2.5 years for treatment. Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation, that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ================== Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine their treatment. Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I don't agree with you) you still owe me an apology for saying that I claimed no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. I never said that. You are being dishonest. Now suck it up, stop being such a coward, and apologize. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote: Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Just to confuse the issue further, there is such a thing as a liberal conservative. The Economist states that its political position is such. Unfortunately, the use of the terminology in the present US political environment makes the term a contradiction and most Americans would have trouble with it. Mike In the last political cycle, there was talk here of being liberal on social issues, and conservative on economic issues. I am not sure if that is just a smoke screen for not knowing what you believe, and wanting to sound on the cutting edge of neuvo-politics! There would have to be an imbalance in the political power, or else the conservative part would not spring the money loose to pay the liberal programs, and the liberal programs would be opposed to the economic spending of the conservative. A real schizophrenic political animal! TnT Where I come from being a "liberal on social issues and a conservative on economic issues" means you are an all around good person. Too bad there are so few of them! The worst case is what the US has now...a bunch of socially conservative assholes who are at the same time blowing their economic wad faster than a soviet dictator in the middle of the Cold War! |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. ================ Yes, you did. I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2.5 years for treatment. ======================== No, you did not, liarman. Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation, ================ You have to make it first, liarman... that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? |
Michael says:
======== Just to confuse the issue further, there is such a thing as a liberal conservative. The Economist states that its political position is such ======== Right you are, Michael. And most American "conservatives" would be offended if they were informed that they are actually quite liberal. But, as you suggest, most wouldn't get it. frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ================== Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine their treatment. Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I don't agree with you) you still owe me an apology for saying that I claimed no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. =========================== No fool, I don't. You made that statement, and have now admitted your lie. I never said that. You are being dishonest. Now suck it up, stop being such a coward, and apologize. ================== Nope, I've no need to, liarman. I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? |
Michael says:
========== And what any reasonable person would do. There are a lot of unreasonable people out there. The overall message I take out of the New Testament is to be a decent person. It's not hard and I don't understand how so many stridently conservative "Christians" can't muster that. ========= Thanks Michael. I don't know why I don't say it as clearly as you. I am, however, trying to see if cognitive dossonance will work with Tink frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. ====================== No, it does not. "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means" ==================== LOL Still doesn't mean they are getting the treatment they need, liarman. That is obviously debatable. ==================== LOL Not in the case presented. But what is not debatable is what you accused me of saying: that no one in Canada ever waits for health care. ===================== Nope. that's what you said, liarman... I never said it. ============== Yes, you did liarman... You are being dishonest. Just apologize and move on, you'll feel better knowing you don't have to live every part of your life as a coward. ====================== ROTFLMAO Tour the one that has continued to prove that your are afraid, liarman. It's your dishonest lying that is going on. Why the continued rehash of these lies when the real disucssion was about you claim that no one dies while waiting, liarman? Also, why the continued dishonest deletion of relies, liarman? |
TnT says:
========== In the last political cycle, there was talk here of being liberal on social issues, and conservative on economic issues. I am not sure if that is just a smoke screen for not knowing what you believe, ========= It's actually quite simple Tink. I'll give you an example without even thinking about it too long. Social liberal: legalize MJ, legalize prositution, allow gay marriages, pro-choice... OK, so far that hasn't cost us a penny. Now for fiscal conservative: reduce military spending, eliminate subsidies to corporate interests, charge ranchers for grazing on federal lands, charge broadcasters more for using (abusing?) the people's radio bands.... OK, still not costing you any money... So, Tink, how was that hard to do? frtzw906 |
KMAN correctly asserts:
========= The worst case is what the US has now...a bunch of socially conservative assholes who are at the same time blowing their economic wad faster than a soviet dictator in the middle of the Cold War! ======== So there you have it Tink: an example for social conservatism AND fiscal liberaleralism.... now you tell us who does more damage? frtzw906 |
Tink says:
========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 |
Michael Daly wrote: On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: I think I did what Jesus would have done! And what any reasonable person would do. There are a lot of unreasonable people out there. The overall message I take out of the New Testament is to be a decent person. It's not hard and I don't understand how so many stridently conservative "Christians" can't muster that. Mike Mike, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and apart from the recent discussions here that have become acrimonius, I have a philosopy that I try to live. It is based on scriptures found in the book of Peter, where he says, " Considering all these things, live a quiet and peaceful life as much as is possible." The "Considering all these things," represent some of the issues that have been discussed recently here. I am more than willing to answer folks if they ask about the hope that is in me. I am willing and able to discuss many Christian ethical questions, which can be profitable, though sometimes intense. However after we consider all these things, I look forward to living a quiet and peaceful life, which happens to include paddling. Ironically, some of the greatest resistance I have run into, is from Christians. I show them this scripture, and they don't get it. They are like K&r, born to be contentious it would appear. They even choke when I tell them about the love of God. You would think that they would be excited about God's Love, but sadly they are more excited about the new carpet in the church, or the business meeting, or some other worldly function, or even fighting the church next door. Don't misunderstand me, those things are nice and may be necessary, but I have found many churches to be a spiritual desert. Now sometimes even this peace and quietness is not possible, and it seems that some even here, desire to be difficult for no other reason than being difficult. I realize that some have struggled with, and been annoyed by what I have said. Largely I relize that this is due to their misunderstanding of what I am trying to say, and how they have been treated in the past. I don't know that anyone really does not want to be loved by God, if there is God. If there is no God, then it would still be good and necessary for us to respect and be nice to one another. Sort of like two vessel passing on the water. They are going opposite directions, but they still afford each other the right of way. If we do this in life, things go so much easier. TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. ================ Yes, you did. I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2.5 years for treatment. ======================== No, you did not, liarman. Yeah, I did. You said: "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." Then I said: "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." Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation, ================ You have to make it first, liarman... You said: "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." Then I said: "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." that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I did not say that. Your claim is false. Your refusal to admit your claim is false makes you dishonest, and your continued dishonesty makes you a scumbag and a coward. |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ================== Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine their treatment. Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I don't agree with you) you still owe me an apology for saying that I claimed no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. =========================== No fool, I don't. You made that statement, and have now admitted your lie. What lie? I said that the people in Newfoundland are not waiting for treatment, which is exactly what the doctor in the article said. You are lying by claiming that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I never said that. You are a dishonest scumbag. |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. ====================== No, it does not. "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means" ==================== LOL Still doesn't mean they are getting the treatment they need, liarman. That is obviously debatable. ==================== LOL Not in the case presented. Since one of the doctors quoted in the article says that the patients are in care, it is highly debatable. But what is not debatable is what you accused me of saying: that no one in Canada ever waits for health care. ===================== Nope. that's what you said, liarman... You haven't presented anything to that effect. You have only mentioned my response to your Newfoundland article, scumbag. Stop lying. Stop being a coward. I never said it. ============== Yes, you did liarman... You are being dishonest. Just apologize and move on, you'll feel better knowing you don't have to live every part of your life as a coward. ====================== It's your dishonest lying that is going on. 1) I am not being dishonest. 2) What other kind of lying is there? I suppose you think that when rick lies, that's an honest lie? LOL! ? Why the continued rehash of these lies when the real disucssion was about you claim that no one dies while waiting, liarman? I already dealt with that, fool. I'm not a coward like you. Ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post that you obviously missed. Too bad you lack the strength I demonstrated, scumbag. |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: ========== In the last political cycle, there was talk here of being liberal on social issues, and conservative on economic issues. I am not sure if that is just a smoke screen for not knowing what you believe, ========= It's actually quite simple Tink. I'll give you an example without even thinking about it too long. Social liberal: legalize MJ, legalize prositution, allow gay marriages, pro-choice... OK, so far that hasn't cost us a penny. Now for fiscal conservative: reduce military spending, eliminate subsidies to corporate interests, charge ranchers for grazing on federal lands, charge broadcasters more for using (abusing?) the people's radio bands.... OK, still not costing you any money... So, Tink, how was that hard to do? frtzw906 frtwz, I would like to take a raincheck on this one, since there is already a lot going on here, but feel free to cash in the rain check later. TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: KMAN correctly asserts: ========= The worst case is what the US has now...a bunch of socially conservative assholes who are at the same time blowing their economic wad faster than a soviet dictator in the middle of the Cold War! ======== So there you have it Tink: an example for social conservatism AND fiscal liberaleralism.... now you tell us who does more damage? frtzw906 Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is "liberaleralism". If it is something we have not been discussing, I will have to take time to google and figure what it is! :) TnT |
Tink, you said:
============= frtwz, I would like to take a raincheck on this one, since there is already a lot going on here, but feel free to cash in the rain check later. TnT =========== Sure thing, Tink, but really this was not something that required comment. You thought that being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative would be difficult or impossible and I very simply gave you an example of how that could readily be the case -- like me. frtzw906 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) |
Tink asks:
======== Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is "liberaleralism". =============== to be fiscally liberal is to be rather "free" with money.... a social liberal, like me, would advocate "freedom" in social interactions.... a social liberal would look at victimless interations and suggest that people ought to be free to engage in them.... Note "liberal" comes from the latin "liber" or FREE. frtzw906 |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. Hey we have all done it, and you acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. However, I would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in regards to this. However I see no one else choosing to get between you two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting shot? TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-) I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. You just mis-spoke yourself. In the current disagreement, rick is alleging that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. That is 100% false. I never said that. In the previous disagreement, I tried to pin rick down on his ramblings against Canadian health care and did not word me question to him very carefully. I would not call that a "mis-speak" either, it was just a carelessly worded question, and I apologized as promised. Hey we have all done it, and you acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. Geez, I feel like I was on the verge of going to the gas chamber and Tinkerntom has just pulled me back from the brink. However, I would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in regards to this. Well, you can speak for me as well. Don't worry, it's almost over. However I see no one else choosing to get between you two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT I am never alone in the sandbox. My sandbox is extremely full. Perhaps that's why arguing with a simpleton scumbag like rick is a nice mental break, believe it or not. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting shot? TnT Tsk. There's that controlling religious attitude again... |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink asks: ======== Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is "liberaleralism". =============== to be fiscally liberal is to be rather "free" with money.... a social liberal, like me, would advocate "freedom" in social interactions.... a social liberal would look at victimless interations and suggest that people ought to be free to engage in them.... Note "liberal" comes from the latin "liber" or FREE. frtzw906 Eye was tryen to poind out yur spellin, wich eye thimk has two much "eral" in it! :) not to be picky, TnT |
whoops... missed it....
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. ================ Yes, you did. I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2.5 years for treatment. ======================== No, you did not, liarman. Yeah, I did. ===================== Nope. You said: "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." ================= Yep, what part of 'they' don't you understand. Even you were talking 'people' in your question to me that prompted this reply. Then I said: "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." ====================== Yes, and you are lying. People are waiting for treatment. Even in the case presented, the doctor that orderwed the test doesn't know what treatment to do because he had to know whether that kid had a genetic component to his problem. He couldn't provide treatment until he got the test. Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation, ================ You have to make it first, liarman... You said: "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." ================= Yep, what part of 'they' don't you understand. Even you were talking 'people' in your question to me that prompted this reply. You seeing double tonight, or just want to expose your lies more than once? Then I said: "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." ====================== Yes, and you are lying. People are waiting for treatment. Even in the case presented, the doctor that orderwed the test doesn't know what treatment to do because he had to know whether that kid had a genetic component to his problem. He couldn't provide treatment until he got the test. that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================================ Yes, you did, and you also claimed that no one was dying from those waits. You're still lying, liarman. I did not say that. Your claim is false. Your refusal to admit your claim is false makes you dishonest, and your continued dishonesty makes you a scumbag and a coward. ================== Nope... |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ================== Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine their treatment. Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I don't agree with you) you still owe me an apology for saying that I claimed no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. =========================== No fool, I don't. You made that statement, and have now admitted your lie. What lie? ======================== No one waits, and no one dies waiting, for 2, liarman. I said that the people in Newfoundland are not waiting for treatment, which is exactly what the doctor in the article said. ======================= No, he did not. Try reading with your eyes open sometime. You are lying by claiming that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I never said that. You are a dishonest scumbag. ====================== Yes, you did. Again, why such devotion to a lie that you have already admitted to, and completely ignore the other lie you have made, liarman? Already know you are wrong there too? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means" ==================== LOL Still doesn't mean they are getting the treatment they need, liarman. That is obviously debatable. ==================== LOL Not in the case presented. Since one of the doctors quoted in the article says that the patients are in care, it is highly debatable. ========================== Yes, it was. The doctor stated in the article what he suspected. To treat what suspects he needs the tests. Youreally are just too stupid for this, aren't you. liarman? But what is not debatable is what you accused me of saying: that no one in Canada ever waits for health care. ===================== Nope. that's what you said, liarman... You haven't presented anything to that effect. You have only mentioned my response to your Newfoundland article, scumbag. Stop lying. Stop being a coward. =============== I'm not liarman. You, on the other hand, remain too afraid to discuss the real lie you made that started this with. I never said it. ============== Yes, you did liarman... You are being dishonest. Just apologize and move on, you'll feel better knowing you don't have to live every part of your life as a coward. ====================== It's your dishonest lying that is going on. 1) I am not being dishonest. =============== Yes, you are, liarman. 2) What other kind of lying is there? I suppose you think that when rick lies, that's an honest lie? LOL! ==================== Everything you post, if you need to know, liarman... ? Why the continued rehash of these lies when the real disucssion was about you claim that no one dies while waiting, liarman? I already dealt with that, fool. I'm not a coward like you. Ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post that you obviously missed. ================================ No, you haven't liarman. Tnt even told you that I was right, and you are wrong. People die waiting for treatment in Canada, liarman. You have yet to previde any refutation of the sites I posted. Too bad you lack the strength I demonstrated, scumbag. ========================== LOL The liarman being afraid to discuss the real issue, is brave? What a hoot! |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM: 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. I'm not making a utopian argument. Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there!" You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian community. You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does not have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second failure is in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or victimized by violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns. How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan to commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership of guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and the number is rising. How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy? Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is beyond utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind. Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence like Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine. Me, I'll achieve peace through superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey. -- 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 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. ============== Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he owed. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com