"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

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

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for
treatment."
=====================
It has been fool, many times now.

It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist.

You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist
otherwise.
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined. Now, how about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in
Canada.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

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,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me. And you still
haven't, liarman.


As you well know, the point of my trying to pin you down on
details about
Canadian health care was to knock you off your childish
unfounded rants.
==========================
LOL They were neither, liarman. It was YOUR responses that were
both. All you did was go nah, nah, nah you wrong. You never
once provided any sites that refuted the sites I posted.


Tinkerntom helped me realize that the way I worded my demand
you could make
reference to people who died while waiting for a test and
whether or not the
actual waiting killed them or not, you would meet the burden of
proof as
worded in the demand.
======================
BS liarman. I provided proof that people are dying while waiting
in line. You kept adamantly denying that fact.



Therefore, I apologized. I'm not a liar and a coward like you
are.
============================
Not anywhere I was likely to see it, liarman. You did not
apologize to me, as promised.



You are insisting I said that no one in Canada ever waits for
treatment and
you know I never said that. That makes you a liar, a scumbag,
and a coward.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted
your lie has already been determined. Now, how about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?

On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

what are
you familiar with the teaching about the Trinity?

I went to Christian schools for 11 years.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should not
be controled by the state.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself?

How about if it _says_ so. Try reading the Bible - it does describe
these things. And nowhere does it say "this is what God looks like".

Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

Once again, you prefer playing with words instead of addressing
the issue directly. If he manifests himself as a man, we cannot
tell it is God. That is exactly my point. We need a manifestation
that we can clearly identify as God and the Bible offers nothing
to help that.

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according
to his or her own rules?"

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.
No sex required. This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state
Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist. So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studies a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.

Factually speaking it is.

morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a
morphological difference.

Don't blame me if you used the wrong word.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.
We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

what are
you familiar with the teaching about the Trinity?

I went to Christian schools for 11 years.

Mike

Is this Catholic or Protestant?

My only experience growing up with church, I went to Catholic Church
with a friend when I was probably 5 or 6. I remember setting with a
bunch of children, and we were instructed to set with our hands on the
hand rail in front of us. Which I figure something was going to happen
to cause us to fall off the bench, and we had to hold on so as to not
fall all the way to the floor.

I was curious to know what was going on, as the play began, and I
thought it was like the theatre! I ask my friend Scott. I then found
out why we held on to the rail. It made it a whole lot easier for that
lady in the funny looking black dress, to hit my hands with a ruler.
Then she hit me again cause I started to cry.

That was the last time I went to church, for over 10 years. I hope that
you did not get hit too many times in 11 years! TnT

Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side of
the street in Canada? TnT

On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

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.

Well, it is possible to fund social activities and still keep a
balanced budget and not generate massive amounts of debt. It
is just important to recognize that some social spending is in
the best interests of everyone (like good medical care for
the everyone or maintaining a decent level of employment to
reduce crime).

Mike

On 4-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

Go ahead, I believe that one was written by Americans.

Stephen Lewis, one of the authors, is a very well known
Canadian.

One report presents information based on study while the
other reports show unsubstantiated numbers pulled out of
someone's ass. You believe the numbers. I'll believe
the study.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 4-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

Go ahead, I believe that one was written by Americans.

Stephen Lewis, one of the authors, is a very well known
Canadian.


One report presents information based on study while the
other reports show unsubstantiated numbers pulled out of
someone's ass. You believe the numbers. I'll believe
the study.
========================
No, the numbers are from the Canadian health system. I realize
that maybe you don't trust that system, so I understand your
hesitation to believe them. But at that, the 'study' does not
refute that deaths occur.




Mike

....stuff deleted
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for
in the image of God He made man.

God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to Creation.
Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some one
kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that man
should die!


No god I'd believe in would do such a thing. Even the "wrathful and
vengeful" god of the old testament
allowed Cain to wander free (but marked). Yet another reason why I doubt
the "scriptures" were written
by anyone but ordinary men.

....justification for murder deleted

Rick

Tink says:
============
Gen 9:6
=============

my biblical knowledge may be weak, but doesn't this bit pre-date jc?

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
============
Gen 9:6
=============

my biblical knowledge may be weak, but doesn't this bit pre-date jc?

frtzw906

Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.

Mark --jesus, like 3 in 1 oil, is all purpose--

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:39 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

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

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for
treatment."
=====================
It has been fool, many times now.

It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist.

You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist
otherwise.
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined.

If you mean that I agreed that you met the burden of proof on the question I
posed, that is true. I also apologized as promised, if you could do so. Your
views on Canadian health care remain as stupid and ignorant as ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So, unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I
did.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in
Canada.

No lies have been told.

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I
did.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

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,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.

And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was an apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could meet the burdern
of proof in response to a question.

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to insist that I
did.

snip same old crap

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side of
the street in Canada? TnT

We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?

bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant? is
the trinity some kind of timemachine?

frtzw906

Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed,
for
in the image of God He made man.

God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to
Creation.
Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some
one
kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that
man
should die!


No god I'd believe in would do such a thing. Even the "wrathful and
vengeful" god of the old testament
allowed Cain to wander free (but marked). Yet another reason why I
doubt
the "scriptures" were written
by anyone but ordinary men.

...justification for murder deleted

Rick

It is your choice to believe in whatever kind of god you choose to
believe in. Your choice does not determine what kind of God the
scriptures reveal. That it makes you uncomfortable, or even that it is
difficult to explain, does not make it any more encumbent on us, if we
choose to attempt to understand the nature of God, and His activity
throughout history, some of which is recorded in the Scriptures, to
struggle to understand and find the real and true God with which we
have to deal.

The scriptures are clear when they say that God instituted the death
penalty clear back in the beginning of Genesis. He with His
omniscience, He saw the murder of Abel, and all the other murders
throughout history. If we are offended by one murder, consider the
horror He must have seen, and how His Holy Spirit must have been
offended and affronted by even one, to say nothing of the horror of
them all.

How was it that He was able to allow Cain to walk as a marked man even?
In His absolute Holiness, He should have destroyed not only Cain, but
all murders. And according to Jesus, all of us are guilty of murder.
This is not the vengeful God of the Old Testement, but the God of the
New Testement that said we should Love our neighbor, as ourselves. How
could Jesus say we are all murders? He said if we even look on our
brother in wrath, we are guilty of murder. And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all?

It was because in His omniscience He also was able to look down through
the annals of time and see Himself on the Cross, dying the death
penalty for all the murderers, all of us through out history. And so He
set Cain free as a marked man, as we are all marked men.

The death penalty does not diminish His Love for us in the least, but
is the absolute expression of His Love. By establishing the death
penalty way back in Genesis, He set the stage for His own death on the
Cross, the single greatest act of Love ever shown to men by which now
we can be set free! Free to be in communion again with God!

But understand that it was not just an act of Love for us, His
Creation, that He died! But even a greater act of Love towards the
Holiness of the Godhood! The image of God, was redeemed by the Blood
of Jesus which represented His death, the required price for the
defacement of the Godhood, was made by Jesus.

You may not choose this God, that is your choice! But Jesus chose this
God, and I tend to believe His choice is the better choice than yours,
any day, Old Testement, New Testement, testimony written in the stars,
or in the rocks, or sands of time, or pages written by fallible men.
All the Creation testifies to the nature of God, that He is, and that
He is the rewarder of them who diligently seek Him.

That you say you believe in a god is commendable, or did you? And would
only confirms to me that you were made in the image of God. There is a
primal need in the heart of all men to find and be in communion with
God. If you are content with the rag doll god that you say you would
believe in if you believed in god, is at best, intellectually slothful,
and at worst derranged. Those who say they do not believe in God, and
don't even make a pretense of believing, are slothful, and at least may
appear to be intellectually honest if you allow them the luxury of
shutting their eyes to the Creation. But you say your eyes are open, or
are they closed!

It would be sort of like walking into a mine field, where there are
known to be many life threatening devices. Now a mad man may run into
the field headlong, and assuredly will step on a mine. But what man
would put on a blindfold and start walking ever so slowly. Even he will
trip a mine eventually. Now the intellectual slouch may set on the side
and talk about the mines, and how they know they are out there, and
even study all the different kinds of mines there are. But should he
step into the mine field, he is just as assuredly dead. And we are
surrounded by a minefield that we are trying to get out of!

The wise man climbs on the back of someone who has gone across the mine
field before, and knows the way, and where all the mines are at, and
gets safe passage to the other side, which is where everyone wants to
get to after all.

Now I can't tell whether you believe in God or not, but I would
encourage you to at least be honest with yourself, take off the
blindfold of your preconceived ideas of how God would be, and find out
how He is, and then you will find Him! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
============
Gen 9:6
=============

my biblical knowledge may be weak, but doesn't this bit pre-date jc?

frtzw906

No, He was back there in the beginning! Being God, He is a part of the
Eternal Godhood that the Judeo-Christian faith proclaims, and has been
revealed through out history to all men everywhere! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 8:17 PM:

Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed,
for
in the image of God He made man.

God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to
Creation.
Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some
one
kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that
man
should die!


No god I'd believe in would do such a thing. Even the "wrathful and
vengeful" god of the old testament
allowed Cain to wander free (but marked). Yet another reason why I
doubt
the "scriptures" were written
by anyone but ordinary men.

...justification for murder deleted

Rick

It is your choice to believe in whatever kind of god you choose to
believe in. Your choice does not determine what kind of God the
scriptures reveal. That it makes you uncomfortable, or even that it is
difficult to explain, does not make it any more encumbent on us, if we
choose to attempt to understand the nature of God, and His activity
throughout history, some of which is recorded in the Scriptures, to
struggle to understand and find the real and true God with which we
have to deal.

The scriptures are clear when they say that God instituted the death
penalty clear back in the beginning of Genesis.

Forgetting for the moment that we are talking about a work of fiction
regarding a mythical being...

Presumably, Tinkerntom, "God" would be capable of applying perfect justice
in deciding to put someone to death. He'd know they were guilty, and he
wouldn't be swayed in his decision by whether or not they were poor or
happened to have black skin.

The same cannot be said for any human system of justice. The realities that
poor people and/or visible minorities are the most likely victims of capital
punishment cannot be denied.

BCITORGB wrote:
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant? is
the trinity some kind of timemachine?

frtzw906

The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery
of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the
scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually
shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery that
is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive of
His totality or even a small part of His being, except as He showed
Himself to us. He has made himself known through various
pre-incarnation revelations known as theophanies, the carnate
revelation through Jesus, and the post-carnate in the person of the
Holy Spirit.

The Godhood is not some kind of a timemachine, for He exist outside of
time, where there would be no need for a timemachine such as even
clocks. They would be meaningless. There would be no time to go back
in, or forward in, or jump around in. This would be impossible for us
to understand, since we are creatures of time, we would cease to exist
as we know ourselves because everything we know about ourselves is
based on time.

Now obviously we got into deep water real fast, and that just from
talking about the simple question about the Death Penalty. So evidently
there is no simple question, and more than likely the answers are even
more difficult to ascertain. In fact when you deal with the Godhood,
you are dealing with some of the deepest questions, with which man can
even conceive. The Godhood is beyond time, beyond all the mysteries of
the whole universe, probably at the very edge of mans ability even to
ask questions.

This is indeed exciting! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 8:46 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant? is
the trinity some kind of timemachine?

frtzw906

The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery
of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the
scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually
shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery that
is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive

Or, for those who are not messed up, that translates to "a big load of
bull****" :-/

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:39 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

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

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits
for
treatment."
=====================
It has been fool, many times now.

It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist.

You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist
otherwise.
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined.

If you mean that I agreed that you met the burden of proof on
the question I
posed, that is true. I also apologized as promised, if you
could do so. Your
views on Canadian health care remain as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.
It is you that has been, and continues to remain willfully
ignorant of the wait lists, and the people that die waiting for
treatment.



You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss
the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the
system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of
things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in
Canada.

No lies have been told.
=====================
Not by me. You on the other hand apparently continue to claim
people do not die waiting for treatment.
Why do you insist on being so willfully ignorant, liarman?



You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
====================
Nope.


You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
==================
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman.


You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
======================
Yes, you are both, liarman...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

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,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing
an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your
deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to
me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.
=====================
LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain, liarman.



And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was an
apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could meet
the burdern
of proof in response to a question.
==========================
See, you did not apologize as you promised. The fact that people
die waiting for treatment was provided, you are proven to be a
liar.



You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how
about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?



snip same old crap

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:39 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

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

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits
for
treatment."
=====================
It has been fool, many times now.

It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist.

You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist
otherwise.
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined.

If you mean that I agreed that you met the burden of proof on
the question I
posed, that is true. I also apologized as promised, if you
could do so. Your
views on Canadian health care remain as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused about that.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in
Newfoundland.

Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:14 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss
the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the
system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of
things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines in
Canada.

No lies have been told.
=====================

snip tired old crap

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
==================
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in
Newfoundland.

Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:16 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

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,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing
an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your
deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to
me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.
=====================
LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain, liarman.

You are the only one who is confused about it.

And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was an
apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could meet
the burdern
of proof in response to a question.
==========================
See, you did not apologize as you promised.

Yes, I did.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in
Newfoundland.

Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.

snip tired old crap

Tinkerntom wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant?
is
the trinity some kind of timemachine?

frtzw906

The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery
of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the
scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually
shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery
that
is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive
of
His totality or even a small part of His being, except as He showed
Himself to us. He has made himself known through various
pre-incarnation revelations known as theophanies, the carnate
revelation through Jesus, and the post-carnate in the person of the
Holy Spirit.

The Godhood is not some kind of a timemachine, for He exist outside
of
time, where there would be no need for a timemachine such as even
clocks. They would be meaningless. There would be no time to go back
in, or forward in, or jump around in. This would be impossible for us
to understand, since we are creatures of time, we would cease to
exist
as we know ourselves because everything we know about ourselves is
based on time.

Now obviously we got into deep water real fast, and that just from
talking about the simple question about the Death Penalty. So
evidently
there is no simple question, and more than likely the answers are
even
more difficult to ascertain. In fact when you deal with the Godhood,
you are dealing with some of the deepest questions, with which man
can
even conceive. The Godhood is beyond time, beyond all the mysteries
of
the whole universe, probably at the very edge of mans ability even to
ask questions.

This is indeed exciting! TnT


A slight correction, I meant Godhead, when I was saying Godhood. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:26 PM:


Tinkerntom wrote:

A slight correction, I meant Godhead, when I was saying Godhood. TnT

Hm. Isn't Godhead big with the Mormons? The basic deal is that god the
father, his son jesus christ , and the holy spirit are three distinct
personages, with both the father and the son having physical bodies.

It seems to me a lot of time would be saved by all simply by acknowledging
that in dealing with mythology you just take the story as told and not worry
so much that it make perfect sense.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
Why
is Canada such a big mystery?


Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
gasp ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.

Ken

Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

in article Q4PWd.91240$g16.69896@trndny08, No Spam at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:34 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
Why
is Canada such a big mystery?


Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
gasp ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.

Ken

Heh. Brings to mind the popular "Talking To Americans" segment on the faux
news show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. My favourite was when the host went to
the Harvard campus and had everyone from students to professors signing a
petition to stop the polar bear hunt in Toronto.

He also went after high profile US politicians. Here's a dude that collected
some of it in video, funny stuff...I particulary like the one about our
"capitol building" being made of ice.

http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:38 PM:

Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

I take it you haven't reviewed Leviticus lately?

Remember when Alex in Clockwork Orange found religion?

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming
homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does
should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side
of
the street in Canada? TnT

We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are
attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?

The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming
homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does
should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side
of
the street in Canada? TnT

We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are
attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?

The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT

Holy crap, I think you've advanced from reefer to LSD. What are you trippin
on dude?

KMAN says:
=============
I take it you haven't reviewed Leviticus lately?
==================

No, but the CBC program "Ideas" had an interesting feature on Wednesday
(to be finished this coming Wed) about Karl Polanyi. Since wednesday,
I've been reading some of his stuff (see Karl Polanyi Institute for
Political Economy at Concordia University). Useful in trying to
understand globalization.

Leviticus? I'm sure Tink can give me a precis. [Hey Tink, keep it to
precis length, OK?]

Cheers,
frtzw906