"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



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.
=====================
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 tired old crap

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...


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.
=====================
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?

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


snip..

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.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.



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.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.


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.
=====================
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?

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:04 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



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.
=====================
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?

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:05 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


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


snip..

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.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the administrator could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to remote areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national will to do so.

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.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

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.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

BCITORGB wrote:
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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement, and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense, and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past, opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at least
clarifying scripture. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement, and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense, and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past, opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from "revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment. Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill, not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

BCITORGB wrote:
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

No problem!

God Loves you with His Infinite Eternal Love. TnT

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom. What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for? Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over 80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American. (David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department, released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities. The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the defendant
was African-American.

"Šracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every stage of
the processŠ. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May 1999

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the
religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed
the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would
primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you
would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so
dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again.
I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you
as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play
the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will
see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I
understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand
the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction
and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real
world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the
Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder
would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is
nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to
kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support
your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions?
Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and
all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings
are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death
penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you
are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've
just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death
penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel
rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just
about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom.
What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for?
Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of
justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I
don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to
learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would
not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over
80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although
African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office
found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study
concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death
if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other
studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race
of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions
to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more
harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value
when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white
juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making
allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in
Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.
(David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post
Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial
Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use
statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that
race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it
has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on
executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias
in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on
death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state
death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department,
released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities.
The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal
prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved
racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the
defendant
was African-American.

"=8Aracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every
stage of
the process=8A. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and
the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United
States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with
Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May
1999

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick. If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject. I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if some
how that strengthen your arguement with me. It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant?

Well yes! As jesus is the god of the old testament, if you accept the
trinity. Thus, jesus is the god of the gen. creation.

is the trinity some kind of timemachine?

I suppose it is to some christians, but not all , in a sense, as it links
jesus to the god of the old testament.

Mark --pick your poison: http://tinyurl.com/57o7w --



frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


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


snip..

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.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK,
if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it,
liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got
sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet
undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the
administrator could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different
type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are
problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to
remote areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national
will to do so.
============================
Willful ignorance. Thanks agian for proving you want to remain
ignorant...



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.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.



This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.
================
Because you did, as I have again explained to you.


Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
I've no need to, liarman.



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.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

I have not lied about anything.
================
Yes, you have. And continue to do so, liarman.


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:
===============
Too many drugs last night, liarman? Seeing and thinking double?


====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
======================
You may not believe it now, because the proof has been given.
But, you did say it, liarman, just as you have proven above.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:05 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
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.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...

I have not lied about anything.
=======================
Yes, you have liarman. You continue to lie about no one dying
waiting for treatment, and you lied about no one waiting.


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:


====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted
it was wrong. I have accepted that you made a mistake and moved
on. You however seem to be stuck on the small details while
ignoring the fcat that people still die waiting for treatment.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:04 PM:


snip..

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.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted
the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



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.
=====================
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?

I have not lied about anything.
=================
Yes, and you continue to do so. Why is that, liarman? Just
can't help yourself?


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
No need, you lied and have retracked your lie. I have accepted
that. Now, talk about those that are dying while waiting,
liarman.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
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

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the
religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed
the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would
primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you
would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so
dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again.
I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you
as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play
the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will
see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I
understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand
the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction
and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real
world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the
Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder
would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is
nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to
kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support
your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions?
Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and
all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings
are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death
penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you
are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've
just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death
penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel
rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just
about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom.
What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for?
Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of
justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I
don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to
learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would
not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over
80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although
African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office
found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study
concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death
if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other
studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race
of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions
to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more
harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value
when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white
juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making
allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in
Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.
(David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post
Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial
Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use
statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that
race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it
has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on
executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias
in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on
death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state
death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department,
released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities.
The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal
prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved
racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the
defendant
was African-American.

"Sracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every
stage of
the processS. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and
the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United
States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with
Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May
1999

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick. If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off. This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of
setting the terms of engagement.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


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


snip..

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.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the administrator
could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to remote areas.
We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national will to do
so.
============================
Willful ignorance.

Will to do better. Ignorance infers not knowing about the problems involved,
and I do.

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.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to
your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that
the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that
no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about your
ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not be able to
get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting' for treatment. I
pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of the system that is making
them wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that
NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada.

Where did I say that? Quit being so obscure. If I said "no one is waiting
for treatment in Canada" post that quote with the full context so it can be
explored.

You've just spent several days insisting that my quote about Newfoundland
proved your case, now you are dropping that (duh) and moving on to some
other accusation. Have some guts. Stop being a scumbag. You were wrong, just
apologize and move on. But now, you are too big of a scumbag and a coward.

snip same old crap

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip boring old crap


Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted it was
wrong.

I never stated that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment, and thus I
have not admitted it was wrong, because I never said it, nor do I believe
it.

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

snip boring old crap

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
No need, you lied and have retracked your lie. I have accepted that.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

"rick" wrote in message news:xYWWd.3533

No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about your
ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not be able to
get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting' for treatment. I
pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of the system that is making
them wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that
NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada. Youlied then, and you are
lying now about your lie. You have already admitted that this was in
error. So, why not move on and refute that people are dying in these wait
lines that you now agree too.

Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting for health care,
because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare system?

If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless?

Mark

Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow. I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington" exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

On 6-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

No, the numbers are from the Canadian health system.

Bull**** - no attribution is given for the source of the numbers.
That is why they are unsubstantiated.

Mike

On 6-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

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

Agreed. However, there's a big difference between driving like an
idiot (no consent on the part of other drivers) and having sex with your
partner.

Americans seem to welcome Big Brother in their bedrooms. Other countries
prefer privacy. Your choice.

Mike

bearsbuddy wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick.
If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

I am not interested in wading through any more K&r post to find
anything you are trying to discuss with me. Just my own personal
killfile system. Maybe a function of still using Google to post, Sory
that just the way it has to be.

If you want to discuss the following, drop the K&r crap. TnT

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus
do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say
that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be
able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present
scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not
that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to
blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day
practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so
we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling
on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength
of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or
at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you
not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if
some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments
about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off.
This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine
bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of

setting the terms of engagement.

Talk more later, maybe. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

bearsbuddy wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

I can see it now...

"Checkmate, Tinkerntom!"

"Ah, checkmate you say my friend! Well, I will tell you, I have had many
experiences in my life, and when you say checkmate to me, I find myself
wondering what qualifies you to make such a statement, and I wonder if you
know that God loves you. Before we proceed any further with this game, I ask
that you take back your last three moves, and that we start fresh. If you
are willing to proceed on that basis, I will look forward to continuing our
journey together!"

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick.
If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

I am not interested in wading through any more K&r post to find
anything you are trying to discuss with me. Just my own personal
killfile system. Maybe a function of still using Google to post, Sory
that just the way it has to be.

If you want to discuss the following, drop the K&r crap. TnT

Oops, there's Tinkerntom seeking to exert his power and control again. Tsk.
There's supposed to be only one god, and unless you think you are the second
coming, I'd suggest you need to step off.

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus
do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say
that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be
able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present
scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not
that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to
blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day
practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so
we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling
on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength
of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or
at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you
not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if
some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments
about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off.
This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine
bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of

setting the terms of engagement.

Talk more later, maybe. TnT

That would be the type of talk where you require me to meet your
expectations, but you accept none for yourself. Right?

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

bearsbuddy wrote:
I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

You do know that en passant capture isn't possible within the parameters of
Usenet, right?

Mark

KMAN wrote:
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it
with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above
post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if
you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began
explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was
willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10.

Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant
feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and
thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling!

Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject
being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to
support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of
the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating
statements can result in the game being called.

Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to
concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become
distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to
be called.

Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are
willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other
gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS
littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in,
over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean
up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually
acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called.

#5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game
progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the
current game being called.

#6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called!

#7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each
gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his
participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there
descreation.

#8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two
participants who have not called the game or conceded.

#9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount
of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have
called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any
time another gamester can be found willing to play.

#10 Have Fun!

Thanks for your interest. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it
with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above
post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if
you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began
explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was
willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10.

Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant
feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and
thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling!

Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject
being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to
support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of
the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating
statements can result in the game being called.

Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to
concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become
distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to
be called.

Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are
willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other
gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS
littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in,
over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean
up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually
acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called.

#5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game
progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the
current game being called.

#6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called!

#7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each
gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his
participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there
descreation.

#8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two
participants who have not called the game or conceded.

#9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount
of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have
called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any
time another gamester can be found willing to play.

#10 Have Fun!

Thanks for your interest. TnT

Translation: Tinkerntom spent a lot of time alone.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could
not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow.
I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about
love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your
case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything
but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington"
exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false. You are probably in the
position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you
can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above
discussion. Your observations though are welcome and definitely worth
consideration. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could
not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow.
I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about
love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your
case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything
but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington"
exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false. You are probably in the
position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you
can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above
discussion. Your observations though are welcome and definitely worth
consideration. TnT

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that Jesus
Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously anything
but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that
Jesus Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously
anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

Cause, without christianity, there would be no state-sanctioned murder--DUH!

Mark --Well, at least no state-sanctioned murder that is acceptable to
civilized humans.--

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that
Jesus Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously
anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

Cause, without christianity, there would be no state-sanctioned
murder--DUH!

ROFL. I just spit on my keyboard...fortunately, I was drinking club soda.
Which is what I used to think Jesus would drink. But now I realize he'd be
more of Jack Daniels mean drunk sort of guy, at least the Jesus Christ I am
coming to know through Tinkerntom!

Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

We must have attended the same schools, cause I came to the same conclusions
as yourself, after reading Tinker's posts.

Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version of the
NT--

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

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.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have the type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.

Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.

Would you be more unsafe? No. Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves?
Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM because
YOU are afraid of guns.

Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane to
think like that.

So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun laws in
Canada? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?


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.

Mhmm.

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?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into Japan? No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians who are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance, no, most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them aren't
even manufactured in the US.

But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not being
met even in Japan.


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.

Geezus you are a loser.

And you're an ignorant ****wit.

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's
required.

You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.

Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

That's who kills most of the people in the world.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of
your own family

Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.

- or on yourself.

That would be my right, now wouldn't it?

Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. Nor do the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where
concealed carry is made lawful.

Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when
you're in public. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to
deny them, ever.

But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.
--
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