|
"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 I think you are being too subtle. |
BCITORGB wrote: 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 See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at crunching numbers, would you please do the honors? TnT |
bearsbuddy wrote: "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-- Possibly you did, same data, same conclusion, same credentials, indicate same limited processing function of alternative data or conclusions, and limit of credentials. TnT |
bearsbuddy say:
================ Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version of the NT ================== I'm not a christian, so is it safe for me to accept Tinker's version? I'm sorely in need of guidance in these affairs. frtzw906 |
Wesiser says:
=============== 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? ================= There you have your answer embedded in your question: "which is WAY over budget" frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
================ 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. ====================== And when you do, what will your lame defense be? "Whoops! I made a mistake." frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: 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. I was not disagreeing with you at all, in fact confirming your observation of your apparently false assumption. 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. Now there you go again making assumptions and jumping to conclusions with the blinders of choice on. If you choose to see only limited data and/or distort the data you have chosen to use, it should not be a surprise if you jump to the wrong conclusion! You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out of my head. Good, the silly notions you had, were definitely silly, though I suspect that there are a lot of other silly ones that remain. We will have to work on them another time! e 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 The problem with your logic, is depending on me to know what I am talking about. To provide a basis of support for your position, support your own position, and then you will have something to show me, that you may be able to make logical and supportable conclusions from. Otherwise, I could be blowing smoke up your ass, and you would not know the difference, nor able to come to any supportable conclusion yourself. Respectfully TnT |
Weiser says:
================ ....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. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? frtzw906 |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... 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. ============== Keep dreaming. maybe someday you'll even believe your nonsense. Mike |
Weiser says:
============ 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. ============= OK. OK. OK. You're very good! There I was, taking all this gun talk seriously, and then you end with a sentence like that! Too funny! NO ONE but a comedian could make a statement like that. You ARE funny! "...to defend the defenseless...." LOL ROTFL!!!!!! frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "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. ========================= LOL YOU just posted the context fool. Your statement was not in the post about the boy in newfoundland. It was in response by me to your nonsense about 'poor' people in the US not getting TO the hospital for treatment. I appropratly showed you that their convenince in getting to the doctor does not equate with the systematic wait for treatment recieved by mnay Canadains. THAT is where you made you ignorant statement about no one waiting for treatment in Canada, liarman. You did not make it at the time I posted the link about the boyi Nfld. 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. ==================== No, fool. I'm not. You are the one that is keeping this going so that you don't have to answer about the rest of your stupidity and lies. snip same old crap |
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message nk.net... snip boring old crap restore relevent post that you would like to go away... 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. 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. end restore... 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. ==================== Yes, you did, and you now admit that people do. You've been proven a liar, again... |
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message k.net... snip boring old crap restore snip that you would like to go away... 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. end restore... 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. |
Tink says:
=========== You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. =============== Hmmmmm..... You provided me with evidence of a guy who shows no foregiveness, love, or caring but primarily vengence on the topic of capital punishment. What conclusion would you like me to come to? Where I come from, those who advocate murder are not nice. You said JC would be in favor of murder. Pray tell, what conclusions should I draw? Perhaps you need to give me more evidence. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... bearsbuddy say: ================ Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version of the NT ================== I'm not a christian, so is it safe for me to accept Tinker's version? As I am an avowed agnostic, my best guess is NO! I'm sorely in need of guidance in these affairs. You'd be much better off seekin' advice and *consent* from a Voodoo Witch Doctor than from Tinker's Damn, IMMHO. Is there a Voodoo Witch Doctor in the House, besides TnT, I mean?! © 2005 Mark --neither leader, nor follower, just someone mingling in between--TM frtzw906 |
Scott Weiser wrote: 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 don=B9t 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 =A9 2005 Scott Weiser Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a "suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less and to your current point. http://tinyurl.com/7xs53 I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal party line! TnT |
"Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message .. . "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? ====================== Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. I have made no claims about any system being better, or worse than any other. If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless? ===================== I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess you'l, have to ask someone else. Again, I have not promoted, or defended any health care system over any other. Mark |
Tink says:
=============== Possibly you did, same data, same conclusion, same credentials, indicate same limited processing function of alternative data or conclusions, and limit of credentials. =================== No. No. No. Tink, now you're falling into the denigration thing. I was hoping to keep this at the level of a discussion (not a debate). We don't need winners or losers, we just need to explore the topic. Based on our exploration, with you providing the biblical background, I drew my conclusions about the nature of JC. In light of your interpretation of his take on capital punishment, I saw JC in a less than positive light. Since then, you've admonished me several times for jumping to conclusions, not having data, and I don't know what all. All you need to do, if this is to be a discussion, is explain to me how I somehow got hold of the wrong end of the stick. frtzw906 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a "suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less and to your current point. http://tinyurl.com/7xs53 I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal party line! TnT This was not a Fox News article, it was a commentary, by a very suspect source. Leave it to Faux News to present such. John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press 2000). Mark --and the so-called data was of no interest to this hunter/gun owner-- |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... 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. Call it what you want. There's probably an island somewhere with people who don't have any guns. But that's not what I was wanting to talk about. 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 donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon? Also Yes. Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people. There'd have been less people shot without the guns. But at least you don't have many people here who think that they need to own an assault weapon or that the "right" to own an assault weapon is more important than the right to not have your neighbourhood shot up with semi-automatic fire. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. 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? You just finished saying that gun ownership in Canada is quite high. How does that mesh with draconian gun laws? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. 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. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? 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? That's not what I said. 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. And many are. But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not being met even in Japan. I don't have a Utopian ideal. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. 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. Good thing there's no such thing as being offensive, or I might be offended, LOL. 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. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. 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. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. 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. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. 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. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Hopefully you won't be unlucky and go your whole life without having to blast someone. I bet you'd die very unhappy. - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. 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. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! 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. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. 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. I disagree. 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. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Weiser says: ================ ...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. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? frtzw906 That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is more important than ANYTHING. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message nk.net... snip boring old crap restore relevent post that you would like to go away... 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. Or if they are denied treatment completely. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message k.net... snip boring old crap restore snip that you would like to go away... 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. Or if they are denied treatment completely. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Scott Weiser wrote: 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 donąt 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 Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a "suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less and to your current point. http://tinyurl.com/7xs53 I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal party line! TnT === The author is John Lott, a gun nut who is also the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press 2000). Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message .. . 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? ====================== Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one [is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada." If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless? ===================== I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess you'l, have to ask someone else. You don't have to know anyone, who does or doesn't get healthcare to answer the question I asked. Mark |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. " snip ====================== 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. ========================= LOL YOU just posted the context fool. Oh, I see, so you are only referring to the discussion about Newfoundland. ===================== LOL You are that stupid, aren't you, liarman? No, the discussion about Nfld was in a previous post. Thanks for finally confirming that this is all about your being a scumbag and liar and deliberately making a false accusation and being unwilling to admit it. ========================== ROTFLMAO Only a totally dishonest lair could come up with bit of idiocy, liarman. Thanks for proving how much you HAVE to lie, liarman.. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message nk.net... snip boring old crap restore relevent post that you would like to go away... 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. Or if they are denied treatment completely. ================= Maybe so, that wasn't the point of the postings now was it, liarman? Where's your refutation of the facts I posted that proved that people die waiting for treatment in Canada? Can't quite keep on track, can you liarman? You are a proven liar, many times now. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message k.net... snip boring old crap restore snip that you would like to go away... 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. Or if they are denied treatment completely. ====================== Nice strawman, liarman. All you have left is to devert attention from your lies? maybe they are, maybr=e they aren't. Problem for you is that that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was YOUR lies about nobody dieing from waiting in Canada. Why is it that you seem to be unable to discuss your lies and willful ignorance? |
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message .. . 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? ====================== Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one [is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada." ===================== No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about. I suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has been asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for treatment in Canada. That was his second lie. His first one, and one that he still hasn't retracted was that nobody dies while waiting for treatment in Canada. maybe you can get him to admit he lied about that too. Good luck though... If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless? ===================== I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess you'l, have to ask someone else. You don't have to know anyone, who does or doesn't get healthcare to answer the question I asked. ============================ Why? That wasn't in the discussion. It is but yet another strawman to avoid the original posts that proved makn was, and is lying. That you have to focus on other systems says you don't have alot to defend in the Canadian system. If you could read for comprehesion, I have stated in this thread several times that the US system, as with many systems around the world have serious problems. No where have I defended it. Now, if you would like to discuss the lies presented here, go right ahead, but the deversions aren't working... Mark |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Weiser says: ================ ...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. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? frtzw906 That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is more important than ANYTHING. ================== Except to you, your being a willfully ignorant liar is by far the most inportant thing to you, eh liarman? |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one [is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada." ===================== No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about. I suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has been asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for treatment in Canada. That was his second lie. His first one, and one that he still hasn't retracted was that nobody dies while waiting for treatment in Canada. maybe you can get him to admit he lied about that too. Good luck though... Please direct me to the thread and I will address his "lies," as you call them. Why? Because I am not arguing anyones point. I merely asked a question that you find impossible to answer. That wasn't in the discussion. It is but yet another strawman to avoid the original posts that proved makn was, and is lying. That you have to focus on other systems says you don't have alot to defend in the Canadian system. If you could read for comprehesion, I have stated in this thread several times that the US system, as with many systems around the world have serious problems. No where have I defended it. Now, if you would like to discuss the lies presented here, go right ahead, but the deversions aren't working... Are you seeing Boogymen under you bed? Mark |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... Exactly, how old are you rick? "liarman"? Please! Mark |
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one [is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada." ===================== No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about. I suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has been asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for treatment in Canada. That was his second lie. His first one, and one that he still hasn't retracted was that nobody dies while waiting for treatment in Canada. maybe you can get him to admit he lied about that too. Good luck though... Please direct me to the thread and I will address his "lies," as you call them. ======================== You're in the thread. Why? Because I am not arguing anyones point. I merely asked a question that you find impossible to answer. ================= No, I don't. That wasn't in the discussion. It is but yet another strawman to avoid the original posts that proved makn was, and is lying. That you have to focus on other systems says you don't have alot to defend in the Canadian system. If you could read for comprehesion, I have stated in this thread several times that the US system, as with many systems around the world have serious problems. No where have I defended it. Now, if you would like to discuss the lies presented here, go right ahead, but the deversions aren't working... Are you seeing Boogymen under you bed? ==================== Why, are you? Projecting your problems of comprehension? Mark |
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... Exactly, how old are you rick? "liarman"? Please! ====================== Yes, please ask him to replace his lies. Mark |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? You ought not use words that you aren't familiar with. It make you look uneducated. Mark |
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? You ought not use words that you aren't familiar with. It make you look uneducated. ====================== LOL I see you are just as dishonest in your snipping, eh? Looks to me like you cannot discuss what I said, so why bother with yours? You can pretend to be asking a real question, but since you have snipped out everything around it, without annotating your snips, it just makes you look foolish and dishonest. Mark |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? You ought not use words that you aren't familiar with. It make you look uneducated. ====================== LOL I see you are just as dishonest in your snipping, eh? Looks to me like you cannot discuss what I said, so why bother with yours? You can pretend to be asking a real question, but since you have snipped out everything around it, without annotating your snips, it just makes you look foolish and dishonest. Your mommy makes you go to bed without dinner quite often, I take it. Mark --she should take you 'puter away for a while-- |
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? You never addressed the above, why not? You ought not use words that you aren't familiar with. It make you look uneducated. ====================== LOL I see you are just as dishonest in your snipping, eh? Looks to me like you cannot discuss what I said, so why bother with yours? You can pretend to be asking a real question, but since you have snipped out everything around it, without annotating your snips, it just makes you look foolish and dishonest. Your mommy makes you go to bed without dinner quite often, I take it. ======================== I see you still have nothing to say. Can't quite stay on track, eh? Mark --she should take you 'puter away for a while-- |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com