Mike: do you feel you're bashing your head against a brick wall? I
swear, it truly is the Queen of Hearts all over again. He'll define
things to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Once you've been once
around the block with him, you'll wonder exactly what does he mean when
he says "state"?

To quote Wilko: "His words can bend a crooked bar, straight."

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick, do you only read what you want? Did you miss what I said
earlier?
Once more.... wait for it...... read carefully now..... I said
"You've
been on about jingoistic breast-beating etc, so I thought I'd
come
clean. There are problems with the Canadian healthcare system.
There
are escalating costs. There are localized shortages. There are
areas of
inefficiency. And, there is an on-going national dialogue about
how to
deal with these issues. "
=====================
Yes, I did see you 'say' those things, and then you go on to
clouding the issue by claiming that the site that i used to
report the facts was not credible. Again, you make light of your
systems flaws. Like saying 'localized' shortages when everything
I've seen shows wait lists across canada. Some far too long to
be called a health 'care' system. Again, the data is there from
Media outlets, Unions, Universities, and more.



OK, did you get that? Now did you get what I followed up with?
My
follow-up was that whereas Canadians may be seeking solutions
to the
problems, the American model would be unlikely to be such a
solution.
====================
And, no where have i ever said it should be. Selective reading
of your own?


Without even getting into moral or ethical questions (which are
very
much a part of the debate), and simply dealing with economics
and
questions of systemic efficiency, the American model falls
short.
=====================
LOL That's the point. You claim that of the US system, and
ignore the shortcomes of the Canadian system. Being #30 vs #38
is hardly cause for all your chest thumping.



My point has been simple: the American models fails on just too
many
counts to be worthy of consideration.
====================
As does the Canadian one compared to many other systems.


I agree: You have not held up the American model as being
flawless.
However, would I be correct in discerning that you'd prefer the
American system over the Canadian system?
===========================
Again, something I have never claimed. That said, if I were in
need of treatment, and could get it without waiting, i'd be on my
way there.



frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:

Mike: do you feel you're bashing your head against a brick wall? I
swear, it truly is the Queen of Hearts all over again. He'll define
things to mean whatever he wants them to mean. Once you've been once
around the block with him, you'll wonder exactly what does he mean when
he says "state"?

Now you know why RivieraRatt coined him "Last Word Weiser": He keeps
wanting to have the last word, even if he says nothing relevant to or
even about the things you said to him.

Of course, eventually most people just stop bothering to respond to him,
having become accustomed to his drivel. Then he really gets the last
word, because every single post from him signals the end to that
particular branch of a thread. :-)

To quote Wilko: "His words can bend a crooked bar, straight."

IMNSHO That goes for a couple of the critters hanging out he

Mr. Pus ("Etter" is a Dutch word for pus)
Mr. Tinkerbell (He sure seems to give off the impression that he sees
angels fly sometimes)

I guess I've come to the conclusion that responding to any of those
three is just a waste of perfectly good energy.

It was fun seeing how they were losing arguments by being confronted
with situations and facts that they couldn't counter with hardly
anything other than "you have to believe what I say", "that's how it
is", "You don't understand it", "prove it", "those facts aren't true"
and calling names...

Time for some peace and quiet: I'm off to bed! :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 10:48 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM:
snippage...


No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type
of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
==================
LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an
'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't
see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following
what you are being told...

Being told by whom?
==================
Your ideological mouth pieces. Apparently you can't think for
yourself...

What ideological mouthpieces?
======================
The ones that tell you that the Canadian system has no waiting times,
and is the best system.

Who are they? When did they tell me this?
================
You tell me. Or, were you just making up the stuff you claimed about
getting in for any test right away?

What are you talking about? You can't get any test you want right away.
However, you can get excellent care most everywhere and in the event of
living in a geographically isolated area or some other area where there is
less equipment and doctors than the norm, tests for non-emergencies might
result in a long wait.

Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs
the
US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater
risk
that being born to a African-American family in the US.
Where
does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the
'poor'
in
the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does?

Where are you getting that information?
=======================
Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada....

As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea.
==========================
LOL Thanks for proving that you are ignorant of computer use.

Your statement does not compute.
=======================
Of course not, not to someone that apparently dosen't know how to use
theirs, eh?

Logic system failure.
====================
Yes, you have failed at alot of things here.

Core logic meltdown.

As far as making ignorant claims, there are more than a few that
you have never backed up.

This is a weasely way of admitting that you can't back up your claim.
====================
Nopde. Try again fool. I've even given you the hints...

No hinting necessary weasel.
=================
Of couirse not. You knew you were spouting idiocy when you started. You
just weren't expecting to be called on your stupidity.

You haven't called me on anything.



tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer
won't
effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS
the
money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the
states.

snip...

Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things
that
other people
can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people.
=====================
Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care
system
for all, and equal for all.

I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a
higher standard of
care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet.
======================
LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh?

No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest
medical clinic
and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I
make.
=======================
Sure, but they will make you wait for the tests to determine what
you mental illness is. That you are trying to deny that there
are long wait lists for many treatments needed across Canada is
your ideology speaking, not reality.

The quality of care varies somewhat particulary (as one might expect)
in
sparsely populated regions. But the standard of care across the country
is
excellent. I should know, I use it, and so do my friends and relatives.
FYI,
I was born in Evanston, Illinois, and I know a fair bit about health
care in
both countries, with relatives that live in both.
========================
Wow, how nice. Do you figure that you are the only one with family and
friends in both systems?

No.

Everyone prefers the
Canadian system. That is not to say that no one has ever complained
about
how long they had to wait for an elective procedure, but between the
two
systems as a whole, it is no contenst. It has nothing to do with
ideology.
=========================
Then they must be as brainwashed as you, because many of the ones I know
always come back to the US for care. And, in a couple of cases, to give
care.

How many? What are they coming for? Why?
=======================
Why do all yours allegedly prefer the canadian system? I've answered one
reason right off the bat. No waits. In a couple of cases the treatments
needed weren't life threatening, but very painful joint problems. They
decided that their wait time, and being dosed with painkillers instead of
treatment was medically unsound.

They prefer the Canadian system because the standard of care is not
dependent upon your income and you don't have to mortgage your house to get
the treatment that you need. Yes, you might indeed have to wait longer than
you would like to treat something that is painful but not life-threatening.

As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks
better than the US

And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using.
================
LOL Where have I ever claimed the US had no problems? You on
the other hand are trying to defend the indefenseble.

Not at all. So far you have pointed out that certain people looking for
a
very specific type of scan in a non-emergency situation in Newfoundland
are
having to wait a long time. This is a far cry from the statements about
peopel dying in waiting lines that brought me into this goofy
discussion.
==========================
LOL That you have to fisate on one example says alot about your
brainwashing. That you believe that that is the one and only case
available to find is a hoot.

It was your example.
================
Yes, one example of many. Why do you try to deny the months long wait
lists acroos Canada? More chest thumping?

What wait lists across Canada? All you have talked about is one isolated
case in Newfoundland.

I got involved in this thread because it was alleged that Canadians are
dying in waiting lines. That is total crap. And there hasn't been one piece
of evidence to support the allegation, nothing but a story about
Newfoundland, and nothing having to do with people dying while waiting.

and both are in the 30s, from the top of best
care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding
your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does
it?


This means, logically,
at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed
opt
to seek care
elsewhere.
================
Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency'
case.

You have no clue.
=====================
Yes, apparently more than you.

There is no evidence of that.
====================
I've posted real data, from real sites.

Perhaps so, but none to support your argument.
====================
LOL So, the sites I have posted have somehow said that there are no wait
times in canada? Man, you do have comprhension problems, don't you?

There are wait times in every medical system.

Nobody in Canada is dying while waiting, as was alleged.

You seem to be making it up as you go. Come on, provide more than just
your say-so that there are no waiting lines for Canadian health-care.

If you mean that somewhere in a doctor's office or emergency room someone
is waiting, I have to agree.

But no one is dying in a waiting line.
======================
An assertion that is not backed up by canadian sources. And for many, the
decision is not to wait until then, but to go elsewhere for treatment.

No one is dying in a waiting line as alleged.



I went to the doctor just last Monday. I called on Friday. Got an
appointment Monday afternoon. Received excellent care. Got a
prescription, had it filled that day. What's the problem?
======================
ummm, one example. Somehow I get the feeling that one exmple for youis
adequate, but I have to show that every Canadian is waiting for
specialized treatment. see your ideology is still in control, rather
that rationality.

You seem to have some bizarre notions about how things work here, so I was
sharing with you a real life example. The fact that there is no evidence to
sustantiate the allegation of people dying in waiting lines should of course
been enough for you.



You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation
in
Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on
some spot in
Alaska.
=====================
Isolated? What a hoot!!! Try some research fool. Start at
the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're in
Canada.

I know all about the Fraser Institute. LOL. Now perhaps I have at least
a
partial explanation of where you are getting these crazy ideas. The
secondary name for the Fraser Institue is "I wish George W. Bush was
the
Prime Minister of Canada." Asking what the Fraser Institute thinks
about
Canadian Health Care is like asking the NRA for objective advice on
handguns. Only worse! ROFL
====================
They are but one. But nice to see your ideology won't let truth get in
your way. Keep trying fool, maybe someday you'll learn something other
than your brainwashed opinion.

Heehee. You are so silly.
===============
Teehee, and you are still an ignorant buffoon.

At least I know that the Fraser Institute isn't the place to go for
objective information. You really looked pathetic spouting off about that.
You could just hear the collective guffaws!

All it manages to do is promote a
have vs have-not conflict.

?

On 20-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:

Start at the Fraser Institute.

The Fraser Institute hardly constitutes an unbiased source.
Sort of like getting your news from Fox.

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Quite right, because the question is unanswerable.

If you can't identify any valid theory of evolution then
what exactly is it that your are claiming is wrong?

Setting up a fake theory and then blaming the scientific
community for it is not particularly useful.

- in fact you
haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't
demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the
scientific community.

I disagree.

You're contradicting yourself.

But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human
beings.

Why should they be? That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community. There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

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

If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.

But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect
of biology.

Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and
feed underwater.

For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be
evolution.

Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? As long as you are
fighting against your fantasies, you'll have problems.

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Please quote where I have said anything of the kind. I have _never_ said
that God does not exist. I have never said that belief in God is a sign
of a lack of intelligence.

I said that we can neither prove, nor disprove, the existance of God and
that people who can't cope with that are fools. Many major religions have
no problems with this view of God - the Roman Catholic Church, the
Anglican Church and many others state clearly that belief in God is an
act of faith. They also can deal with scientific enquiry that neither
requires nor forces the existance of God.

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it occurs,
nothing changes.

Another logical failure. If something "occurs," there is, ipso facto,
"change."

My masters thesis was in risk - all probability and stats. When we talk
about probabilities and we have a reasonable sample (or a population)
of data, an occurance does not change the underlying stats. We are
talking about probability and stats here.

If one can create hydrogen by
fracturing water with electricity produced by solar panels, then the
pollution budget may be lessened,

And if meaningful amounts of energy are to be created, then you'd better
be prepared to pave entire states with photovoltaic panels. If you look
at H2 as a complete package, the unsuitability of the stuff becomes
apparent.

It all depends on what we're trying to accomplish.

The H2 economy advocates have successfully pulled the wool over many
eyes.

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they
risked nuclear conflict.

Proof?

surrendered gladly to US troops.

This is a fiction that only you americans seem to believe.

He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror
and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears.

According to you he had spirited the WMDs to Syria. That kinda hinders
a defense. Either he had weapons to fight back or he didn't. Which
is it?

and he likely removed them to Syria,

Given that the air was filled with american spy planes and satellite
surveillance, how come there is no direct evidence for this. US claims
in the absence of anything resembling proof leaves a lot of us sceptical.
So far we've only seen photos of broken down trucks.

along with billions in gold and cash, before the
invasion.

Which begs the question, why didn't he spirit mimself out to enjoy those
same billions? Again, this leads only to scepticism about such claims.
Don't claim he had nowhere to go - Bin Laden's still out there protected
someplace.


just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons.

Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have
nuclear weapons seriously

Taking them seriously and giving them credibility are two different
things.

For now. We've got other things to do.

Yawn, another excuse...

Mike

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

socialized
medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the
operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost.

You create a ficticious version of socialized health care, claim it
applies to every other country and then shoot it down. This is
the same technique you use with your ficticious "theory of evolution"
and ficticious political regimes in other countries. Why don't
you deal with the real world?

Mike