in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:00 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:45 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 8:59 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post
again. Thanks.
=================
I have. And I've told you where else to check several
times.
That you are still willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time of the most recent posting?

For some reason it is not available on usenet.

Did anyone else see it?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

Why not simply state the date and time?
====================
The posts were already made. Do your own homework, fool...

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:05 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Wilko at

wrote on 2/24/05 11:17 PM:



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

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

snip
For whatever reasons, it is not available on usenet.

Please post to rec.boats.paddle a link to a Canadian
reference (or any
reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines
for health
care, and I will make a formal and public apology.

=======================
I have.


For some reason it is not available on usenet. Please post
again. Thanks.

If anyone else has seen the message, please repost. Thanks.

What message? He didn't post any link to any credible Canadian
reference, either in this thread or any other, I only saw "I
have" a
couple of times.

That would be my view.

But he keeps saying he has posted it, so I am sure there is
just a
misunderstanding.

Has anyone seen rick post any reference (credible or otherwise)
that proves
Canadians are dying waiting in line for health care? If so,
please provide a
link. Thanks.
=================
I realize that learning things contrary to your ideology is hard
for you, but you really should try it sometime. Rather than just
waving your hands and claiming who or who isn't credible, look it
up. But then, you've already proven that that is too much for
you, or to scary for you. maintaining your ignorance appears to
be paramount to your mental well being.

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:06 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:00 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage..



Since the latter would be true for any system of health
care,
you've watered down your position to something that is
totally without meaning.
================================
No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what
I'd
call a system that is working for everyone. Again,
sarcasm
is
above your level of comprehension, isn't it?

Please post a link to any evidence that Canadians are dying
in
line waiting for health care.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time that you last posted it?

It does not seem to be available.

Anyone else see it?
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

Why can't you simply state the date and time that you most
recently made
such a post?
======================
LOL Why can't you simply look it up for yourself? I've given
you hints on where to look. But then, that would require some
thought, and you have proven that independent thought isn't your
thing.

Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence
that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care.

Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you
is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:

snip

No look at what you said:

"You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were
buying
assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they
killed
1000s of people every year"
==============
Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew
that
is
so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the
derision
it
deserves.

Your "gist" include a specific claim that I did not make.
Thus,
your "gist"
was an attempt to deceive that was exposed.
=====================
No, it was not.

Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth is, I
never said
what you claimed I said.
========================
Your intent was the same...

My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made up.






I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind
that
a
crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on
the
corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire.
=======================
No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or
are
trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no
rights
to
buy arms.

Crack dealers who have not lost their rights to buy arms can
buy them. You
do realize that not every crack dealer ends up being
convicted,
right? Heck,
all they have to do is go down to the corner and buy the
right
weapon to
shoot any witnesses against them!
=====================
LOL Do you make this up as you go, or has your fantasies been
the main part of your life for years now?

What's to stop an accused crack dealer from buying an assault
rifle at the
shop on the corner and shooting a witness?
========================
Tellwhen it has happened. Setting up mythical what-ifs isn't a
discussion of rights.

Sure.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm

Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in wait lines for
health care?

What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for
1000s
of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute
that
position.
==================
Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there,
how
many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your
fantasy
world of make-believe.

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one
person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk
about
spraying in parks.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it: if more than one
person is killed
with an assault weapon that is one too many.
=======================
Why? Why only these so-called assault weapons? Again, what
makes then so much more dangerous than other weapons?

Uhm. The fact that you can fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time?
Duh.

Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting
information.

We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence
that
Canadians are dying in waiting lines.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.

What was the date and time of your most recent posting of
this
information?

It does not seem to be available on usenet.
=================
I have, and I've told you where else to check several times.
that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision.



Anyone else see it?

It doesn't seem to be available. Why won't you share the date
and time of
yoru most recent post with this information?
======================
What is apparent is your complete ignorance in the use of your
computer. Why are you afraid of the facts?

Please share them.

As you are aware, thus far you are the only person that can see them.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for
desiring to own an
assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of
not having
them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people
quickly.
========================
Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for
1000s) of people?

"A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything.

Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons,
do you, fool?

I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:17 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves.
What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less
vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than
another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?
==================
Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun
idiots.
The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no differently,
and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons.

If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable of
killing, I
am aware, and never said otherwise.
=====================
Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon
because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the AK
more dangerous than other weapons?

In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 1:33 AM:


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

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

wrote:
Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441"
thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it
wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard
was:
"
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that
were
just
quoting each other over and over and not really researching
beyond
the
news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole
story,
just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part
you
now
acknowledge you heard.

When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to
overstate
the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and
no
idea
that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one
media
feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But
if
you care
to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite
clearly
stated that it's about WMD.

Thanks KMAN for taking the time from your busy schedule of debating
with rick and Scott, to comment on my post.

The question that I had with Frtzw was regarding what he heard. If
he
limited himself to only certain sources of info, he would have
heard
what he acknowledge he heard. That does not mean that there were
not
other sources of info from which he could have heard additional and
more complete info. I recall hearing many programs speaking of the
human rights violations against Shiite, Kurds, the Iraq Olympic
team,
etc. His sadistic sons and the treatment of women, and murder of
fellow
countrymen. Fly over violation with his radar targeting coalition
airplanes. Terrorist training. Threats to kill our president, and
generally terrorize the US.

That Powell went to the UN and presented a limited case of UN
violations is not a surprise to me. The UN was not concerned about
human rights violations taking place right under the nose of their
inspectors. So as in any court, the arguement is limited to
pertinent
points of law. However that does not mean that their are not other
calls to action that were being made.

If you choose to limit yourself to what you want to hear, then I
can
understand when you say that you only heard certain subjects, by
choice. That is different than saying the other subjects were not
presented at all, just that you were ignorant of them.

Now I know that you are generally a bright person, so I would not
characterize you as ignorant, though we all have our blind spots. I
would just encourage you to get more of the story, which may mean
listening to FOX News. I realize that you may not like what they
say,
but that is part of being informed. If all you do is listen to the
same
tripe all the time, from the network news services, that is part of
being uninformed. TnT

I listened and read EXACTLY what the Bush administration cited as
their
reasons for invading, and it was, to a massive degree, all about WMD,
and
only some brainwashed freak who ONLY watches Fox "News" would fall
for the
sloppy revisionism that has gone on in the days since the WMD
disappeared.

Well I am glad that you excluded me from your rather harsh definition,
in as much as I watch many other programs than Fox. Actually often
watch BBC on PBS, in addition to ABC, NBC, and CBS. I also have well
over 100 internet sites that I check out as far as newspapers from
around the world. Most of them pick up the UP, AP, or Reuters wire
service, so sometimes I find myself reading the same stories
repeatedly, though I am sure even at that I am sure to miss many
interesting articles. That is one reason, I like participating in this
forum for the different perspectives, and especially the supporting
references when offered. That includes yours as well even though we
have had our moments. TnT

Um. But getting back to what seemed to be a search for an answer to a
question but as usual when dealing with Tinkerntom veers off wildly just at
the critical precursor to cognitive dissonance...

Tinkerntom. Have you actually read the statements from the president and the
members of his administration just prior to the invasion of Iraq? If you
have, it might be time to revisit, because your brain sounds washed. Read
them again. And then tell me if it was not all about the WMD.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:12 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...


snippage...


Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as
usual.
=============
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of...

"...I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a
crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack
on
the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps
converted to
automatic) gunfire..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41

...doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming
that somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your
name?

No look at what you said:

"You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were
buying
assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed
1000s of people every year"
==============
Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew that
is
so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the derision
it
deserves.

Your "gist" include a specific claim that I did not make. Thus,
your "gist"
was an attempt to deceive that was exposed.
=====================
No, it was not. The only thing 'exposed' was you continued
ignorance on any subject you seem to reply to.





I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that
a
crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on the
corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire.
=======================
No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or
are
trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no rights
to
buy arms.

Crack dealers who have not lost their rights to buy arms can
buy them. You
do realize that not every crack dealer ends up being convicted,
right? Heck,
all they have to do is go down to the corner and buy the right
weapon to
shoot any witnesses against them!
=====================
LOL Do you make this up as you go, or has your fantasies been
the main part of your life for years now?






What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for
1000s
of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute
that
position.
==================
Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there,
how
many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your fantasy
world of make-believe.

I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one person
is killed
with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many
people quickly
- that's obviously too many.
=====================
Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about
spraying in parks.

It happens.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm

Detroit shooting spree deaths climb

Multiple victims contribute to alarming homicide rate

June 4, 2004

Destiny Payne, 11, lost an eye after her home on Dequindre was shot up in
April. With her is her mom, Yolanda Richardson. Police say the suspect
admitted to having the wrong house. His real target was a rival drug dealer.
Gunmen spraying bullets with high-powered weapons and killing more than one
person during a single shooting spree are driving up Detroit's homicide
rate.

Detroit police call it the new gangster mentality. The haphazard shooters
kill more than one person in an effort to leave no witnesses behind or to
send messages of dominance without regard to who is in the bullets' paths.

Such manic gunplay is the latest trend in one of America's most violent
cities, according to Detroit police, national experts and a Free Press
analysis of homicide statistics over the past 2 1/2 years.

The numbers show:

* About 60 multiple-victim shootings through May 31 of this year. In 17
of those cases, more than one person died, compared with seven such deaths
at this time last year.

* The practice of shooting up homes, cars and yards is catching children
in the cross fire, contributing to child homicides.

RELATED CONTENT

* HOMICIDE VICTIMS: Those in drug trade are statistic leaders

* Of the nation's 10 largest cities, Detroit -- ranked 10th --
experienced the greatest increase in homicides in the first five months of
this year -- in large part, because of multiple-victim shootings.

But Detroit police say one of the biggest culprits in multiple-victim
homicides is rival drug dealers.

"There is a drug war in this city. It's not an organized war; it's a
guerrilla war," said a Detroit homicide detective, who asked not to be named
because he feared retaliation for speaking without department permission.
Criminologists say they do not know of any other city that is experiencing
as many multiple-victim shootings and related homicides as Detroit.
According to police in the nine other largest cities, such shootings are
rare.

Detroit homicide detectives call them common.

During a single week in May, there were three multiple-victim shootings,
killing two people and injuring seven. There were no triple, quadruple or
quintuple homicides at this time last year. But this year, there have been.

"You may or may not have the right house. You may or may not have the right
person. You may or may not have the right person in the right house,"
Detroit Homicide Lt. William Petersen said of shooters. "It's just stupid.
There are so many people dying of stupidity out here."

And sometimes, children are the unintended victims.

This year, 11 children 16 and younger have been killed, four accidentally.In
at least one case, children were injured when a shooter took aim at the
wrong house.

Last Friday, a 4-year-old was killed when someone shot up her father's car
as he was putting his children inside. The child's father also died. A
6-month-old child was not injured. There have been no arrests.

Four children were wounded April 7 when the wrong house was sprayed with
gunfire.

Yolanda Richardson was making Easter plans with her six children and an
8-year-old guest at her home in the 17500 block of Dequindre when the walls
exploded with bullets.

The bullets hit Richardson in the buttocks; they struck 16-year-old Johnnie
and 9-year-old Precious in the foot.

Her daughter Destiny Payne, 11, started running upstairs, pushing her friend
up with her, Richardson said. Destiny turned around and was hit once.

She lost her right eye.

Police arrested the alleged shooter, who they say admitted that he shot up
the wrong house while looking for a rival drug dealer.

At the home, bullet holes remain in a chair and to the right of the door.

Richardson is looking for a new home, but she can't afford one. The family
is staying wherever they can find space.

"We were a house full of kids," she said. "Now we are everywhere."

But officers also deal with the other extreme -- when a shooter deliberately
targets everyone inside.

On March 1, for example, someone got out of a white Ford Taurus and opened
fire as he walked up to the home of a reputed drug dealer in the 9700 block
of Woodlawn. Using an AK47, he fatally shot Kevin Cooper, 33, Robert Neal,
32, and Dorian Latham, 39, all of Detroit.

Two days later, Toryana Royal, 22, turned himself in to the 12th (Palmer
Park) Precinct. Another suspect, Alfonzo Thomas, 20, is still on the lam.

5 months, 3 increases

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said she cannot explain why Detroit has
more multiple-victim shootings than most cities but that she thinks better
technology could curtail them.

Worthy said she would like to have better ways to track guns and casings so
her office could better link criminals to crimes. That linkage could
increase their prison sentences. She said criminals who kill more than one
person often have committed other crimes.

In the span of five months, the city homicide rate has seen three surges,
Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said. The chief declined to be
interviewed for this story.

The first uptick was in January, when 18 people were killed in a six-day
period -- including a triple and three double homicides.The homicide rate
surged again in mid-February, resulting in a decision by police brass to
require officers to work 12-hour shifts to help curb the trend.

The rate climbed again throughout much of April, when about 40 people were
killed. In one week in April, there were four multiple-victim shootings.

James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist, said there has been
a slight increase in gang-related homicides nationally, led by Los Angeles
and Chicago. But Detroit is not plagued by organized gangs.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:17 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 10:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:17 PM:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

FYI:

Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts!
====================
It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves.
What
makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less
vicious
gun?

Where did I ever say an AK47 knockoff is any different than
another less
vicious gun (whatever that means)?
==================
Just displaying the ignorance of you and other anti-gun
idiots.
The assualt rifle you keep spewing about works no
differently,
and fires a bullet no more powerful than other weapons.

If you mean there are other weapons that are equally capable
of
killing, I
am aware, and never said otherwise.
=====================
Really? I'm surprised. Your facination with a certain weapon
because of its looks is quite amusing. Again, what makes the
AK
more dangerous than other weapons?

In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is
definitely more
dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug
dealers
sporting a Field King LOL!
=================
LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up
bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very
very quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any
more dangerous that other weapons of the type? All you are
focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is not any
different that many other weapons. Again you porvw that you
can't think for yourself, but rely on ignorance and
sensationalism for your ideology.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...



snippage...


IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of
admitting it. I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are
the
one who implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up
to
YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter.
They
aren't needed
==============
According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of
what
people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look
for
an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should
demand
your money back...

Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for
desiring to own an
assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of
not having
them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people
quickly.
========================
Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for
1000s) of people?

"A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for
anything.
==============
Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact
that it isn't so.



Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of
what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about
weapons,
do you, fool?

I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of
people quickly.
=====================
No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons
calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound
rather than kill. There are many weapons that have far greater
chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill?
Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they
"look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute.