On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_"

If you can't cope with that, it's your problem.

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Canada [...] prove that

Really? Please provide a reference that clearly proves that
guns in Canada have been confiscated as a result of registration.

You're lying again.

Mike

On 1-Mar-2005, Nisarel wrote:

But their research and position on marijuana was quite atypical.

They support the legalization of it.

The Fraser Institute's in BC isn't it? Maybe there are other
paychecks coming their way. :-)

Mike

On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:

How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as
proving something, Tinkerntom.

But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different
things. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of
the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they
were waiting.

Mike

On 2-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

They are full-fledged entrepreneurs.

In fact, Revenue Canada will not consider a doctor to be anything
else from a tax standpoint.

Mike

On 2-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

Forget it - he's pulling a weiser.

Mike

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

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
========================
E in the 99%
N 95%
T 95%
P 98%
====================


All I can say is WOW! to your results. In terms of interpretation,
however, let me add something to you conceptualization of "N" -
intuitive. This dimension pertains to your preferred ways of
collecting
data. "S" is for those who collect data and come to understandings
through direct observation and experimentation. N applies to those
who
gain understanding through the abstract -- models, theories,
mathematics. I liken it to the different ways in which one can do
physics: (1) there's the experimental physicist - S and (2) the
theoretical physicist - N. Both are, of course, valid ways to gain
comprehension.

Tink, I just get this impression that you're a "tinkerer" at heart -
"S". You strike me as the kind of guy I'd like to meet when I'm stuck
on a back road somewhere with no way to get my vehicle moving. There
I
am, all "N" of me, with complete conceptual and theoretical knowledge
of how the G-D car is supposed to work, but nary a clue about how to
"actually" make it work (that's why I always make sure to renew my
CAA
membership). I have a hunch you'd be the guy with the toolbox, jumper
cables, etc etc, plus a nice thermos of hot coffee, who'd get down
into
the dirt to help me out. Am I reading you right? So, in my books,
you've got to be an "S". Of course, I could be reading you all wrong.
Perhaps you'd just stop and join me in my conceptual, theoretical
daze
- "N".

frtzw906

No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and
jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle
of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded
mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they
offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love.

That's some scary ****, Tinkerntom.

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 1-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:

How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same
as
proving something, Tinkerntom.

But dying while waiting and dying because of waiting are two different
things. I haven't looked at all his most recent posts, but some of
the numbers posted did not specify that the deaths were because they
were waiting.

Mike

I know. But it really wasn't the point anyway. I was trying to address the
broad American mythology about Canadian health care, and in trying to pin
down rick to a concrete level, moved the discussion into silly semantics.

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a
whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment,
society disagrees with you.

Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that
dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact,
one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services;
prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to
act without the interference of government.

But
effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric
argumentation you provide.

It took very little time or effort to make it happen in Canada.

Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision

In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision.

There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states.

Only because the state has taken the right away.


I'm a skilled logician

You misspelled incompetent.

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not. There are your deliberate
misquotes. You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

Mike

Tink says:
==================
No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and
jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle
of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded
mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they
offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love.
=============

Now that would freak me out, Tink, but I'd be ever-so grateful for your
help anyway. But this leads me to another question having to do with
religion. I'm assuming, when you talk of religion, you're talking about
Christianity, right?

OK, I know this was kinda faddish, trendy, and perhaps corny a year or
two ago, but what about that "What would Jesus do?" query? Look, here's
where I'm going with this. Those of us in the center, politically (that
would be left to those in the red states), always kinda liked that
question. Even though we tended not to be the religious types, the
"What would Jesus do?" question appealed to many of us because, well,
the answer generally came out as "Whatever the socialists would do,
that's what Jesus would do."

Pick a social topic, Tink. Any topic. Let's say, healthcare plans.
You've now read about quite a few different public policy options.
"Which would Jesus choose?"

Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose?

And we could go on, and on, through a long laundry list of social and
public policy issues. My bet is, 90% of the time (at a minimum), Jesus
would come down on the side of the left-wing liberals.

Whadda think, Tink?

WINK The lefties love you!

frtzw906