Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

However, here's something you did get right:

====================
YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, "FASTER" MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE
EXTRA MILE FOR YOU!
===============

And that's a fact. And that's a good thng: money will NOT get you
better or faster treatment.

[Although, as we know, you CAN -- possibly -- get better or faster
treatment if you change the venue of your treatment.]

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.


However, here's something you did get right:

====================
YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, "FASTER" MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY
NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE
EXTRA MILE FOR YOU!
===============

And that's a fact. And that's a good thng: money will NOT get you
better or faster treatment.

It's not a good thing if you need or want better care and can afford it.

It doesn't serve the teenager very well since she may miss out on a future
in athletics because of the unconscionable delays in obtaining relatively
simply knee surgery that could probably be done on an outpatient basis in a
second-tier clinic...except that there are no second-tier clinics she can go
to because the government all but forbids them.

It's only a "good thing" from the socialist "you don't get to have anything
the poorest don't also get" perspective.

Not much motivation to excel under such a system.
--
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 queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.

--
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 Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:


Scott queries:
================

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?


Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.


=============
I'm not in the mood for guessing games.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:


Scott queries:
================

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?


Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.


=============
I'm not in the mood for guessing games.

Don't guess, mentate.

--
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

On 1-Apr-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

(a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information

Actually, he's setting us up so that he can claim he isn't actually
spreading bull**** - he's just testing us. His way of avoiding
any responsibility for what he says.

Mike