Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4he0$8ss_016(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <tNydnc3qWa5H687YRVnyjg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was >>>>>>>able >>>>>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas >>>>>>>about >>>>>>>how the country should be structured. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>>>>> able to start from scratch. >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >>>>> little change from what they were used to as >>>>> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >>>>> of what they sought to escape when they came here. >>>> >>>>I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >>>>system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >>>>leave England. >>>> >>>>Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >>>>government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 >>>>years? >>>> >>>>I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so >>>>fearful >>>>of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate >>>>over >>>>nationalized health care is an excellent example. >>> >>> What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. >> >>So improving an operating system is a "no-no" in your book? >> > You are doing that misreading on purpose. Your problem is that, when somebody takes one of your proclamations and applies it to situations that you haven't conceived of, you accuse them of misbehavior, rather than accept the fact that the proclamation was logically flawed. In this case, you say "What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke." That sentence, as written, applies to software vendors who rewrite their software every few years even though it "ain't broke". He merely pointed out to you that you apply the maxim of "don't fix what ain't broke" highly selectively. That's not misreading, it's trying to get you to see what is broken about *your* thinking processes. But I guess you're not as interested in that as you say you are. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:00 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4hih$8ss_017(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45535A63.7B55EF05(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Are you frightened of shadows too ? > > Nope. I'm not frightened of much these days. You obviously are, but you're not even willing to admit it. When someone sits around dreaming up doomsday scenarios based on the paranoid fantasy that a few wackos are going to be able to bring down all of western civilization, and then runs around yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling", that is nothing but pure, abject fear. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:04 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:9cibl21gu2d8b4hfoo2trilmmcenvqnied(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:20 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the >>religion >>people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to >>religion-derived law though. > > --- > Like the prohibition of murder and theft? You're confusing cause and effect. You assume that, because those are religious and legal prohibitions, that they came to have legal status because of their religious status. I would suggest that both are based on the natural law that both murder and theft are bad for society. Both religion and law codified this. You need to read what Franklin said again. To paraphrase what he had to say about this, things that are proscribed by religion aren't bad for you because they're proscribed...quite the opposite. They are proscribed because they are bad for you. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4iml$8ss_022(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <5MOdnbB1D9f_WsnYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej1qbp$8ss_006(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <9HG4h.11569$B31.1808(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eivamt$8qk_008(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <BM14h.8314$B31.7002(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eiq0h1$8qk_012(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> In article <dGS3h.5355$7F3.3682(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:MPG.1fb9bd1d862e8abb989ab0(a)news.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dry wood burns very cleanly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It still stinks to hell. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I burn some in a fairly efficient stove, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's not just efficiency, it's also related to pollution control >>>>>>>>devices. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but unless there is a wind blowing it's a mess. It stinks if it's >>>>>>>>> still, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>>>>>(particularly >>>>>>>>hard) wood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you make everybody do this? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why your desparate need to "make everybody do" things. Why not just >>>>>>let >>>>>>them make their own decisions, and you make yours? >>>>> >>>>> Because there are never "do not burn" stamps on wood filled >>>>> with arsenic. Because there isn't any pollution controls >>>>> on burning wood. The ones who "sin" the worst are those >>>>> who are rabid anti-smokers of cigarettes, consider the need >>>>> for oil to be a mortal sin, and are against nuclear power plants. >>>>> >>>>> Yet these people have no problems with filling a whole neighborhood >>>>> with smoke and arsenic. This is another example of perfection >>>>> of inability to think. >>>> >>>>Why do you presume that it is the anti-smokers who burn pressure-treated >>>>lumber illegally? That is a rather illogical, quite misanthropic, and >>>>*very* disingenuous assumption. >>> >>> Why do you assume that I have no personal experience at all? >> >>I dont think people do make that assumption. The problem is you >>extrapolate >>your very limited experiences on a massive scale with little or no reason >>to >>do so. > > My knowledge about how things works cannot be used. Not given the enormous gaps that you admit that you do have, and the even bigger gaps that you won't admit to having, no. When there are counterexamples to everything you say is bad about nationalized health care system, then I would argue that perhaps the problem lies with "your knowledge about how things work." And the fact that you won't even admit that places all of what you say about "your knowledge about how things work" in question. > My experience > cannot be used. Unless you actually have experience with a nationalized health care system, no, because then all you would be doing is extrapolating the problems of the current system, not a new, redesigned system. > The fact that there is an absence of stories about > how good the system is (from people who are really ill) cannot be > used. Again, this is your selective ignorance. > What am I left with? Not much, apparently, so why not listen to those who *do* have actual experience, both personal as well as family, friends, coworkers, etc.? I would also suggest you have data (cost, etc.), but you seem to have a serious aversion to data that is contrary to your preconceived notions. > Politicians saying it is the right thing > to do. That's not why it is the right thing to do, and that doesn't automatically make it the wrong thing to do. > People who believe that they should get everything free and > have the government pay for it. Since that's not a sentence, I can't understand what you're trying to say. However, it appears to be a logic error of "guilt by association". You say that some people believe they should get everything free and have the government pay for it, and use that as a reason that we shouldn't have a nationalized health care system, as if everything that is paid for by the government (i.e., out of tax money) is intrinsically evil. > Some cost analysis statistics that > should be used as a tool rather than a reason for implementation of > the system. Again, not a sentence, so I can't tell what you're trying to say. However, on the subject of cost analysis, if we did things the way the UK does, it would cost considerably less when you account for *all* the costs on both sides. > I can't do this without feeling intellectually dishonest. Now you're starting to catch on...if it quacks like a duck.... Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 10:27
Ben Newsam wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:45:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >In article <4553638B.5813A8BC(a)hotmail.com>, > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>What real objection do you have to an 'NHS' ? > > > >It's unconstitutional. > > Ha! Tell that to the Marines. They're nationalised, maybe they're > unconstitutional too, lol. > > > [emoticon now retreats into its > >tornado cellar] It is also a waste of resources, ineffcient, > >and hands over all approvals to politicians and bureaucrats. > > And your system doesn't have bureaucrats? I suspect that the > bureaucracy involved in deciding claims must be *huge*, whole layers > of office staff processing paperwork that we simply don't have at all. Absolutely inevitable I should think. I'm sure the overheads in the NHS are far lower than in an insurance based health delivery system. Graham |