Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4j78$8ss_025(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <qR%4h.222$yE6.175(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej1rq5$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>>Say what you mean exactly instead of making vague allusions. >>> >>> I don't think I've been vague at all. >> >>Well, there's where you would be wrong. You make vague assertions, then >>when people are forced to infer what you mean, you get all pissy when they >>interpret your words differently than you meant them. In addition, there >>have been several times when you have made vague assertions that have then >>been shown to apply equally well to the US government and the Islamic >>extremists, and you get all pissy when someone points that out. >> >>If you don't want people to have to infer what you mean, then just come >>out >>and say it. > > I am trying to be explicit. The more explicit I am, it seems the > more vaguely my words are read. Look up explicit. Saying things like "think about [insert nonsense]" is not explicit.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:48 "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? Existed in English common law long before Christianity. Nice try though.
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 15:56 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > And how do you find a doctor? > > Well in my case, there is a GP practice about 4 miles away. If I was > somewhere else and it was urgent I would go to see the nearest doctor. I'll add that most ppl are already 'registered' with a regular doctor ( or practice ) of their choice whom they would normally see. > > Are you assigned to a doctor > > who has to OK other specialists' services? > > Not in the manner you mean. The doctor has to OK the medical need for the > specialist, but it really shouldn't be any other way. > > > Can you walk into > > a cardiologist's office and get treated or do you have to > > be "vetted" through a series of physicians' offices and labs > > to get to that heart doctor? > > If I need to be treated by a cardiologist I will be. The vetting process may > well exist but not in the manner you hope to imply here. Patients are > assessed as to the clinical need for treatment they have. If the patient > needs to see a cardiologist, s/he gets to see one. > > Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of what the > patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the doctor > thinks is the best treatment? I'm wondering if BAH thinks we have our treatment 'rationed'. Graham
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 15:55 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:q5kbl2lbmph5kvljaqfsrd3okalmm921up(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:58:29 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:7gs9l2d2b5tpkeo6r93fkkp8nskbfitte1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:11:12 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:vk59l2phvmcn4ilmj8cn6kvgape1ip72h5(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:28:43 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> >>>>> wrote:>>>here. >>>>>>Again, I resent having my money wasted in the way that it is. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Move then? >>>> >>>>Great mindset. >>> >>> --- >>> Just reductio ad absurdum... >> >>Possibly, however it creates the situation where any complaints or hopes >>to >>improve a much loved country can be met with dismissive retort. > > --- > I'm surprised that you, someone who apparently plays at > sophistication missed, along with the Lucas buffoon, the > significance of the question mark at the end of "Move then?" In its context there was no great significance to the question mark. It was provided as an option, which is how I treated it. The question can have taken many forms, but even in its most simple ("Why don't you move then?") it is still creating the situation where a hope to improve or identifying a failure in one's own country still should be met with emigration as the option. > > Oh, well... Yes.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 16:02
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:3ftbl2p308u8nkhnmr16sa428hq2hjs4od(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:49:14 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> I am at a slight loss in the >>> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. >> >>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >> >>Graham > > Ever see a Pharma production line? > > 500 tablet/capsule bottles go by getting labels at a rate exceeding > 1 per second. > > They gouge us 'cause we got money. Blast those American companies... ... ... ... |