Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 18:14 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:8vN5h.4466$Sw1.861(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4557718E.F8A9033F(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> Jamie wrote: >> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >>And you're stuck with that PCP if the others in the system aren't >>> >>taking new patients. Thus, if the PCP is an incompetent doctor >>> >>it takes years to be able to transfer to another's list. Here >>> >>in the northeast no doctor is local. You have to drive or be >>> >>driven or go the emergency room. That's it. >>> > >>> > >>> > Shame you don't have a nationalised health service really, isn't it? >>> > >>> > >>> Is that so bad? We've seen how it works. >> >> Have you ? Do tell. > > This is another odd behavior I've seen from people terrified of > change....they'll strut around with their chest stuck out, acting as if > they actually know something about the change they're avoiding...and yet, > when pressed, have nothing but vague assertions like "well, I heard about > a guy who left Canada because...." BAH's twist, of projecting the > problems of the current system onto any potential replacement, is a new > one on me.... > > There really are a very large number of people in the US that are > terrified of change. Sadly not just the US and it certainly is no longer the province of the old :-)
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 18:14 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4557A7DD.D3289D33(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> Ben Ben Newsam wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:47:09 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >Didn't you ever wonder where your sewer people put all of that >> >> > >water that get flushed and put down the drains of your sinks, >> >> > >baths, and showers? >> >> > >> >> > No, because I know exactly what happens to it. It goes to the sewage >> >> > treatment works at Tinsley. >> >> >> >> And ends up as bottled water in France? ;-) >> > >> > You have some very odd ideas. >> > >> > The only company I know of that made a bottled water of 'dubious >> > origin' >> > was the Coca-Cola company who used tap water. >> >> It's actually pretty widely known in this country that most bottled >> waters, >> even those that call themselves "spring water" are simply tap water in a >> fancy package. A few actually do bother to get spring water, but it's >> not >> very common. > > No laws regarding labelling ? Yes, but depending on how they're worded, there are ways around them. Remember who sees to the enforcement of those laws (lawyers) and their propensity for twisting words out of their original meaning. >> I think he might be conflating the fact in my previous sentence, with the >> widely reported scandal of benzene in Perrier about 10 - 15 years ago. >> To >> my knowledge, Perrier does indeed sell spring water...not that I think >> that's any great shakes--I think a lot of the bottled waters taste like >> Elmer's Glue. I just buy a bottle once in a very long while, then keep >> refilling it from the tap because it's a convenient container to carry >> water >> around with me as I go about my job. > > Most of them are vastly over-rated and overpriced. It's snob appeal > mostly. That's the expensive ones (Perrier, etc.) I don't know what is the appeal of the cheap ones. Perhaps convenience, perception of purity, etc. In any case, I peel off the label the minute I get it. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 18:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:flN5h.4355$Sw1.4047(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:p6adnad2WqzF7crYRVnyiQ(a)pipex.net... > >> I would love to see someone on $200 per week even affording food bills >> let alone anything else. > > Did you mean $200/month? The missus and I eat quite well on $200/week, > and that even involves eating out one or two nights a week. > > That said, that's only food. Ok, $200 a week may well be enough for food. However, that is the whole income. Deduct tax, transport, insurance, rent, heating, electricity and what is left?
From: unsettled on 12 Nov 2006 18:25 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > unsettled wrote: > >>I never met anyone who grew up during the great depression >>who didn't think they had a good life and a good childhood >>on account of not having much. >> >>Take the model of hunter-gatherer tribes. They wouldn't >>begin to understand a value system that thought they are >>just "existing." Still the totality of their posessions >>was limited to what they could carry. > > > > So? If they had to move, they didn't have to worry about what to > leave behind. Yes, so very little which took significant investment in time and energy, that means wealth in posessions, was accumulated. Only such things as they could carry. > As long as they could eat, clothe themselves and keep a > roof over their heads, they had what mattered to them. So the definition of "living" as oposed to "surviving" which spawned this bit of discussion was clearly invalid Do you realize how insane the discussions by Lucas, Eeyore, Newsam, and Wake are after this point (your posting) in time? They're feeding off one another now. I think if any opposition to their philosophy stops right here they are quite capable of carrying on congratulating one another for another 10K posts.
From: lucasea on 12 Nov 2006 18:31
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote Gratuitous bullshit. |