Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 13 Nov 2006 11:01 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:55:10 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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. --- Au contraire! Without the question mark it becomes "Move then.", which really does limit the options. --- >The question can have taken many forms, --- My, but you have a superb grasp of the obvious! Notice also that the question took the form it did because that's how I wanted to present it. Not how _you_ would have had me present it, but how _I_ wanted to. Note also that your use of the present tense is wrong. The sentence fragment should have read "The question could have taken many forms,"... Or, perhaps, the sentence should have been: "Mandatory attendance of remedial English 101." --- >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. --- Not 'the' option, 'an' option. As I stated above, had the question mark been a period, the infinity of options between blind acceptance and emigration would have been destroyed. Even your version of my question allows there to be more than one option. I'm surprised you can't see that... > >> >> Oh, well... > >Yes. --- Oh, well... -- JF
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Nov 2006 05:30 In article <ej4h3k$8ss_013(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <PwH4h.11589$B31.10737(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> 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. >> >>Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any sort >>of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally bereft >>statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, you've >>demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. > >You are parroting politicians again. What is really happening >is that people, who do not have access to a GP, go to the >most expensive health care facility for treatment. Because they can't afford a GP, or insurance. >Now instead of concentrating on how they can't afford the most >expensive service, why not concentrate on why they cannot get >access to the usual general practioner's services. That is >the problem. And it has become exasperated by everything being >based on whether you have insurance or not. > >/BAH > > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Nov 2006 05:31 In article <ej4hah$8ss_014(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45537045.AC5FCFC6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any >sort >>> of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally >bereft >>> statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, you've >>> demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. >> >>BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to >look >>at the possibility of a National Health Service. > >Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US >is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. >> Western Europe is comparable in population. Canada is in size. >>A society that condemns its less well-off members to poor / inadequate health >>provision is no great example to anyone. >> >>Heck, there's an American chap I chat with on MSN who simply couldn't afford >to >>buy the best medicine for his wife's condition. > >You should have examined the situation a tad more closely. Was >he able to get the good medicine or was he forced to take the >generic? Did he expect to pay $12 for the best? I've run >into this attitude before and people simply don't want to >buy drugs without a massive discount. I don't understnad this >mindset yet. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Nov 2006 05:29 In article <ej4fio$8ss_007(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <Wf15h.3585$IR4.3293(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej234l$8qk_015(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> The same thing happened to medical pots of money contributed >>> by employees and their employers. The pool of monies got transformed >>> to insurance companies. >> >> >>Now you're catching on. Private insurance companies have profit motive. >>Government bodies that provide for health care don't. > >Right. There is no competition and no check on 100% corruption. >Most monies will go to patronage, outright stealing and administration >costs. None will end up buying the real service. > >/BAH Except experience shows the opposite -- Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurers. Medicare doesn't employ an army trying to find out ways to deny claims because claims cut into profits.
From: lucasea on 13 Nov 2006 11:10
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45586F70.5FF100EE(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >> >> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >> of housecleaning and they get it. > > They do ? > > I'm sure they wouldn't here. It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard smaller number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes work--typically it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, mopping, cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. Eric Lucas |