Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 12:00 In article <cdnbl2tfs917t21jv0tvvl07dldnqoe6vq(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > >> news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... > >> > > >> >Not that we're > >> > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for > >> > snacks either. > >> > >> How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our > >> high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" > >> to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" > > > >Fields has warranted a nickname. > > > >Impaler ! > > > >Graham > > --- > No doubt that came to mind because of your often finding yourself > dangling from the end of my lance. Donkey impaled on Field's lance? Ewww! -- Keith
From: krw on 13 Nov 2006 12:00 In article <ej9pql$8qk_007(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <4557506C.83F6D696(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Ben Newsam wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:48:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> >In article <2739l2d2vtuc7vfffle8t6jo1p905d99dr(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> >>I think we would call that a "sink" rather than a "well", or possibly > >> >>a "soakaway". > >> > > >> >Oh, dear. Have I just tripped over another word that doesnt' > >> >tranlate into English? :-) > >> > > >> >If I had to guess, I would say that your soakaway is our leach field. > >> > >> Well (heh), over here the output from a septic tank would go to a > >> soakaway rather than anything else. > >> > >> You don't have to cross the Atlantic to encounter confusion over the > >> words "sink" and "well", (both nouns, and also verbs associated with > >> the appearance or disappearance of water into or out of the ground). > >> What we in England call a "sink", the arrangement in the kitchen for > >> holding water that has taps (Damn! Faucets!) and a plughole, is known > >> as a "well" in Scotland, or at least in certain parts of it. > > > > > > A tap is for threading holes. > > What? Explain, please? A "tap" is used to cut threads on the inside of a hole (think "nut"). The opposite of a "tap" is a "die", which is used to cut threads on the outside of a cylinder (think "bolt"). http://www.5stardeal.com/expand.asp?pro=26&subcat=1009 -- Keith
From: John Fields on 13 Nov 2006 12:16 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:38:26 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Maybe she means you become a slave to your job but I thought that was common in >the USA anyway . Working hours seem to be far far longer. --- Yup. We mostly work ourselves as hard as we can while we're young and try to amass a fortune quickly and then retire while we're still young enough to enjoy it. And you? -- JF
From: unsettled on 13 Nov 2006 12:18 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. With insurance in general, actual costs plus expenses plus profit drive the premiums. The premiums go up every year, so denial of claims doesn't happen simply in order to "improve" the profit picture. Check with your state insurance commission for their particular rules. In most cases profits are limited to be a percentage of the money handled, so the more they pay out in claims the larger the chunk of profit they're permitted to keep. That, BTW, is the fallacy in health insurance in the US today. Health care costs are increasing, to some extent, because carriers have incentive to allow escalation of prices.
From: John Fields on 13 Nov 2006 12:54
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:41:50 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:cdnbl2tfs917t21jv0tvvl07dldnqoe6vq(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>> news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >>>> > >>>> >Not that we're >>>> > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >>>> > snacks either. >>>> >>>> How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >>>> high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus >>>> unum" >>>> to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" >>> >>>Fields has warranted a nickname. >>> >>>Impaler ! >>> >>>Graham >> >> --- >> No doubt that came to mind because of your often finding yourself >> dangling from the end of my lance. >> > >Is this supposed to be homoerotic or some flash back to the days of knights? Do you _really_ need help in figuring it out or are you just writing to hear yourself talk? -- JF |