Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 14:52 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:8m96h.5709$Sw1.78(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:3512e$45590cac$49ecf51$2340(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> news:Uh46h.13917$B31.5251(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:d7564$4558c674$4fe7476$806(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>>>Nationalized anything is a form of socialism. >>> >>> Ok, so what? You have a nationalised military - bloody socialists. >> >> No it isn't. It started out part of the federal government. > > Doesn't matter how it started out. What matters is who runs it. You, > yourself, said "nationalized anything is a form of socialism." Nothing in > that sentence about how it started out. > > >> You argue despite your inability to use ordinary language >> skills. > > What part of "nationalized anything is a form of socialism" did you not > mean? > > >>> As it stands, how does saying "it is a form of socialism" mean it will >>> be worse? >> >> That's like asking the pope why he isn't a protestant. > > So I take that to mean that you think anything socialist is, by > definition, worse. Unsettled is convinced that _anything_ which isnt subject to the pure end of market forces is "bad." I am sure he is aware that there are no market forces operating on the US military (nationally run), the FBI (nationally run) (etc). Obviously he thinks these are worse and should be taken into private ownership so enable them to "run better."
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Nov 2006 14:55 |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > > Sambo wrote: > > > > Lucky you. I wish netscape finaly allowed to totly delete news articles ( and possibly ignore further posts in a thread in selected for download groups,without dumping another feature ) , takes me about 5 minutes to come up when I select this group. > > Won't create filter from message with "Subject: Re: Jihad needs > scientists" do that in Netscrape? > > Regards, > Martin Brown Right click: Ignore thread will help, especially if you sort by date, and write down the date of the oldest unread message. Then delete the sci.electronics.design.snm (or the .snm file for the group you read this in.) For example, the path is: C:\Program Files\Netscape\Users\terrell\News\host-news.east.earthlink.net on this computer. Go to: C:\Program Files\Netscape\Users and select your user name. Then open the NEWS folder, and finally, the folder for your news server. You can not delete the .snm file while the newsgroup is open. Then, when you reopen the group only allow it to download headers in blocks of 500 messages, till all unread messages are back. Do this by watching the dates, till the oldest unread message appears. Click on File: on the top tool bar and select: "Get next 500 messages" for each block. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 14:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4559D87C.A071FB9D(a)hotmail.com... > > > Sorcerer wrote: > >> The NHS is the world's worst bureaucracy >> and the most expensive waster of human resources imaginable. > > Not needed to use it yet ? The economy of the NHS is a proven fact. Androcles/sorcerer just says argumentative things for the hell of it, he very rarely has more than 1/10th of a clue what he is talking about. Wait till you get him started on Einstein.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:01 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcln7$8qk_012(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ytidnQLKcunpX8XYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej9mvv$8qk_008(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45574ED9.32805BEE(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >> 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. >>>>> >> 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. >>>>> > >>>>> >You present a strong case for the introduction of a nationalise >>>>> >healthcare >>>>> >system, where all have equal access to healthcare resources based on >>> medical >>>>> >need. >>>>> >>>>> There will not be access. That's what I'm trying to get >>>>> you to understand. You can have oodles of insurance but, >>>>> if you can't get an appt., you might as well use their >>>>> forms for toilet paper. >>>> >>>>So, the insurance based model is broken is it not ? >>> >>> It is now since the HMOs have become the preferred payers. >> >>An NHS would cure that. > > No, it would not. What Hillary was planning was a worse case. Two distinct sentences yet you imply an A means B relationship. An NHS _would_ solve the problem you have with HMOs. Whatever Hillary was planning is not relevant. Please try to learn to distinguish between your political rantings and the reality. I am sure what Pol Pot was planning is a worse case as well but it isn't relevant. > I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors > for service. In theory yes. Hell of a flight to get a flu jab though. > Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems > of having to service too many people with finite resources. You think we don't have finite resources? The UK NHS has less money per head than the US medical systems. Can you explain why ours still works better than yours?
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 15:05
In article <ejcktl$8qk_007(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <a871b$45574416$49ecffa$23510(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> In article <9a071$4557314e$49ecffa$23098(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>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 ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>We pay the development costs. > >>> > >>>And we generously sell the medicines for less overseas. > >>> > >> > >> It has nothing to do with generosity. > > > >There's no significant profit involved. What would you call it? > > There is a profit over manufacturing costs. It just doesn't > recoup the research costs to the point of feeding cash into > current research. Another advantage is presence. A lot of > the manufacturing appears to be getting moved to those countries > with tax benefits, etc. > > I'm waiting until India and China figure out how to run clean rooms. "SAN JOSE, Calif. =3F IBM Corp. has entered into an agreement to take a 24 percent stake for $150 million in one of India's fledging wafer fab companies =3F India Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (ISMC), according to the Business Standard in India." http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164901668 -- Keith |