Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 07:57 In article <IfqdnQjJRMY1WsXYRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej9mau$8qk_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <iMqdndygs8fA08rYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej725c$8ss_002(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <Tel5h.2388$6t.1435(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ej4gig$8ss_012(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> Why do you think Arabs asked >>>>>> the western world for help? In all other cases, this would have >>>>>> been unthinkable. >>>>> >>>>>No, that the house of Saud is a US puppet is widely acknowledged around >>>>>the >>>>>world. Not unthinkable at all. It just happened to be a slightly >>>>>neater >>>>>way of getting things done. >>>> >>>> You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got >>>> them. >>>> >>> >>>Oh no, another irony meter bites the dust. >>> >>>Are you asserting here that the Saudi royal family are not widely >>>considered >>>a government which is obedient to the US? >> >> I'm not asserting. It is politcally dangerous for a Muslim >> to be associated with Western culture unless that piece of >> culture has been approved by the Imams (I think that's the >> name of the people who do approvals). > >Yet the Saudi government are widely considered (by Arabs and non-Arabs) to >be closely associated with the US. Why? Is this before or after the first Gulf War? > >Isn't that strange? There is a difference between diplomatic associations and puppets. If it were perceived that the Saudis were only puppets to the US, they would no longer be allowed to rule by their people. > >Now going back to the earlier point, what do you mean when you said Lucas's >post was deluded? Which one? Most of them seem to be deluded. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:02 In article <4559DEF1.515D054F(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 >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>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. > >She wasn't planning a proper NHS though AIUI. Then will you try to get my point? Whatever the Dems do manage to get through will be an awful, non-working mess. You keep insisting that an NHS will work in the US. It will not because yours (assuming it does function) will not be a template for anything the US Congress will pass. > > >> I suppose, us USAians could join your NHS and go to your doctors >> for service. > >For $2291 per head p.a. why not ? The air fares would be expensive though. > > >> Perhaps you would then learn some of the problems >> of having to service too many people with finite resources. > >We know all about having to do that ! The NHS is expert at it. I don't think you do know all about it. Wait until there's a global epidemic and then you'll find out where all the bugs are. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:05 In article <eaWdnTKzXuAFvcfYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. It is relavant because that's what the US would end up with. > >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. If there isn't a distribution here, perhaps that's how some get theirs. > >> 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? I've been trying to explain. You've kept it local. You have a small geographic area. It is a lot easier to administer and deliver services. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:28 In article <Fbk6h.25028$TV3.17500(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ejccbj$8ss_002(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Hw06h.5436$IR4.3256(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej9pdm$8qk_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <luM5h.3942$Sw1.2732(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> Ever wonder why most (all?) water >>>>>treatment plants are adjacent to either a river, lake, or some other >>>>>large >>>>>body of water? >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>>Well, that would be your problem, then. >> >> Not at all. I didn't have to question why because I knew why. > >Then why did you imply that it had anything to do with leach fields? > You are playing at a dangerous game. If you keep misinterpreting on purpose just yank my chain, at some point the characteristic may becaome automatic and you'll do this misinterpretation when there are serious consequences. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Nov 2006 08:29
In article <MPG.1fc3bbe568ee60e1989b38(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ejccic$8ss_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <eja0cc$9nk$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >In article <ej9pql$8qk_007(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>In article <4557506C.83F6D696(a)earthlink.net>, >> >[....] >> >>> A tap is for threading holes. >> >> >> >>What? Explain, please? >> > >> >The tool for threading (cutting threads on the inside surface of) a hole >> >is called a "rap". Imagine a threaded bolt with 4 grooves cut along its >> >length adn a square head. It is made from very hard metal. You drill a >> >hole and then run the tap in. The it is held by a tee-handle. You turn >> >it one turn in and then back a half and so on. >> >> Thanks. I used to thread pipe for my Dad. He never called >> it a tap. He called a threader. > >A pipe "threader" would be called a "die". > >> He had two kinds; one was >> easy to use and the other one was a PITA for a little weak >> kid to use. > >....but he made you use the hard one? ;-) > Yea, how did you know? I always wanted to do the easy one. That was fun. /BAH |