Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 11:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejf35v$8ss_016(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. ....and will you get *our* point? It doesn't have to be the model that you *think* the Democrats want to put together. Instead of digging in your heels and saying "it won't work", why not take a positive approach, and demand that your politicians adopt a model that *will* work, like the model that Canada and the UK have? Your fear of change is stunning. >>> 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. I guarantee that the UK model will be more robust to that sort of thing than the current US model. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 11:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejf4lg$8qk_001(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Fbk6h.25028$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. It's not a game. You implied that municipal sewers are ultimately fed back into the water table through leach fields. I was just trying to figure out why. It was an honest question. Never mind. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 11:26 "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:C18057D6.4CBFE%dbowey(a)comcast.net... > On 11/14/06 9:02 PM, in article > Rbx6h.6426$Sw1.3046(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fc459ba145f0210989b5d(a)news.individual.net... >>> In article <Lzv6h.6398$Sw1.5307(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>> >>>> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>> news:MPG.1fc3cb5179e833c9989b43(a)news.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> (of course I don't have a phone line, >>>>> so...). >>>> >>>> Well, that latter would be the real issue then, not the distance to a >>>> hub. >>> >>> No, you ditz! I choose not to have a phone line (too expensive), >> >> Actually, the phone company will run a line to your house for free. >> There's >> nothing saying you have to get phone service using the line. >> >> Eric Lucas >> >> > > Very interesting - who is your Telco? > > Among the ex-Bells and Verizon, a phone line will not be run to a > residence > unless someone pays for it. That can be be the house's building > contractor. > Otherwise the Telco requires a Service Order, and there are costs > involved. > > Nothing for free. Verizon ran one to my house in WV just a few years ago. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 11:28 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > What does a phone line cost btw ? > > When I got rid of them they were about $48/mo each. That's very expensive. Does that include any calls ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 11:30
krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from a > > > >population center to get decent DSL. > > > > > > I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. > > > You people are starting to get really annoying. > > > > DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! > > Only if you're within 17K' of the CO. I make that just a fraction over 3 miles. It works over longer distances overr here, albeit not flat out. Graham |