Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 17 Nov 2006 01:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > In article <455A1B5B.2D136E5(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> > >> What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that > >> the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for > >> some time now that if you can't afford the medicines > >> you need you should contact them because they have > >> programs to assist those living in poverty needing > >> their products. > > > > > > Have you ever tried to qualify someone for free drugs? Every one > >I've tried to help was denied. > > Were there different reasons or did they tend to be the same reason? > If the same, can you say what it was? > > /BAH The only feedback I got was that they were denied. My part of the outreach program was as an unpaid IT department, but in these cases I tracked down the websites and printed out all the forms and instructions. I had more medical problems before they were rejected, and someone else took over trying to help them. I am still trying to get my blood sugar back where it belongs, but in a month's time it shot up from normal, to 495. I haven't been able to go back and work since then. :( -- 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: JoeBloe on 17 Nov 2006 02:56 On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:43:42 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:n1hol2h34lg57imeobnd9btu9e4dmabv9f(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27:00 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> >> Gave us: >> >>>On 11/15/06 7:28 PM, in article >>>limnl2114gmfvlaar0okbtbic645gcbuoc(a)4ax.com, >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:28:04 +0000, Eeyore >>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 ! >>>>> >>>>> Graham >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>> ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. >>>> That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his >>>> area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service >>>> line will do DSL. >>> >>>Wrong. >>> >>>An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data >>>Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require ISDN. >> >> What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there >> is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not >> capable of providing ADSL service. > >As always, you are wrong but continue to insist you are correct. > So, it is your contention that ADSL works on non-digitally switched hardware?
From: JoeBloe on 17 Nov 2006 03:10 On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:54:47 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> > As I recall, the pollution controls began being enforced about 1970. By >> > the end of the decade the air was much cleaner. >> >> And not coincidentally, since US sales accounted for the majority of MG >> sales, they went under essentially at the end of the decade of the 70s. > >Eh ? > Austin-Healey, right? No, they didn't go under. The word for today is : * * * S P R I D G E T * * *
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Nov 2006 03:32 On Thu, 16 Nov 06 14:30:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <iocnl293km621af8f379hohrquv2ktr25v(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:11:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>wrote: >> >>>Jonathan Kirwan angrily proclaims: >>> >>>snip >>> >>>> The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may >>>> be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that >>>> didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing >>>> systems in place and operating already, today. >>> >>>> Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to >>>> anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. >>> >>>Fact remains we'll never achieve zero defects. >>> >>>As I said before, I empathize. The reality is terrible >>>things can happen to any of us. In your case it was >>>a close call, too close for comfort. There was, fortunately, >>>enough of a failsafe system in place to overcome stupidity, >>>which has no cure. >>> >>>Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether >>>or not the woman denying service to your brother should >>>have been in that position. Their Marxist socialist >>>humanism would have given her the opportunity to hold >>>down that job and given her raises because human beings >>>should be paid "a living wage." >>> >>>The reasons we'll never achieve zero defects regardless >>>of whatever system is in place are obvious. You're not >>>going to be able to replace the people who run >>>services with anything that functions better. So long >>>as you depend on people, mistakes will be made. >>> >>>See also Murphy's Law. >> >>But you are simply talking about a strawman argument that no one is >>talking about. You've moved from a real case that should not take >>place to a discussion about zero defects in an entire medical care >>system. No one said we need to achieve zero defects overall. >> >>However, this defect should not happen because it is so easily avoided >>and actually is, elsewhere. >> >>Some things you cannot do anything about. This one can be fixed. > >You haven't analyzied this situation properly. Take a good look >at why that computer terminal is there and has to have each >emergency patient's data entered and study all the signatures >or OKs required to pass that physical point in each hospital. > >It has to do with information flow and capture. With out that >data entry, no medical usage can be recorded. I've no idea what you are getting at, though. I can guess a bit, but I'd rather not. Spell it out for me, if you would. Meantime, I'm staying with my point until you do a better job of explaining yourself. By the way, I just spoke with a friend of mine for about an hour tonight about US medical and dental care systems. He is a practicing doctor. He and I seem to agree both generally and in specific, so I'm thinking I understand myself and am able to communicate with at least one other doctor about this without difficulty in understanding. So perhaps our difficulty is more about you either not trying hard enough to understand what I wrote about or you not trying hard enough to say what you mean. Be more pointed, if you would. Jon
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 04:11
Don Bowey trolled : > On 11/16/06 7:14 PM, in article 9dd25$455d2923$4fe45a8$30159(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>Don Bowey trolled: >> >> >>>On 11/16/06 4:49 PM, in article 92d32$455d0709$4fe421c$29331(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Don Bowey trolled: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 11/16/06 1:30 PM, in article 455CD891.1B57E916(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >>>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If 20-year old males can figure out how to pay a $2K >>>>>>>>bill for car insurance, they can figure out how to get >>>>>>>>medical coverage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Gender card aside, normally these 20 year old males are living with their >>>>>>>parents. >>>>>> >>>>>>BAH presumes these minimum wage kids have cars too ? >>>>>> >>>>>>She will do*anything* to evade the issue whilst trying to make out that >>>>>>other >>>>>>ppl are simply being irresponsible and therefore 'deserve' their lack of >>>>>>access >>>>>>to medical treatemnt. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's remarkably unChristian for one thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Now, now.....Remember - there are many more religious beliefs than >>>>>Christian. You surprised me with that one. >>>> >>>>Once you lot get started there's nothing that will stop >>>>your feeding frenzy. >>>> >>>>Buncha creeps. >>> >>> >>>Oops! Before I realized it, I had a brief, maybe un-Christian, thought >>>about you, creep. >> >>What's this, a childish "No, you are..."? >> >> >>>You are a bit unsettled aren't you? >> >>Don't come off as being even more stupid than you've >>already proved yourself. >> >>The question was, "What name do you wish to use when >>posting to usenet?" Answer, "unsettled." >> >>BAH was right, you fools can't even flame worth a damn. >> >> >> >> > > > Really? I walked away with your goat. Hardly, but thanks, that's an admission you're trolling. BAH was right, you fools can't even flame worth a damn. |