Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 07:38 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455D4766.3B7C1EDF(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> > >> > T just means "type." >> >> I don't think so. The MG T clubs I found on the internet refer to them >> as >> "T-type" cars. Even if it does, what did they imply by dropping the T, >> post >> ca. 1960, for the A, B and F? > > I suspect it was seen as more 'modern' ! Which makes it really odd to have changed the F to TF in 2002. > Don't foget the MGC btw. I knew someone with one once. > http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgc.html > > MGB V-8s may be better thought of though. I had not been aware of the C. Thanks for the link. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 07:40 In article <455C7E09.38BF9A91(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >Yes, and insurance company guidelines say that they only have to substitute >> >an *identical* generic. If it's identical (i.e., same active ingredient), >> >then by definition, it works the same. When there is no identical generic, >> >then they are free to prescribe whatever they want. If they substituted a >> >generic that is not chemically identical, it was the choice of either the >> >doctor or the patient. >> >> Generic only covers the ingredients of the medicine. It does not >> cover the ingredientes of the packaging that medicine comes in. >> If a person has problems with the packaging, how do you get out >> of the "generic rule"? > >Are you *serious* ? Yes. > >Is a different colour box a problem ? Think about the ingredients in the container of each pill. Or think about the ingredients of the patch and glue that contains the drug. In this case, I want you to think inside the box, not outside. /BAH
From: lucasea on 17 Nov 2006 07:45 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:2brql25lboqdcoldch5j9lchfr4elt2o6q(a)4ax.com... > 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 * * * You need to learn how to read. I said the MG marque went under, not Austin-Healey or BL. They closed up shop in Abingdon in 1980. The Midget had stopped production in 1978, the Sprite in 1971. How, exactly, is the Spridget even remotely germane to a discussion of the fate of MG in 1980? Or did you just want to show off the new word you learned? Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 07:42 In article <ws57h.6462$IR4.530(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ejhsvk$8qk_004(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <7KWdnWcl3aqsvsfYnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ejcgcn$8ss_019(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <aHL5h.3548$Sw1.2914(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ej78f4$8qk_006(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <4555FCAF.C765CB5E(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>What good are the other rights if you're dead? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Reread the sentence. They are only talking about insurance >>>>>>>> >> being a right, not getting medical care. There is a difference. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Well, the difference would be kinda moot to the millions of >>>>>>>> >Americans >>>>>>>> >who >>>>>> do >>>>>>>> >not have insurance and cannot afford medical care, now wouldn't it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now think about why they can't afford it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Their wages are too low maybe ? They can't get a better paying job. >>>>>>>Other >>>>>>>expenses come first out of necessity ? These would be typical reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Unfortunately, people's mindset is that they should get stuff >>>>>> for free or pay very little. When a generic doesn't work as well >>>>>> as the namebrand, people decide to stay with the generic because >>>>>> they don't have to pay as much for it. >>>>> >>>>>Only if they or their doctor is stupid. >>>> >>>> Things have changed so that the doctor doesn't have a choice. >>>> If a doctor no longer works for himself, he has to stay >>>> within coporate guidelines. >>> >>>So much better to have an NHS then, and get away from corporate rulings >>>decreeing medical care. >> >> At least they have documentable reasons for decisions. If the >> payment system is govnerment, then any old political whim >> will make ruling decrees that don't have to make sense to anybody >> if it is done to pay off a voting block. > > >I can just see it...lobbying groups like People Against Treatment of >Appendicitis will spring up all over the place. You are truly loony. This kind of thing is happening. Look at any stem cell research politics. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Nov 2006 07:47
In article <ejhtii$kd6$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ejf0n4$8ss_001(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eje1on$am6$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >[.....] >>>Who are the "these people" in the above. It is obvious it is not the >>>person I refered to. >> >>I was talking about the ones who work in stores in my area. > >Ok, so it is a different person. They guy I was refering to did >"security" work. He wore the nice uniform and walked around in the >parking lot. His whole purpose was to fool the neighborhood kids into >thinking we actually had security. > >He also kept track of how full the dumpsters were. They were "empty", >"full", "full full" or "full full full". Right. A person who thinks that way needs a 1::1 input::reaction type of training. A person who thinks like this cannot make shortcuts the way we do in assessing a situation and figuring out what needs to be done. If you give people who think like this work that has a simple "if x, then y" constraint, they will do that work very, very well. Anybody else will take shortcuts and do the work sloppily. > >[....] >>>You are talking of a different person than the one I was using in my >>>example. The one in my example would not have been likely to be able to >>>do anything like that. Some people with low IQs are gifted but not all of >>>them. >> >>The people who work in our grocery stores do not seem to be >>particularly gifted. But they do know about money. > >Those people are Einsteins compared to the sort I was refering. You underestimate them. These people buy things. They also are quite aware about x costing more than y. /BAH |