Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 11:13 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > JoeBloe wrote: > >> 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. > > > > They just stopped making them. > > > > > >> The word for today is : > >> > >> * * * S P R I D G E T * * * > > > > Eh ? > > > > Actually I was talking about MG and they didn't go down until a couple of > > years ago. > > > > http://www.mg-rover.com/static/index.html > > They closed up shop in Abingon, sold off all the tools to aftermarket > manufacturers, and didn't resurface until the F was introduced in 1995. For > all intents and purposes, the marque went under. Not BL, but the MG > "division" (if it was called such). Actually, I don't think the > reincarnation is dead--I've seen reference to re-re-introducing the F in > 2007. We'll see. Well..... only dead in the sense that there no more cars unique to MG. Whilst it wasn't perhaps to the purists' liking the name lived on in the MG Metro and Turbo ( fun to drive ) and the MG Maestro when even the ever cticial Car magazine said some nice things about ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 11:15 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general public > >rather bizarre. > > How would a person find out about drugs? Why would they need to ? I certainly don't. > The naming is bad > enough. Trying to find out all the side effects, efficacies, > etc. is very diffitult to do. The existence of the net is helping. The doctors look after these things. Every drug contains a patient information leaflet anyway. Graham
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 11:14 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <455DAC0B.109C43C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>> "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. >>>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>That's your presumption. >>>> >>>>You probably have a point in that vested interests won't want to give up >>>>their profits easily. Whilst that attitude is tolerated, little progress > > is > >>>indeed >>> >>>>likely to be made. >>>> >>>>Which is why an 'American NHS' would need stong leadership to push it >>> >>>through. >>> >>>You still do not understand how the US works. Would it be >>>possible to push your UK approach through the EU and have >>>all members accept it? >> >>It's hardly needed since the member countries have decent arrangements of > > their > >>own already. > > > You are not answering the question. > > >>I recognise it may not be easy to deak with the issue in >>the USA but that's not a >>reason to not even try. > > > People are trying. A single payer isn't working. > > >>The best place to start is by examining the idea >>seriously ! > > > People have. A national single payer won't work. Not one of them will answer the simple question I asked about a facility like the Mayo Clinic which would have no place in their scheme of things. In fact, how about a list of any facilities similar to the Mayo in the UK.
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 11:20 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >British Telecom reckon 99.4% of the UK population now has access to ADSL. > >Many larger towns also have cable broadband. > > You are a smaller area and have a denser population. You have finally found an example where the size of the USA really *does* make a difference. > Is it allowed for each town to own their local network gear and service? The 'backbone' of UK telecoms is BT ( formerly Post Office Telephones ) which owns much of the infrastructure. Other companies are allowed to run their own telecoms services over BT wires and recently they have been allowed access to BT's exchanges to install their own equipment there. Many areas had their own cable ( and telephone ) companies too but these have all now finally merged into NTL/Telewest. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 11:34
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>[ regarding buying a house on minimum wage ] > >> >>And if you don't have a large extended family ( most ppl don't ) what > >> >>then ? > >> > > >> > There are many ways to accomplish things. It does require setting > >> > a prioity list. If you want to buy a house, you don't spend money > >> > on buying pu-pu platters every night. > >> > >> It begins with simple things, like buying and learning > >> to use 24 cent stamps. > > > >Both of you seem to think one can affiord a house by saving *pennies*. > > That's how it's done. From personal experience I can tell you it's done by saving *pounds*, more like tens of pounds. Being careful with the pennies is a given but the pennies alone won't make it. > >Do get real. Your answers are quite pathetic and reminiscent > >of the worst excesses of the Thatcher era here. > > Heaven forbid that people take responsibility for themselves > and what they do. You've missed the point entirely. I notice that you like to paint ppl with a very broad brush as if to denigrate all those whom you 'disapprove' as if they were all identical spendthrifts. Graham Graham |