Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek1ggp$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <dda7f$4563154a$4fe70e2$8284(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <681b1$45630847$4fe7571$7927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > <snip - cleanup> > >>>>>Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and >>>>>react to the seasons. >>>> >>>>Most of the European and Brit construction I've seen >>>>involves masonry. They have no appreciation for the >>>>wood frame construction that makes up the bulk of >>>>US housing, let alone advantages and disadvantages. >>> >>> >>> But that doesn't explain it. They have to repoint masonry >>> in order to keep up maintenance. Their cracks are bigger >>> than mine ever will be. >> >> >>They don't have nearly the extent and depth of freezing >>in the UK that we experience. > > Point! I forgot about the freezing bit. I thought it > got cold in the UK. Ireland was very cold and damp. No, it never drops below 27 degrees centigrade over here. We never see snow.
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:03 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ejr08j$fgo$3(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <8aCdnbqWfskwvMfYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>> I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do >>> the usual cleaning. >> >>Blimey. I am going to cut this out and give it to my wife. > > Let me know if you live through the experience. I was too frightened to do it in the end.... :-)
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejus5u$8ss_006(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ejsl9k$9gs$12(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ejs81b$8qk_001(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ejr4o4$k7c$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <ejhpc1$8qk_001(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <ejckm3$mf9$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >>>>>>>to have insurance is the latest idiocy. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the >>>>>>dead >>>>>>bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need >>>>>>to >>>>>>make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >>>>>>fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. >>>>> >>>>>The same problems will still exist. >>>> >>>>No, the irresponsible people will not longer be a burden. >>>> >>>> >>>>> So everybody has a piece >>>>>of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any >>>>>infrastructure needed to deliver the services. >>>> >>>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather >>>>than >>>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >>> >>>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >>>circumstances. Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >>>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >>>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. >>> >> >>My employer offers both -- an insurance plan with low premiums and very >>high >>deductibles and copays (and so for extraordinary circumstances) and one >>with >>higher premiums and lower deductibles anc copays (and thus pays for more >>routine things). Choice is good. > > Choice is very good. An NHS will eliminate choice. How? > Watch the > politics and administrations of Massachusetts' latest brain > fart. We'll see what methods the politico social workers use > to force all of us to have insurance. Interesting concepts.
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejs81b$8qk_001(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ejr4o4$k7c$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>That is a problem with the current situation. You are arguing against >>changing the situation but have just provided a good reason why that >>system should indeed be changed. > > It will only get worse if the administration of the biz becomes > centralized in a national center. Why? This is not neccessarily the case and is often very much _not_ the case. > I am arguing that the > administration needs to go the other way. Well, you are making assertions which is slightly different.
From: T Wake on 22 Nov 2006 13:12
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejuunq$8qk_003(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4562FA90.C7C6C18F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> So everybody has a piece >>> >>>>of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any >>> >>>>infrastructure needed to deliver the services. >>> >>> >>> >>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather > than >>> >>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >>> >> >>> >>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >>> >>circumstances. Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >>> >>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >>> >>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. >>> >> >>> > >>> >My employer offers both -- an insurance plan with low premiums and very > high >>> >deductibles and copays (and so for extraordinary circumstances) and one > with >>> >higher premiums and lower deductibles anc copays (and thus pays for >>> >more >>> >routine things). Choice is good. >>> >>> Choice is very good. An NHS will eliminate choice. Watch the >>> politics and administrations of Massachusetts' latest brain >>> fart. We'll see what methods the politico social workers use >>> to force all of us to have insurance. >> >>An NHS doesn't elimiate choice. Choice of what anyway ? > > Exactly. Choice is a foreign function in your society. Really? And how did you come to this conclusions? You have no answer to the questions "choice of what," so you resort to one of your almost boilerplate misconceived assumptions about some Bizzaro Europe. An NHS does not eliminate choice in healthcare. If anything it provides greater choice than a system based on the whims of profit hungry insurance agents or profit hungry doctors. So, let us dispel your illusions for you. What "choice" do you think the NHS eliminates? >>Ppl who want to be treated privately outside the NHS can choose to do so > whenever >>they feel the need and various types of health insurance policies are also >>available for those who want the pampering or convenience of 'going >>private'. >> >>There's far *more* choice than you guys get ! > > You, as a taxpayer, still has to pay the NHS premiums (however those > appear). You do not have the choice of not paying those premiums. Ok, so you say the NHS eliminates the choice to not pay tax. Is this, seriously, the best counter argument you have? There is no specific "premium" for the NHS. Even without the payments going towards the NHS, it is probable a sitting government wouldn't reduce the tax burden. The money goes to a central coffer and then is distributed as the government of the day sees fit. Does your system give people the choice of paying tax? Are you aware of how absurd an argument this is? |