Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 11:28 On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:26:34 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: > Industries that use >computers for things that could kill you usually have standards that rule >out Windows. You're an idiot.
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 11:25 In article <4569A930.C59A51E2(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: >> > >> >> Are you assuming that the only way people can get "good medical >> >> treatment" is through a government-controlled entity? >> > >> >Absolutely not, yet the evidence is that the current US system 'encourages' >> >inefficiency and overcharging so it's become too costly for many to get the >> >health care they deserve. >> >> Who decides who deserves what? The patient? The politican >> who is buying votes? The bureaucrat who you just pissed off? > >In the NHS the doctor(s) determines your treatment. After, and only after, permission is granted by the government. Those doctors have a list of things they can't do....that's what you've told me. > > >> And yet, you are talking about health care. The politicians >> in this don't talk about that; they talk about insurance >> as something everybody deserves. > >Is it actually real insurance or notional insurance ? It is what our politicians mean when they advocate national health _insurance_ which also means a single-payer system. /BAH
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 11:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <sjejm2p8s46sf4nj6e287dni4pu8ga71ir(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 26 Nov 06 13:39:04 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <45699180.78427DD2(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>>>>of tobacco illegal. >>>> >>>>No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's becoming >>>>illegal. >>> >>>In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The >>>commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it >>>will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. >>> >>>Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in >>>your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your >>>personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts >>>and mine cannot be? >> >>--- >>If I may chime in for a second... >> >>Good catch! >> >>It's because Graham isn't in it for the discussion and the exchange >>of information, he's in it for the win and in order to gain an >>unfair advantage he tries to stack the deck. > > > Oh, but graham isn't the only one using this tactic. It caught > on when they could see that it was a way to prove they > were right and I was wrong. Several strained versions of Brad Guth.
From: JoeBloe on 26 Nov 2006 11:33 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:37:08 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:l08gm2he8d16ve3dlfkuoiblcbngogeeb7(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >> (Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >>>In article <HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years >>>>bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name >>>>supports >>>>terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to obey >>>>it. >>>> >>>>Well, is that the case? >>> >>>A fairly good argument could be made if you assume: >>> >>>"shock and aw" == terrorism >>>war == violence >>>war == "nonpolitical methods" >>> >>>You should have picked a better example. >> >> The word is AWE, you dipshit. >> >> You should have picked an example that you at least know the >> spelling of. > >That's never stopped you. > >Eric Lucas > You're an idiot.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 11:35
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:53:45 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >> I have a cap on my usenet. > > >Not set low enough..... --- Funny! :-) -- JF |