Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 13:23 In article <ek6qau$8ss_008(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ek55cd$nvu$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <542fc$45657734$4fe7682$23423(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[...] >>>Ken Smith stands in opposition to a lot of stuff >> >>I'm also for a lot of stuff too, but thank you. >> >>[....] >>>The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>>delved into why that is. >> >>Part of it is who the mothers are and how poor their health is. For some >>reason the US has a lot of things like "crack babies" pushing the number >>of deaths up. I suspect that if you could remove that bias the difference >>would be smaller. > >Is that where the difference is? The "crack baby" issue is not the whole story but it does bend the numbers against the US. There is a whole other debate about why the US has so many more of them than other countries. Still there is a remaining fraction to be explained, once you remove that difference. > I wonder if the number will diminish >since the Federal govnerment has put a limit on the number of babies >it will pay for. No, I doubt it. "Crack babies" are usually born to women who have resorted to prostitution to pay for their drugs. They don't use effective birth control and end up pregnant. Their thinking does not extend to the existance or lack of support for the baby. It only goes as far as the next fix. The easiest way to solve the problem would be to get them off the drugs before the baby. Though this is the easiest, it is far from easy. When taken in crack form, the drug enters and leaves the brain very quickly creating a huge contrast. This is makes a crack addiction happen quickly and very hard to kick. It would be unpopular in some areas but switching them over to power cocaine first may make it easier for them to break the adiction. Even after that, it seems that once the brain has been programmed for addiction, it doesn't change back. Any exposure after that and you are right back at the full addict. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 13:24 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:11:33 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >>>we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >>>the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >>>this further. So add a grain of salt. >> >>There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the meanings of >>the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. > > > --- > What's this, then? > > http://sp-usa.org/ It's called using others to do your research. Funny thing, just plugging "socialist party" into google brings up their site right at the top. Don'e expect the dumb donkey to acknowledge he was wrong.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:30 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:16:18 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <qggjm251t21je88peq28vq6hqifgqihejt(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> 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! :-) > >He knows I've plonked him, and still responds. Maroon > --- I see he just got in by proxy! ;) -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 13:31 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:17:09 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <qogjm2h2o3omue5is96u5d5ceut4bndgjc(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> By and large, yes. >> >> If I hire a contractor to put a new roof on my house I will expect >> him to put a new roof on my house. >> >> Similarly, I expect that your government, if it's funding the health >> service, expects certain norms of competence to be exhibited by the >> contractors (doctors) it hires. Also, I'm sure there are certain >> basic rules laid down by the government which the health service, >> itself, must follow, which _is_ control. Am I wrong? > >Isn't everyone then, by that standard. > --- I don't understand what you mean. -- JF
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 13:35
T Wake wrote: > True. I unfiltered unsettled because I noticed I was reading more and more > of his posts by way of other people's replies, so I wanted to see what the > crank was saying himself. > Unsurprisingly it is still gibberish. GIGO. Try giving us something to work with, for a change. |