Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:38 John Fields 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. > > -- > JF idiot
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:40 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:36:26 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >In Canada, the provinces are really about as independant as the states > >>>> >in the US. > >>>> > >>>> Isn't Canada also under the UK? > >>> > >>>Canada's an independent country now ! I has been for some time in fact. > >>> > >>>Graham > >> > >> Do you mean to tell me that the Queen's visage is no longer on their > >> coins?! Oh my! > > > >Yeah, so? George Washington is still on our quarter, but he hasn't been the > >actual leader of our country for over 200 years. > > > >Eric Lucas > > > It is utterly obvious that you completely missed the point. Is that so ? So what *was* the point ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 26 Nov 06 13:39:04 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. Do please tell how a 'tactic' can affect right and wrong ? Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 14:45 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:de612$4569e902$4fe775f$22927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > John Fields wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:42:11 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>You are as much of a crackpot as any of the others in sci.physics. > >> --- >> And I suppose any of the others in sci.physics could say the same >> about you... > > > Seems that Wake never posits any physics. He just argues. Obviously.
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:47
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >In the NHS the doctor(s) determines your treatment. > > After, and only after, permission is granted by the government. Absolutely not. > Those doctors have a list of things they can't do....that's > what you've told me. No I didn't. There are some very minor restrictions on costly medicines but that's no different to the case in the USA where drugs also have to be approved by your insurer. New treatments are constantly being being assessed by NICE - who issue guidelines but the local health authorities still have discretion as to funding courses of new and expensive treatment. > >> 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. So it may not actually be real insurance supplied by a commercial insurance company ? Graham |