Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:49 John Fields wrote: > maybe it's even illegal ;) for one to speak to royalty unless one is spoken > to > first. LMAO ! Off with his head. Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:53 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:55:10 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck > <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > >In article <ekc3qu$8ss_007(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> There is something more important here. He cannot conceive > >> of a medical distriubtion system that isn't completely > >> controlled by the national government. This means that > >> he doesn't require chocies and is willing to allow a few > >> politicians make all this decisions for him. This means > >> that when his politicians do screw him, he has no means > >> to save himself. > > > >Our Health Service is NOT completely controlled by Govt. Funded by not > >equal to controlled by. Are contractors controlled by their funders? > > --- > 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? You're spot on. Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 14:54 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3237a$4569e7ea$4fe775f$22927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <OX9ah.15796$9v5.2965(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>He is a gutless hypocrite. >> >> >> Even if he was a one legged gutless hypocrite, don't you think it would >> be >> far better to try to convince him of a better philosophy than to complain >> about him not already accepting it? > > There are a few virtual mouths incapable of rational > discourse in this thread. Blimey, unsettled has decided to go for the adult line of argument at last. Well done. > He'll never be able to ditch the vitriol long enough to > have a meaningful dialog with anyone on any subject. Please feel free to pick the subject. As long as you resist calling me names everytime you run out of anything else to say the debate can remain reasonable. As you appear to have researched my posting history you will know that, generally, I have tried to remain polite until I get fed up with the counter abuse. > The > same is true of T. Wake and Puddledick. Please, so I not deserve a corruption of my posting name to serve as a childish insult as well? I am hurt. > One has only to > look at their discussions outside this thread to see > what their native standards for participation are. Go for it. Why don't you join in any of the other debates? Do you think Frazir really is an eight foot tall Red Indian-Russian Billionaire? Can Jeff Relf actually code in C? Is Porat correct and the photon has mass? Has Hammond discovered the SPOG? Is the second law of thermodynamics wrong? Going back in time, does x*x = x? Better still, we could always look at unsettled's posting history and as an example, see how he started off on this thread... By the way, what other nyms have you used on sci.physics? > I like to think they're arguing from weak points and > have nothing better to offer. You might like to think that, but it isn't true. What do you think is a "weak point" I (or anyone else) is arguing from? > They haven't made any > effort to make anyone think otherwise. Oh well. > Then there's that something about leopard and spots. Yes.
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 14:57 In article <7M2dnXAEfrx6bfTYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > The > > same is true of T. Wake and Puddledick. > > Please, so I not deserve a corruption of my posting name to serve as a > childish insult as well? I am hurt. I spurned him T, hence the vitriol. Its really actually quite funny to see people corrupt it like that and then expect it to hurt me. Why do they think I chose such an obvious and corruptable pseudonym? Its a great way to sort out the wheat from the chaff. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 14:57
In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>certifications for a piece of gear? >> >> >> I like radio just fine. >> >> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >> government preemptive control. > >How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >standing next to a state line with the transmitter? Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |