Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 23:56 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for > >>>>>>health care. > >>>>> > >>>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? > >>>> > >>>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs > >>> > >>>They don't. > >>> > >>>>when cheaper > >>>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? > >>> > >>>These days anybody with any kind of insurance have to use generic. > >>> > >>>>It artificially inflates costs. That's not allowed in the NHS. > >>> > >>>Who is supposed to pay for the drug research? > >> > >>Mostly US citizens, of course. > > > > Only the USA buys drugs ? > > > > You're as mad as the proverbial hatter. > > What's wrong with you? USA folks pay top dollar for the > same medicines other people get for less. So ? Why ? Are you unaware that there are drug companies that *aren't* American ? They survive too you know ! > We've been > discussing that to death in this thread. Our dollars > pay for the research. Simple nonsense. > That's a part of the IP that is > exported without appropriate compensation. Places like > Canada and UK are getting a free ride on our backs and > complaining all the way. So how do UK drug companies make a profit then ? > But then you're just a camel jockey, what would you know. And you're an ignorant jerk. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Nov 2006 23:58 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore distorts as only a Muslim can: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? > >>>> > >>>>Yes. I don't remember all the details. > >>> > >>>It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is that > >>>Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. > >> > >>Now I know for sure you're a displaced camel jockey. > > > > > > And I know for sure that you haven't the tiniest clue about history. > > > > " The 1973 oil crisis first began on October 17, 1973 when the Organization of > > Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), consisting of the Arab members of > > OPEC plus Egypt and Syria, announced as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War, > > that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in > > its conflict with Syria and Egypt. This included the United States and its allies > > in Western Europe. " > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Oil_Embargo > > > > It's no secret what happened. > > It must be pathological stupidity with you. > > "The war began on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur with a surprise joint > attack by Egypt and Syria crossing the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and > Golan Heights, respectively" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War > > So the arabs start another war, they lose, *again*, then > in a fit of pique punish the US, and here some 30+ years > later you're supporting the Arab posture? > > Pathological all right. You're a camel jockey all right! Did I say anywhere that it was 'fair' or 'equitable' ? I'm simply pointing out the factual reasons for the 1973 oil embargo. Do you want to rewrite history ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 00:10 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > > > What's wrong with you? USA folks pay top dollar for the > > same medicines other people get for less. We've been > > discussing that to death in this thread. Our dollars > > pay for the research. That's a part of the IP that is > > exported without appropriate compensation. Places like > > Canada and UK are getting a free ride on our backs and > > complaining all the way. > > You think Canada and the UK don't pay for pharmaceutical research? You > really do need to learn whereof you speak, on about 5 different levels. The really funny thing about this is that the UK is actually very strong in Pharmaceuticals. Our pharmaceutical companies do just fine without a near monopoly situation instituted by Government. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 00:16 unsettled wrote: > Your opinion is worthless. Yeah.... right..... Ok !
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Nov 2006 06:35
In article <41eb1$454b8449$4fe77ae$1511(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <29d9e$454a2b92$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >>>In the US we have what can only be described as an overkill >>>in residential electrical services. The minimum permitted >>>these days is 100 Amps @ 240 volts. In fact, people are >>>being forced to upgrade to that minimum by their homeowners >>>insurance. >> >> >> Where is this requirement? > > >The National Electric Code (NEC). It is published by >the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Local >authorities codify it. Chicago publishes its own stricter >version, but generally speaking the NEC is universally >adapted nation wide and is the reference work used by >casualty insurance companies. > >Don't look for this to be universally required of >small apartments. > >Google NEC. OK. Thanks. I could swear, but wouldn't bet one of my pennies, that the power company upgraded mine to 30 amps 10 years ago. But I must be confused. /BAH |