From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 18:56 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:454CE150.15BE0556(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Arab = Muslim >>>> >>>>Mainly. >>>> >>>>And Muslim does not mean Arab. >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>>I said that. You snipped it. Islam is >>>a superset of Arab. >> >>Semantics. > > > Personally I would have said it is more than semantics. Not all Arabs are > Islamic. Not all Moslems are Arabs. Assuming the two are identical is > incorrect. > > Wouldn't it be better to describe Islam as a subset? No.
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 18:57 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454CAD3B.FF177A12(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> But then they tout their "free" national health care. Heck, >> they're too poor after paying all their taxes to be able >> to afford much of anything, > > LOL. UK incomes aren't that much less than US. > > >> and in the end they're paying >> more for health care than we do, > > Let's see some numbers then ! I'm all for seeing a fair comparison ! Don't hold your breath. Data preclude the emotional rhetoric that his type use to avoid actually discussing data. >> but it isn't visible to >> them because the money trail is through government. > > ?76.4 bn according to recent figures. That's ?1273 per head of population. > > What are your numbers ? > > Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for $2418 > regardless of age or medical history ? Of course not. However, since his/her employer pays his/hers, all he knows is it's free and if we were to nationalize, it would cost him/her a paltry extra 4 % of his/her income. Such simple-minded thinking, along with the attitude "I've got mine, go find your own somewhere else" is what keeps us from adopting a realistic system of health care...that and the drug and insurance lobbies, that plant such misanthropic thinking in peoples' heads and panders to their basest selfish emotions. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 19:04 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:1eebb$454ca48a$4fe7327$8293(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>If socialism were equitable, we'd have it in the US. > > > Nice circular reasoning. > You'd do well to read and try to understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question >>The entire point of socialism is the involuntary >>redistribution of wealth. > And it's closed-minded "I've got mine, you can't have any" attitudes like > that that explain our lack of an effective national health care, not any > lack of equitability. Funny, you don't complain about the description, only the consequences. >>If your NHS were equitable the poor would receive services >>corresponding to their contribution, as would the wealthy. > The poor don't get their right to free speech according to their wealth, why > should they get their right to good health according to their wealth? Because talk is cheap, healthcare isn't. > Do > you actually understand the concept that diseases that breed in the poor > don't care who they infect, and often cause pandemics that cost society lots > of money to cure? Wouldn't it make more sense to stop them before they get > to that point? Infectious diseases form a small part of the cost of medical care these days. >>If your NHS were equitable there would be no physicians >>in private practice. > Evidence, please. > > Eric Lucas Explains itself to sane & sensible people. Now I admit that might qualify as circular reasoning if it weren't so obviously true as to actually not be argued.
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:05 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454CAFB9.3433D447(a)hotmail.com... > >> I never was able to find buttermilk in any shop or >> "supermarket." > > Probably because there's little demand for it. It's one of those regional cuisine things. > I've not even sure what it is ! It used to be the name for the whey that is left over when you make butter. Now it refers to milk that is cultured with some sort of bacteria (acidophilus?) that makes it slightly acidic and slightly thicker than regular milk. It's kind of like kefir, if you're familiar with it. > What do you use it for ? It's often used to give a slightly sour taste to baked goods, and the acid reacts with baking soda to leaven non-yeast based ("quick") breads. Boston brown bread comes to mind, because I make a big batch of it for the holidays ever year. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 19:10
"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb6811853307b0989a87(a)news.individual.net... > In article <zRz2h.4036$B31.709(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:iualk291t97f8404q1sh653htevg49g4s6(a)4ax.com... >> > On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: >> > >> >>He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old >> >>one... >> > >> > Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. >> >> Where did you get *that* silly idea??? You might just want to go back to >> insults--at least you understand those. >> > Actually, he's right (patents do need to be renewed) but this fact > is irrelevant to the discussion. Once a patent reaches an age of 17 years (in the US; 20 in the rest of the world), it expires. Period. Nothing you do can extend that. Are you talking about renewing your maintenance fees? That is not renewing the patent, and as you say, irrelevant. The sense in which he was talking about "renewing" sounded like a conflation with the system of copyrights and trademarks, which are indeed indefinitely renewable. Eric Lucas |