Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 20:02 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:OdCdnbgLN9iEW9HYRVnyvg(a)pipex.net... > NHS work is not "volunteer" work. Just out of curiosity...what would a typical non-specialist MD expect to earn from the NHS? Doctors here used to be paid almost as well as lawyers (top 1 percentile of the population), but they've dropped somewhat, and they're not all that far beyond a well-experienced engineer, now. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 4 Nov 2006 20:04 On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:50:15 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:454CE150.15BE0556(a)hotmail.com... >> 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? --- What would be better is if you could draw a Venn diagram of what you consider the situation to be and post it to abse. Can you do that? -- JF
From: John Fields on 4 Nov 2006 20:11 On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:56:03 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > Shouldn't all physicians be able to justify the medicine they prescribe? --- "Justify the medicine they prescribe"? That makes no sense. What does make sense is holding a physician accountable for his prescription. -- JF
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 20:16 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162660222.725072.227310(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Is see others, Barack Oboma for example, doing better there. Too little experience, in my opinion. However, if he doesn't turn out to be a complete idiot, and continues to build his collaboration skills, I think 2112 or 2116 will be ripe for his picking. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 4 Nov 2006 20:18
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:SJqdneZANLpQVNHYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > >> It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus >> relatives of in-laws who needed the service. > > How many did you listen to? How many relatives? What percentage of the > total did this reflect? How did you ensure your sample was representative > and not just people with complaints? > >> The only ones >> who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those >> husbands who were very, very sick. > > How can you make a claim like this? Did you speak to _every_ one? > > You were the first to complain about the data sample methods and > conclusions in the Lancet report, yet here you seem to be more than happy > to weigh personal anecdote over data. Oh, but she's much better at it, don't you understand, because she is unburdened by any knowledge of the theory of statistics, sampling, experimental design, etc., etc. Eric Lucas |