Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
#6372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
#6373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FCE91CC.BBF3A48E@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>> >
>> > So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>to
>> > opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
>> > come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
>couples."
>> >
>> > DS
>>
>> Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same----
>> relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
>> a certain relationship between opposite---- couples".
>>
>> In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
>> tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
>> murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
>> the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
>> not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
>> reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
>> has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".
>>
>
>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society.
So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to have
children? Or simply don't want children?
It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.
Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should reduce
disease transmission, etc.
>
>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way,
And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being equal.
>that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
#6374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <i0Mzb.3257$WT6.2551@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
#6375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <i0Mzb.3257$WT6.2551@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
#6376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <i0Mzb.3257$WT6.2551@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
>news:FQrzb.40111$vn.96228@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter
>and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.
>
As I asked, you'd ban marriage then between people who can't or don't want to
have children?
Further, gays can adopt children.
>
>> VLJ
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
#6377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnSJyI7icDVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
#6378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnSJyI7icDVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
#6379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnSJyI7icDVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>>
>>
>> It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
>I can answer that right now. I don't. It even says "Scientist" in my job
>title. Woohoo for me.
>
Yeah, and University of Georgia's Home Ec dept is now "Domestic Science."
>:-)
>
#6380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV1yI7gtDFKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>