From: Padraig Breathnach on 31 Jul 2006 06:38 carolea7(a)comcast.net (Carole Allen) wrote: >On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:10:42 +0100, Padraig Breathnach ><padraigb(a)MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote: >>They have credentials in their specialism. >> >>Besides, the better practitioners constantly check on things, and >>update their knowledge and skills. >> > >Actually, in order to maintain their right to practice their >professions they are required to complete a mimimum number of >professional education credits within a specific timeframe. That varies from profession to profession, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. -- PB The return address has been MUNGED My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
From: Padraig Breathnach on 31 Jul 2006 06:40 Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Padraig Breathnach writes: > >> They have credentials in their specialism. > >Which means what, exactly? > Are you trying to teach me to think? I know what it means; you know what it means; anybody else following this discussion probably knows what it means> >> Besides, the better practitioners constantly check on things, and >> update their knowledge and skills. > >So do I. > In what field or fields? -- PB The return address has been MUNGED My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
From: The Reid on 31 Jul 2006 06:55 Following up to Padraig Breathnach >>Actually, in order to maintain their right to practice their >>professions they are required to complete a mimimum number of >>professional education credits within a specific timeframe. > >That varies from profession to profession, and from jurisdiction to >jurisdiction. it applies to my wife's profession to an extent, for what its worth. they call it continuous professional development. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: Tchiowa on 31 Jul 2006 19:59 The Reid wrote: > Following up to Tchiowa > > <unfounded assertions snipped>. > > interestingly, we had a couple of Texans over for diner last > night, its quite interesting to hear reality about the US health > system, its high costs, the people who fall through the ever > widening cracks (quote), the lack of cover for long term existing > conditions etc ..........and the two or at best three weeks > vacation they had in the States. Too bad you didn't get a dose of reality. The US health care system is expensive but people are *not* falling through the cracks. Then notion that there is no long term cover for existing conditions is nonsense. My sister has been getting treatment for MS for around 3 decades. Everyone I know gets at least 4 weeks vacation per year. Interesting about the vacation thing. As I have posted before, new employees get 1 week vacation the first year and 2 weeks vacation per year for the next few years. In almost all companies it's 3-4 weeks after 5 years. The fact that your "friends" only get 2-3 weeks vacation "at best" indicates that they don't stay at a job very long which would also indicate why they have problems with insurance coverage and why they think things are expensive (people who stays at jobs long term tend to make more money and get better benefits). So you seem to have accidentally pointed out why their opinions are somewhat skewed by their own behavior. > On global warming denial they just shook their heads, obviously > opinions like "tchiowas" are common enough over there. Again, I can back up my statements about gloval warming and you had to back off yours, claiming you had been "misunderstood".
From: Tchiowa on 31 Jul 2006 20:05
The Reid wrote: > Following up to Tchiowa > > >> Mike was implying precisely nothing of the sort, and you know it. > > > >No, > > You do know it, or should. No, youre words were quite clear. > >his phrasing was quite specific. > > LOL I suppose you think to "beat" someone in a race you have to > attack them? Did I say "attack" somewhere? I've looked and looked and I don't see it. If you "beat" someone in a race or other competition you have to outperform them. Your performance is better relative to theirs. But that's not the case with Socialism. It didn't fail because some other economic system outperformed it. It did not fail because its performance was bad compared to Capitalism. It failed because of internal flaws that will force it to fail in all circumstances, whether there is a better system or not. That's what you don't want to accept. > The reason I'm not bothering with you anymore is that you style of argument is absurd. Or is it because you keep getting caught saying the wrong things and have to back off? |