From: Mxsmanic on 29 Jul 2006 15:44
Miguel Cruz writes:
> Because the bodies of more frail people cannot so easily handle extremes
> of heat and cold (and shock and pressure and a great many other things).
Are you sure?
> How about pneumonia and flu?
What about them?
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Carole Allen on 29 Jul 2006 20:20
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:12:24 +0100, The Reid
>did you understand the words "in part"? Reducing pollution will
>put a brake on growth, (it wont come free) I know the US right
>thinks it will find magical technical solutions that will make
>everything OK without curtailing use of finite rescources and
>polluting uses, but thats, let us say, optimistic and
>significantly, not available now. <snipped>
Actually, apparently alot of policy-makers in the US right feel the
Apocalypse is near (and seem to be looking forward to it with relish),
and aren't planning ahead with future generations in mind at all......
From: mrtravel on 29 Jul 2006 22:42
> mrtravel writes:
>>But they still have seasons, despite the water going down the drain with
>> the spin in the opposite direction.
> The hemisphere has no effect on the direction in which water spins
> when going down the drain.
I guess this guy was wrong, huh..
See the part after "Is it possible to detect the Earths rotation in a
What follows is an example of the same test I did it high school.
I wasn't referring to the common toilet/sink draining rhetoric
(note, this is in the section of the webpage that is BEFORE the examples
of the "incompetence" section")
>>So, if you think that deaths due to weather happen more due to weather
>>in the summer. Does it matter if the location is in the northern or
> What matters is heat.
Exacty my point. The previous poster (you?) referred to the season at
which most deaths occur in the Northenn Hemisphere. My point was that it
would seem that the deaths in the South would follow the same seasonal
From: Tchiowa on 29 Jul 2006 22:50
Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> >> Bollocks. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they
> >> would be instances of socialism.
> >And you were under the impression that armies are a "business"????
> You missed my point, even though it wasn't particularly subtle. I am
> not surprised. I'll spell it out for you: there is more to healthcare
> than being a business opportunity; it's a public policy issue, a
> social provision matter. Like roads, police services, things like that.
Nonsense. You could define just about *anything* as a social policy
issue. Want to go back to the "food" discussion?
Attempting to nationalize a business like health care will cause it to
fail eventually. Always. No exception. History has proven that.
> >> That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere
> >> near supporting your claim.
> >It *exactly* supports my claim.
> Wrong. Assertion does not make it right.
And you closing your eyes and holding your ears and pretending that the
world isn't really there doesn't negate the assertion nor the facts.
> >> A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing.
> >"State ownership" doesn't mean anything??? It's what causes the system
> >to fail.
> It's trivial argument.
Again, it's the core of the argument because it defines why your
solution always fails.
> >> But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it
> >> mildly) unsatisfactory.
> >Particularly since it proved you wrong. You obviously find that quite
> Go away and play with little people who might be impressed with
> slogans and assertions as forms of argument.
In other words you don't have a response. You remind me of a sign I saw
in Berkeley right after the collapse of the Soviet Union where some
drugged out hippie called on the press to "quit telling lies about
Communism". Your undying support of a failed ideology is touching. Not
particularly bright but definitely touching.
From: Tchiowa on 29 Jul 2006 22:53
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
> >means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
> >centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
> not the UK then.
> >"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"
> if you think these definitions are correct I don't see why you
> think they apply to me or the UK?
NHS is government control of the "means of producing and distributing"
health care. Thus it is Socialized Medicine. Even the government in the
UK that is doing the administering freely acknowledges that.
And we've already seen the results. People leaving the UK for medical
care because the waits are too long, the number of doctors and dentists
falling, all the earmarks of a system beginning to fail.