On Tue, 02 Dec 03 13:44:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>Right. Peer reviewed grants are adjudicated and funded by established
>>scientists in a field, not on the basis of scientific validity or
>>track record, but on the basis of how much hysteria is in the grant
>>proposal.
>
>A total, flat-out lie.

Lloyd, you incredible imbicile, your reading comprehension still
sucks.
Get a clue.
Look up 'sarcasm'.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:40:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>
>>No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>
> This is priceless.


Indeed. Especially since Lloyd is defining himself as a creationist. He
rejects facts that don't fit his dogma (see the Suzuki/CR thread),
therefore he's a creationist!

As you said, priceless.

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:40:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>
>>No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>
> This is priceless.


Indeed. Especially since Lloyd is defining himself as a creationist. He
rejects facts that don't fit his dogma (see the Suzuki/CR thread),
therefore he's a creationist!

As you said, priceless.

 

Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:40:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>
>>No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>
>
> This is priceless.


Indeed. Especially since Lloyd is defining himself as a creationist. He
rejects facts that don't fit his dogma (see the Suzuki/CR thread),
therefore he's a creationist!

As you said, priceless.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
> when
> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
> goes
> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
> afford
> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> >> > government.
> >> >>
> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped
> the
> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
> with
> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait
> in
> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >>
> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
> >
> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
> (unnamed)
> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
> shoot
> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> >
> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon as
> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
> required to do that for free, for example.

You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
confiscation.

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! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
> when
> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
> goes
> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
> afford
> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> >> > government.
> >> >>
> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped
> the
> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
> with
> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait
> in
> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >>
> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
> >
> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
> (unnamed)
> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
> shoot
> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> >
> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon as
> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
> required to do that for free, for example.

You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
confiscation.

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! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation" wherein
> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
> when
> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
> goes
> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
> afford
> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is forced
> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh one
> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out their
> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
> >> >> > government.
> >> >>
> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped
> the
> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
> with
> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait
> in
> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
> >>
> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich, you
> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
> >
> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
> (unnamed)
> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
> shoot
> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
> >
> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon as
> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
> required to do that for free, for example.

You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
confiscation.

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! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...

Huh!?

> , what genders
> can marry,

Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning. But of course you want
to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
much sense.

> what a woman can do with her body, etc.

When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
to pay for later.

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! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...

Huh!?

> , what genders
> can marry,

Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning. But of course you want
to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
much sense.

> what a woman can do with her body, etc.

When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
to pay for later.

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! =-----

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have...

Huh!?

> , what genders
> can marry,

Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning. But of course you want
to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
much sense.

> what a woman can do with her body, etc.

When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
to pay for later.

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! =-----