Please stop your crossposting.

"Dan Gates" <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote in message
news:s_udnbF7nuGzGFKiRVn-vg@magma.ca...
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > In article <auadnZZDP9zV8lKiRVn-iQ@magma.ca>,
> > Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> >>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
> >
> >
> > Medicaid.
> >
> >
> >>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
> >>
> >>Lets compare, shall we?
> >> Can. US
> >>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> >
> >
> > Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> > in 2001.
> >
> >
> >>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> >
> >
> > 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
> >
> >
> >>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
> >
> >
> > 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
> >
> >
> >>I could go on, but I won't.
> >
> >
> > If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
> >
> >
>
>
> You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
> making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
> that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
> came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
> documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
> keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>

 

Please stop your crossposting.

"Dan Gates" <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote in message
news:s_udnbF7nuGzGFKiRVn-vg@magma.ca...
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > In article <auadnZZDP9zV8lKiRVn-iQ@magma.ca>,
> > Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> >>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
> >
> >
> > Medicaid.
> >
> >
> >>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
> >>
> >>Lets compare, shall we?
> >> Can. US
> >>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> >
> >
> > Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
> > in 2001.
> >
> >
> >>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> >
> >
> > 3.9 and 3.6 respectively.
> >
> >
> >>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
> >
> >
> > 4.0 and 3.7 respectively
> >
> >
> >>I could go on, but I won't.
> >
> >
> > If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.
> >
> >
>
>
> You are correct about the changes that you made to my numbers. I wasn't
> making them up though. I was looking at an "Appendix 2" of a document
> that had the numbers in it that I quoted. I can't figure out how they
> came up with the first numbers I used. When looking up some further
> documentation I did discover that "Appendix 1" had numbers more in
> keeping with your corrections. My numbers are for '98, '99 though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>

 

"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. 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.

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, 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! =-----

 

"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. 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.

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, 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! =-----

 

"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. 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.

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, 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! =-----

 

Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "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. 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.
>
> 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, 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! =-----
>
>

 

Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "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. 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.
>
> 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, 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! =-----
>
>

 

Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "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. 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.
>
> 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, 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! =-----
>
>

 

"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.


> VLJ
> --
>
>

 

"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.


> VLJ
> --
>
>