XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, soc.men   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "Kali"  wrote in message   
   news:ft39g7$hjp$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   :   
   : "Kali"  wrote in message   
   : news:fsrca1$nao$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   : > In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   : > :   
   : > : "Kali"  wrote in message   
   : > : news:fsp06t$3e8$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   : > : > In , Frank dawgface@ten.hut said:   
   : > : > :   
   : > : > : "Kali"  wrote in message   
   : > : > : news:fsoo8l$ab7$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   : > : > : > In , nav navichuck@huckbuck.org said:   
   : > : > : > : Peter Hood wrote:   
   : > : > : > : > In message , nav   
   : > : >    
   : > : > : > writes   
   : > : > : > : >> Peter Hood wrote:   
   : > : > : > : >>> In message , Frank   
   : >    
   : > : > : > writes   
   : > : > : > : >>>> We will then see things like in the UK prostate   
   : > surgeries   
   : > : > are   
   : > : > : > almost   
   : > : > : > : >>>> non-existent one just has to deal with their cancer   
   : > with   
   : > : > "chin   
   : > : > : > up".   
   : > : > : > : >>>   Data please, Frank.   
   : > : > : > : >>   
   : > : > : > : >> Frank has no data.   
   : > : > : > : >> He's just *stoopid*.   
   : > : > : > : >   
   : > : > : > : > Argumentum ad hominem.   
   : > : > : > :   
   : > : > : > : The purpose of the characterization was to discredit the   
   : > person   
   : > : > : > offering   
   : > : > : > : the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to   
   : > discount   
   : > : > his   
   : > : > : > arguments.   
   : > : > : > :   
   : > : > : > : You asked for data, and Frank posted two newspaper   
   articles.   
   : > : > : > :   
   : > : > : > : Are you satisfied with the evidence he's presented?   
   : > : > : > :   
   : > : > : > : If not...  Frank is still *stoopid*.   
   : > : > : >   
   : > : > : > What he posted was akin to problems we have with our private   
   : > : > : > health care system - not all procedures are covered for   
   : > : > : > everyone. I note that the procedure Frank mentioned is   
   covered   
   : > : > : > by Medicare and most insurance companies here in the US.   
   : > : > : >   
   : > : > :   
   : > : > : Oh gee, we who care less cover it, others that care don't?   
   That   
   : > : > truely   
   : > : > : makes a lot of sense.   
   : > : >   
   : > : > I agree. But I didn't write that sentence, you did.   
   : > : >   
   : > :   
   : > : I wrote the "Oh gee" sentance, you wrote the paragraph above. Your   
   : > : premise was we didn't care, they did.   
   : >   
   : > You're projecting, Frank. I was just being objective in   
   : > reporting what I had read.   
   : >   
   : > : 10K missed surgerys does not sound   
   : > : like peanuts to me.   
   : >   
   : > But they did have surgery, Frank. Just not that one procedure.   
   : > You tried to paint a picture that they were being turned out   
   : > without care. That is not true.   
   : >   
   :   
   : Oh really? So you're stating that while they could have had a surgery   
   : that was a well known cure, that they did not get that one but some   
   : other surgery that would not resolve the problem?   
   :   
   : Most of them did have one sort or another of "care", probably most of   
   it   
   : was maintenance.   
      
   LOL. Don't admit you misspoke.   
      
      
   Amazing your short retention rate.   
      
   : > : > : > Of course Frank's disingenuous presentation of the problem -   
   : > : > : > suggesting that people were dying of prostate cancer and the   
   : > : > : > British govt health program didn't give a shit - well that   
   was   
   : > : > : > ridiculous. It was simply one procedure that wasn't covered.   
   : > : > : > Prostate cancer has been treated comprehensively by the   
   : > system,   
   : > : > : > whether this particular procedure was done or not.   
   : > : > : >   
   : > : > :   
   : > : > : Disingenuous? Passing judgment without knowledge? Yes.   
   : > : >   
   : > : > In your argument against universal health care in the United   
   : > : > States, you said:   
   : > : >   
   : > : > In message , Frank    
   : > : > writes:   
   : > : > : We will then see things like in the UK prostate surgeries   
   : > : > : are almost non-existent one just has to deal with their   
   : > : > : cancer with "chin up".   
   : > : >   
   : > : > Prostate surgeries in the UK are almost non-existent? Simply   
   : > : > because one shorter but more expensive procedure was disallowed?   
   : > : > The reading material you provided clearly stated that surgery   
   : > : > and oncology services were given.   
   : > : >   
   : > : > You also suggested that those with prostate cancer had to "chin   
   : > : > up" (and deal with it), as if there were no treatment offered at   
   : > : > all.   
   : > : >   
   : > : > And now, instead of being a man and admitting that you   
   : > : > misrepresented the situation, you're going to dig yourself   
   : > : > deeper into rhetorical drama:   
   : > : >   
   : > :   
   : > : LOL, personal attack noted yet again, woman.   
   : >   
   : > Are you in the habit of using the word "woman" in a demeaning   
   : > way, Frank? Do you think women are less intelligent than you   
   : > are? That they are not to be taken seriously in important   
   : > discussions? Are women better off barefoot and pregnant in your   
   : > kitchen?   
   : >   
   :   
   : LOL, another presumptive meant to degrade social statement on your   
   part?   
      
   You degrade yourself.   
      
   : You certainly have a lot of gall. You throw out your petty personal   
   : attacks but somehow don't see them as such then turn right around and   
   : start accusing others of same.   
      
   Where have I attacked you, personally? I don't have any dirt on   
   you, Frank. Not that I would use it the way you do.   
      
   : Do try and put aside your prejudices and or pent up rage for a moment   
   : and look at the two paragraphs above this. Your stated your sarcastic   
   : comment, "And now, instead of being a man and admitting" blah blah   
   blah.   
      
   That's an interesting comparison.   
      
   : So I used the term "woman" as a counter balance to your "man" but far   
   : less demeaning in intent then yours unless you have some sensitivities   
   : about being a woman. From there you continued on with your assumptions   
   : about me which are pretty humorous but I'm sure you didn't mean it   
   that   
   : way.   
   :   
   : At the risk of seeming presumptous you seem to have a lot of   
   sensitivity   
   : issues about being a woman, and fell like you are a "woman in a mans   
   : world".   
      
   What?   
      
   : Maybe you need some therapy?   
      
   For what?   
   ====================================   
   Seeing as you have no ability or lack of desire to see anything without   
   your blinders on this conversation is ended. I have no desire to   
   continue going round and round, play your silly games with someone else,   
   look for someone on your level, there are a gazillion out there.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)