You rest your ass. Of all the people that provide cites on the net..you fall at the bottom. of cites provided. In fact, you provide so few as to be remarkable when you do. Other than that..you only offer up adhom, buffoonery and bullshit. As I said..you rest your ass. Particularly when time after time you snip away MY cites in an attempt to censor the fact I bang your head like a screen door in a hurricane.
Frankly Whiney....its you that are so much fun to bash around. But then, I always did have a cruel and mean side....but you are so easy.
How many murders did you leftists commit in the last century?
C'mon Hawke, that's not *WHY* Gunner is a dick. It's just one small data-point as evidence for his overall Dickery. Gather up a few hundred of such data points and it clearly elevates Gunner to some kind of Mondo SuperDickery.
Damn glad you pulled through. Hoping for a speedy recovery.
Yes, same wishes from here. He's a grumpy old bastard,who's politics are a bit to the right of Ghengis Khan,but "rec.crafts.metalworking" would be a lot more boring and a lot less informative in the metalworking subjects if he wasn't here. May you have a swift recovery to your usual curmudgeonly status.
"Damn glad you pulled through. Hoping for a speedy recovery.
Yes, same wishes from here. He's a grumpy old bastard,who's politics are a bit to the right of Ghengis Khan,but "rec.crafts.metalworking" would be a lot more boring and a lot less informative in the metalworking subjects if he wasn't here. May you have a swift recovery to your usual curmudgeonly status."
Second all that and most of the positive comments in this thread. Hang in there Gunner.
I take offense at that statement. In my experience, nothing Runner has ever written has even come close to the minimum requirement to be considered an insult.
Go for it. One will still pay over $600 for it (although in your isolated case, you personally might be an exception)...
The alternative to nationalizing medicine in some fashion is leaving it as it is. Did you have another idea? Deregulating has worked so well in all its other attempts...
If you say so.
BTW, the AMA is not a governmental agency.
If you say so.
What about monopolies?
That is true. It is also independent of the nationalization of health care issue.
Why do you think that?
All I can argue against (or for) WRT your posts are the words contained within your posts (and what my feeble memory tells me you've said before, if I even read it).
If you believe "...nationalized health care guarantees mediocre care at inflated prices..." then I'll leave you with that belief. If you believe private medicine gives "...wildly inflated costs and fair care.." I will leave you with that belief. Though the term "fair" is ambiguous, either of the two probable meanings leaves me an unbeliever.
It appears that his karma has indeed returned to him. All the negativity and nastiness that he's been putting out for so long seems to have come back to him, and now he's paying for it. You know what they say, right? What goes around comes around. He's flat on his back and probably not feeling too good. He's not making a dime now and who knows how long it'll be until he's flat broke. So, I'd say he's getting his payback right now. It's a bitch too. But I am not surprised that the guy has had a big one at what, 55 years old. That indicates he's either very unlucky or he has not taken good care of himself. I saw some pictures of him the other day he posted of himself shooting in some match. He looked to be a rather chunky guy, which surprised me because he said he was a rangy 6'3" and 215lbs. That isn't what he looked like in the photos. So it looks like he was once again telling stories rather different from the truth. The guy is a sad case. Like I've said before, I'd feel sorry for him except that he acts like such a mean son of a bitch. Maybe this brush with the reaper will make him change his ways but my experience with right wingers is that they go the grave the same way they were when they were 18 years old. I don't really expect anything different from him. It'll be just more of the same. But then that's a winger for you. Once a winger...
I think Curly misread his book. Or he read a piece of propaganda.
It's true that most basic drug research is done in university research centers and with federal money. But it is NOT true that they develop "drugs."
What they develop is chemicals that show some promise, given further development and extensive testing. That's when Big Pharma buys in, and spends a gazillion bucks developing the chemical into something that doesn't kill an unacceptable portion of the people taking it.
The last drug I worked with had over $300 million of Sanofi-Aventis's money into it, and it still didn't get approved by the FDA. It may never be approved. Meantime, S-A is out $300 million. It was based on a drug discovered through university research with rats. Good for rats, not so good for people.
Think outside the binary choices you are being offered, there are a myriad of choices. Personally the idea of coercion, no matter how beneficial, is sufficient to stoke my resistance.
I'm aware of that.
Monopolies are invariably bad.
Not when national health care mandates extreme health treatment at end of life, irreversible brain death, or terminal/fatal disease. Wasting limited funds taken by coercion, impoverishing the nation, for 6 months of misery isn't going to obtain my support.
Well, you are considerably more tolerant than I, who consider gunners constant disparaging of anyone with a different opinion, especially some ladies in this newsgroup, to be insulting. Threats of violence, murder, mayhem, and death wishes are insulting to intelligent beings even if they are nothing more than meager farts in the wind.
Why would you take offense? I seem to remember you being the target of some of his ample bile.
I have a half-assed theory about smoking cessation. I offer no cites or even argument of validity, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It's just an opinion for what it's worth. Here goes: Evidence seems to suggest that nicotine is mostly flushed after 3 days or so -- unless one slows that with patches, gum or whatever. However, a strong urge to smoke sure as hell isn't gone after three days, doubt if you'd argue with that. There is certainly an issue of chemical addiction, but looks to me like that's by no means the whole story.
I therefore submit that successful cessation is a matter of will. How one invests it depends on one's individual capacity and nature -- either lots of it for a shorter time or less of it with crutches for a correspondingly longer time, but a certain minimum total investment of determination and will is required regardless of which path is chosen. By "crutches" I mean things like Chantrix, patches, sucking on straws,eating carrots, etc etc. I'm not knocking them at all, whatever works --- but I do think their use draws things out and in some cases may actually reduce probability of success. Their success rates seem to bear this out. Those that succeed do so because they damn well decide that they are going to succeed with failure not an option.
My cardiologist, who has seen a LOT of people go thru this, strongly agreed. While still in hospital I told him I'd rejected strong encouragement to use Chantrix because I didn't like what I'd read about side effects and would not start it unless he advised me to do so. He said he agreed, said "you don't need that."
He was right.
My wife asked him later if he could sorta tell who might make it and who might not. He looked sorta bashful and said, "well....yeah."
Meanwhile, my neighbor did 8 weeks with Chantrix. I think he was more miserable than I for considerably longer.
Neither of these generalities has been my experience. There are a few curmedgeons, skeptics and cynics but most of those I've known were open-minded and highly ethical. I've known a number of them, having worked in a world-class research lab the latter 25 years of my career. These people did not need to compromise integrity to find funding and they were strongly disinclined to do so. Management might push for that but top scientists are quite able to resist such pressure.
Curmudgeonly means crusty and short-tempered. Skeptical means inclined toward doubt until something is proven. Neither one relates in any way toward open- or closed-mindedness, ethical or unethical, Don. It just means they don't suffer fools well and they don't believe something just because someone tells them it's true.
I agree, and I've known several of them personally. The type Larry is talking about sounds like the bottom layer, not top scientists.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.