Re: Herd instincts?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:06:45 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx
wrote:

On Nov 23, 2:23 pm, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:10:58 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx
wrote:

My nieces and nephews (there are eight of them) should keep my genes
in circulation for a while yet,

---
Not unless there's some hanky-panky you haven't told us about, they
won't!
---

Wrong again. I've got two brothers, and all three of us have got a
(different) random mix of our parents genes, so we have about half our
genes in common. My nieces and nephews have each got half of that, so
they've got a quarter of my genes - eight of them mean that there are
twice as many of my genes out there than my original allocation.

---
Not _your_ genes, which have never been passed on, somebody else's
from whom you got a set.
---

This
is worked out again and again in every article on the evolution of
altruistic behaviour, though it turns out to be less important there
than was originally thought - doing good things for other members of
your tribe turns out to generate enough of a survival advantage to
positively selected.

---
But doing good things for your tribe isn't exactly the same as
generating progeny, is it?
---

<snip>

Pointing it out isn't America bashing, but perpetually harping on it
as being due to stupid leadership and an abysmally ignorant
population, as you are wont to do, is.

I'm pointing it out to an abysmally ignorant and decidedly vocal
minority on this user-group who do seem to be rather slow to get the
message.

---
The message???

LOL, all that's about is you shouting at the top of your lungs, over
and over and over again: "I'M GREAT AND YOU"RE ***!!!"

Moreover, you're not pointing anything out, all you're trying to do
is berate your critics, whom you like to picture as few in number
and abysmally ignorant in order to not have to consider their
critiques valid.
---

This would be more correctly described as idiot-bashing, but
since you choose to line up with the idiots, this view of the
situation isn't one that you be likely to appreciate.

---
Funny, I consider idiot-bashing to be bashing done by an idiot, (as
in: "Do you see that idiot bashing the President?") and I'm
certainly not in line with you and the rest of your cohorts.
---


Besides, it's our problem, so what do you care other than to have
something you can bitch about?

I dislike seeing errors of fact propagated into an archived record.

---
As long as they're not yours, huh?
---

If
someone goes to the trouble of pointing out that they are errors, the
gullible have at least been warned.

---
And if they're not errors, but you wish they were because they're
damaging to your self-image, then you'll denounce them as errors and
the gullible will think you made no mistake.
---

---
I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm merely pointing out that you're
an unmitigated *** when it comes to relating to people whom you
consider to be your inferiors because they disagree with you.

Telling people that they are wrong does upset them. If you try to be
diplomatic enough not to offend them, the idea that they are being
told that they are wrong doesn't actually penetrate.

---
Obviously.
---

It's much easier to write me off as an irritating person than it is to
confront the source of the irritation.

---
The source of the irritation is the reaction to your perpetual
insistence that you're always right about everything and all of the
rest of us are always wrong unless we buy your belief set.
---

As far as constructive solutions goes, I don't know about Jim's case
in Arizona, but here in Texas we have the Seton Healthcare Network:

http://www.seton.net/

where no one is turned away because of inability to pay.

But it looks as if they will charge you if you have any capacity to
pay,

---
Yes, of course, idiot. While it's private and not-for-profit, there
_are_ expenses.
---

and the level of care offered to the indigent is unlikely to be
impressive.

---
Jesus, what an *** you are. You can't even bear to admit that
there are good people in the world.
---

We had a similar system in Australia in the 1960's, and I
knew a woman who worked on the Melbourne poverty survey at the time.
Unexpected health costs were the most frequent cause of families
falling into poverty.

---
What "similar system"? Seton is private and not-for-profit.
---

Matter of fact, last year we contributed $237 million to care for
the poor and for community benefit.

I say 'we' because I volunteer there, so part of that $237 million
is time out of my life that I gave away to help someone less
fortunate.

Somewhat different from your fantasy job hunts or sitting on your
ass typing out rancor for everyone and everything to which you don't
grant your imprimatur while waiting for the government checks to
come rolling in, yes?
---

You may feel good about it, but it is a drop in the bucket compared
with the total costs of health care.

---
You're a hateful son of a bitch, you know that?

You're trying to trivialize the importance of the contribution by
comparing apples and oranges and yet you have the unmitigated gall
to state that you don't want lies written into the archive?

You're one sick puppy, Sloman.
---

In Europe health care is paid for
out of tax or by compulsory health insurance (which comes to the same
thing). The bureacracy involved isn't cheap, but it is lot cheaper
than the baroque bureaucracies than run your health system, which is
one of the reasons you waste 14% of GDP on a health system that
doesn't deliver the level of health care we get in Europe for around
8% of GDP.

---
If it's badly broke enough we'll fix it when we get around to it.
Or not. As for your system, if it works I'm happy for ya.

Your United States of Europe seems to be doing OK, too, so I guess
you have to grudgingly admit that you learned _something_ from us.
:-)


--
JF
.

Quantcast