From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b5f933c$0$4977$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:36:45 -0800, dene wrote:
>
> > It's interesting that those who support the single pay system do not
> > live in the countries which have it. The Canadian who still lives in
> > Canada, Alan Baker, is not enthusiastic about it. Perhaps this is
> > why.
>
> The Canadian system is not without its problems. However, it is still
> vastly better than the US system.

America disagrees.

-Greg


From: William Clark on
In article <7sbdv4F9egU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:ib1vl51u8hmf6i81s1sckv6ju4mnvgh9kh(a)4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:13:23 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Another nice thing about the Canadian system is that if Family doc
> > >decides you need to see a specialist, you have to get the referral
> > >from family doc. You don't get to choose to see a specialist if you
> > >want, only if family doc says it's OK, and then only a specialist of
> > >family docs choosing!
> >
> > Hey, that's what *my* insurance company does!
>
> That's the plan you chose, Howard. You can always change to a plan that
> doesn't have this requirement. In Canada, you do not have this option.
>
> -Greg

Indeed, Howard, your option is to pay higher insurance premiums. The
Canadians don't have that one, either.
From: William Clark on
In article
<9997bb8b-6499-482d-9e17-c3be2bbe16b7(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 9:32´┐Żam, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > No, because this is not an issue about "bets". It seems to me that you
> > are trying this as a crude attempt to frighten off any scrutiny of your
> > bogus claim to have a) attended any materials science meetings, and b)
> > to have " at least one material sciences publication in a well respected
> > symposium". I simply don't believe you, and in the world of academia
> > such differences of opinion are discussed in the open, with no talk of
> > "bets".
> >
> > So, are you going to abide by the standards of academia that you claim
> > to uphold so strongly? My guess is you won't.
>
> Reality is in no way subservient to what you choose to believe. There
> is no opinion at issue here, only a point of fact. Either I have or
> have not published in the area of materials science, and the fact is
> or isn't independent of what you think.

Obviously, then, you have NOT published in the field of materials
science, nor have you attended any materials science conferences or
symposia, and all this is simply hot air and bluster. Now we all know.
>
> I, of course, and as any rational person would expect, could care less
> what you think on the point of fact.

No, but I care that you make sweeping critical generalizations about a
field, and then have to cover your tracks by creating some fiction to
try to make it look as if you know what you are talking about. So,
either provide the information, or else admit that everything you
claimed was pure fantasy.
From: William Clark on
In article <7sbds3F8vqU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:

> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message
> news:9997bb8b-6499-482d-9e17-c3be2bbe16b7(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 9:32 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > No, because this is not an issue about "bets". It seems to me that you
> > are trying this as a crude attempt to frighten off any scrutiny of your
> > bogus claim to have a) attended any materials science meetings, and b)
> > to have " at least one material sciences publication in a well respected
> > symposium". I simply don't believe you, and in the world of academia
> > such differences of opinion are discussed in the open, with no talk of
> > "bets".
> >
> > So, are you going to abide by the standards of academia that you claim
> > to uphold so strongly? My guess is you won't.
>
> Reality is in no way subservient to what you choose to believe. There
> is no opinion at issue here, only a point of fact. Either I have or
> have not published in the area of materials science, and the fact is
> or isn't independent of what you think.
>
> I, of course, and as any rational person would expect, could care less
> what you think on the point of fact.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To hell with the $5 Rob. Just cite your facts so it will shut Billy
> up...for about 10 mins.
>
> -Greg

For once I absolutely agree with you!
From: dene on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-7E40D7.14134427012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <7sbdv4F9egU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>
> > "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> > news:ib1vl51u8hmf6i81s1sckv6ju4mnvgh9kh(a)4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:13:23 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> > > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Another nice thing about the Canadian system is that if Family doc
> > > >decides you need to see a specialist, you have to get the referral
> > > >from family doc. You don't get to choose to see a specialist if you
> > > >want, only if family doc says it's OK, and then only a specialist of
> > > >family docs choosing!
> > >
> > > Hey, that's what *my* insurance company does!
> >
> > That's the plan you chose, Howard. You can always change to a plan that
> > doesn't have this requirement. In Canada, you do not have this option.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Indeed, Howard, your option is to pay higher insurance premiums. The
> Canadians don't have that one, either.

Uh Billy. Stick to what you know. Howard is on medicare. The flexible
plans to do cost anymore than the HMO plan he describes.

-Greg