From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.25cab02c4373f6e4989ac5(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-30E6AB.18082727012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> >
> > In article <hjq5vh$bn9$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
> > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:clark-E2C88C.14181927012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > 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!
> > >
> > > How much would it cost to put you on a permanent sabbatical from RSG?
> >
> > More than you can dream of.
>
> I'm sure we can pass the hat and come up with the enough to cover the
> salary of a glorified lab tech.

Oooooh, temper, temper, Bertie. Tired of getting slapped down every day,
are we?
From: William Clark on
In article <4b60cb00$0$12440$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>,
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-30E6AB.18082727012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <hjq5vh$bn9$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
> > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark-E2C88C.14181927012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> > 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!
> >>
> >> How much would it cost to put you on a permanent sabbatical from RSG?
> >
> > More than you can dream of.
>
> I win!
>
> I had a side bet that you would over estimate your own value.

Make me an offer.
From: William Clark on
In article <4b60cb63$0$12444$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>,
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-0CE54A.14174927012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article
> > <9997bb8b-6499-482d-9e17-c3be2bbe16b7(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Obviously? What scientific method did you use?

The method of "qui tacet consentire".
From: MNMikeW on

"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
news:4b60cb00$0$12440$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net...
>
> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-30E6AB.18082727012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article <hjq5vh$bn9$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
>> "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:clark-E2C88C.14181927012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>> > 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!
>>>
>>> How much would it cost to put you on a permanent sabbatical from RSG?
>>
>> More than you can dream of.
>
> I win!
>
> I had a side bet that you would over estimate your own value.
>
Williams sole purpose in life is to defend Usenet from Wingnuts. He'll never
go away. Kinda like a rust ring in a toilet.



From: dene on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-9908E8.09073328012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <7sbvvkFna7U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:wclark2-3A8318.18075427012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > So you agree with my point. If you want to be able to go directly to a
> > > specialist, you have to pay higher insurance premiums.
> >
> > Not at all. Fee for service plans (PFFS) and Preferred Providers Plans
> > (PPO) are often cheaper than the HMO medicare plan Howard describes.
> > Neither require a referral to a specialist. The same is often true in
the
> > individual and group market.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> And often they are not. And often they have all sorts of gaps in
> coverage and limits.

Name the gaps. Name the coverage limits. Medicare plans do not take away
anything from original medicare....they add to them.

Again....you speak of that which you know nothing about.

-Greg