Can you make it to the market on a bike?

Andrew Muzi wrote:
However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" wrote
Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons
ago when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it
is now,

Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote
My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
health care in the U.S.

Edward Dolan wrote:
Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US.
The present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single
payer system (the government). Such a health care system will be like
the public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common
sense. It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on
the rich and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on
luxuries. A total no-brainer!

You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion

My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than
my discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a employer
provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
Canada.

More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
Great system, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article .com,
writes:

But the innocent bystanders already know what nemauZ
is all about. People in general aren't stupid.

So they should know what you two are all about, and it isn't
pretty.

BTW, I still haven't seen your apology for your false statement
alleging that I "futzed" with headers. If I were into conspiracy
theories, I might suggest that you made it up so you could break
any link to what you were replying to (otherwise people could
easily find the original post).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Aug 4, 3:21 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I agree that he rarely gets anyone agreeing with him, so perhaps
you're right. But I do wonder about novice lurkers.

I don't see a ground swell of support for what you post - my guess
is that people are just staying out the discussion because your
behavior is so well known.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Google "Hubbert's Peak.

Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage.

Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming"

Whatever.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi wrote:
donquijote1954 who? wrote:
...
OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Google "Hubbert's Peak.

Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage.

Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming"

Whatever.

Hubbert's prediction of when US domestic oil production would peak
proved to be correct.

Unless one believes that oil is made from some process in the center of
the earth that does not rely on ancient plant matter (for which no
evidence exists), oil will become more and more scarce. Certainly the
extraction costs are much higher than in the past and keep rising.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
GHAWAR IS DYING!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.


Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.

Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?


Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.

Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

btw I don't own any boats.

When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring
or something?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.

Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.

Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

btw I don't own any boats.

When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring
or something?

Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?",
implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat.

One wonders if Zaumen really was referring to Martin Dann's "thick
skull", which is the bone structure surrounding the brain. A grammatical
error, perhaps?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.

Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron,
according to the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so
I can post.

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.

Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply
to the rest of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be
defined as one of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not
changing every time you try and define it here.

btw The United Kingdom (including England) is not in
California.

btw I don't own any boats.

When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red herring
or something?

Sorry you mentioned them first, I don't know why as they
don't normally travel on roads. (Or do they have a special
road lane in California).

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

The term "normal speed of traffic" appears in the California
Vehicle Code. It means precisely what it says (and the term
"traffic" refers to everything moving on the road - cars,
bicycles, horses, what-have-you). As I told you repeatedly,
"normal" modifies "speed", not "traffic". Can you get that through
your thick scull?

Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.
Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

btw I don't own any boats.
When did boats enter the discussion? Trying to throw in a red
herring
or something?

Hint: Zaumen wrote "Can you get that through your thick scull?",
implying that Martin Dann owner a scull, which is a type of boat.

Oh, you found another typo that my spelling corrector wouldn't find.
Good boy. We'll give you a lollipop.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Look, I really don't have the time to deal with some moron who can't
understand the English language, nor with some character who
misunderstands on purpose.

Sorry I must apologise for being a moron that does not even understand
my own first language.
Since you've apologized, you can continue by refraining to post until
you are no longer a moron. :-)

Just checked the dictionary definition of the word moron, according to
the IQ definition I am actually 3 morons, so I can post.

Alas, the IQ's of morons are not additive.
Normal modifies speed, but once certain vehicles are deemed to be
slower, normal then defines normal traffic, and abnormal traffic.
Wrong. The term "normal speed" refers to basically the average speed
(the term is a bit vague but probably means the median or mode rather
than the mean). It is basically how fast one has to go without holding
up other traffic (cars, bikes, scooters, etc.). It does not make
slow vehicles "abnormal".

This is still a Californian Legal term, it does not apply to the rest
of the world.
As a legal term, is should not be vague, it should be defined as one
of mode, median, mean, average, etc., not changing every time you try
and define it here.

Bring it up with the state legislature. That's who wrote it. If you
get a ticket for crawling along in the left lane, however, feel free
to use that argument of yours in court and see how far it gets you.
I'm sure the judge will not be amused, other than by the expression
on your face when he tells you the fine.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB