On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of
> respect?
Yes.
Martin
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Doug Pensinger wrote (in html, and it's a hell to reformat):
>
>> I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism,
>> once when a private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded
>> to the list, and ISTR Nick and I talking completely at
>> cross-purposes. I was really annoyed on F
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
>Another good reason for heath status insurance
John, you realize what you are arguing, don't you. If
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime
number.
It's really easy to find one...
...but then you go looking for another...
Charlie.
But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru
_
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
> insurance market to function rationally.
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> > conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> > condition.
>
> That is not how health status insu
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias.
Dave
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
obviously rude remarks.
T
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance.
Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other
people's money for their own insurance.
___
http:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks.
No, considering pre-existing co
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Land wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>
>> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
>
> You call it interference, I call it participation.
I'd agree with forced participation.
Here's an example of government force
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>
>> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
>> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
>> who cannot afford to pay health insurance prem
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
>
>
>
>>Another good reaso
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> > companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> > but not based in reality: insurance allways
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
> >
> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
> >> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsid
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
>> Crystall wrote:
>>
>> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status
>> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of healt
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
>> Crystall wrote:
>> > On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
>
Hello all --
I didn't mean to drop out of this, ummm, 'discussion', but I lost the email
I intended to respond to over the w/e. What can I say? I turned 61 and had
to put a 9 year old cat down due to cancer -- not a good day until Charlie
reminded me 61 is a prime number! Cheered me right up.
John Williams wrote:
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
obv
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> >> Crystall wrote:
> >>
> >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health stat
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
> a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
> but one could hardly call that communication.
Of course it does not prove anything, but it is highly suggestive.
While you no doubt have
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions
> is dependent on pre-existing conditions!
I have not seen any evidence that suggests this. There are a large
number of conditions that can result in a large increase in
On 8/17/2009 8:04:00 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>
> > That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
> > a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
> > but one could hardly call that communication.
>
> Of co
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> Your statement reads quite humorously.
That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the
doubt...
___
http://mccmedia.
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger
> wrote:
>
> > Your statement reads quite humorously.
>
> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
> rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the be
> Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick?
I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceeberger
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Your statement reads quite humorously.
>>
>> That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobby wrote:
>
> > Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just
> > dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities
> > do--completely informally.
>
> Not trolling. Possibly dense. There is that refe
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
> > explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do,
> indeed.
> > We don't like straw men or t
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
> explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
> We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two
> rather opposite e
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> >>Actually, a health insurance market without government interference
> >>would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which
> >>is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a
> >
> > Howso?
>
> Competitio
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in
freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose
-- that is my starting point. You appear to bel
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>
>> > We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
>> > explicit and implicit standards of behavio
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two
r
>Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread
that??
I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-)
Dan M.
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceeberger
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:3
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>
>>> We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
>>> explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do,
>>> indeed.
>>> W
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:08:44 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
>I was just asking questions.
Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N
John Williams wrote:
...
We don't like straw men or trolls
...
There's that "we" several more times. How many people subscribe to this
email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say "we"? How
did you determine that these people have that view?
You're not going to claim that all
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N times.
N=1, David just answered the question, mostly. "we" apparently refers
to an unnamed group of about 50 people.
___
http:/
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> I note you snipped the etiquette guidelines. : )
I did snip it. I did read it.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
- Original Message -
From: "John Williams"
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>>
>> On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Will
> We know each other and know each
> other's positions.
What about those of us who try not to have positions?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
> No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past booted
> people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one person in
> particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it behooves
> everyone to be "generally" inoffensive. A few people have b
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote:
> But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you pegged
> as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are.
> No, when I say "we" in this context, I
- Original Message -
From: "John Williams"
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
>> We are friends who have been with
John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob wrote:
>
>> But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
>> pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
>
> My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are.
>
>> No,
On 8/17/2009 11:03:58 PM, Trent Shipley (tship...@deru.com) wrote:
> > No, when I say "we" in this context, I mean that "we" have in the past
> booted people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one
> person in particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it
> be
On 8/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrob
> wrote:
>
> > But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
> pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
>
>
> My apo
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2009 11:09:15 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jo Anne wrote:
>>
>> > And there I rest my case on the tone thing.
>>
>> I wrote that as clearly and as sincerely as I could. I assure
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:15 PM, xponentrob wrote:
> No one particular cares how many lurkers there are.
I care, that is why I asked.
> It is pretty much the same as using "we" when speaking for Americans even
> though Americans are very diverse there is still considerable commonality.
Usually
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Williams wrote:
> It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
> to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
> during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
> have been asking some uncomf
Trent Shipley wrote:
> We know each other and know each
> > other's positions.
>
> What about those of us who try not to have positions?
Don't worry Trent, you are as ambiguous as ever. 8^)
Doug
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmed
Rob said:
A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees
and one was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it
comes to pulling the pin.
I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we".
Rich
___
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> On the Americans are stupid issue, I would agree somewhat, but I would use
> the terms ignorant and/or intellectualy lazy rather than stupid.
I would go with lazy more than ignorant, even though ignorant may be
technically accurate, I tend
Richard wrote:
>
>
> A few people have been removed, a couple of them long term listees and one
>> was a moderator here. We definitely are not queasy when it comes to pulling
>> the pin.
>>
>
> I'm definitely queasy about it, but I guess I'm not part of "we".
>
I'm queasy as well. To my knowled
56 matches
Mail list logo
