| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:23:23 -0600, Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: (b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government. Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the commercials? If they say what the drug does, they have to list the possible side-effects in the commercial as well. Not a noticable thing until someone points it out, but obvious after that. Dave Hinz |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: Prometheus wrote: On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote: In article , "James T. Kirby" wrote: And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough. Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the treatment when they or a family member might need whatever treatment becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it. Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but [potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good. Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the drug is for. (a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the bucked for a company that size. Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...1-drug-ads.htm You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing. If the advertising is ineffective in increasing sales then you might have a point. If the increased income from sales is greater than the cost of the ads then the ads pay for themselves. So, playing Fun With Numbers, we find that Vioxx is an arthritis medication, which puts it in the Anti-inflammatory/analgesics category. Merck's sales in that segment were 2.6 billion dollars in 2003. The Vioxx ads cost 6 percent of that. If they increase sales by 6 percent in the first year in that segment then they've paid for themselves. If they increase it by a much smaller amount over the life of the product then they've paid for themselves. Merck did not become a forty billion dollar company with 22 billion dollars a year in annual sales and 63,200 employees by "frittering money away on short videos of people canoeing". You can be sure that that expenditure was carefully scrutinized by a number of levels of management before being authorized. Now, to put it in the perspective of research, Merck increased has increased their research budget about ten percent a year every year since 1994. Between 2002 and 2003 they increased that budget by more than twice the cost of those advertisements. The total research budget is about 20 times the cost of those advertisements. And the advertisements represent less than one percent of Merck's annual sales. Most companies of any size have their annual reports online. They usually contain this kind of information. (b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government. Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the commercials? Not if the government doesn't allow it. It's frustrating for the pharmaceutical companies and frustrating for the advertising agencies, but they do the best they can with what they've got. Until the government says precisely what conditions are "on label" and what side effects must be listed in the prescribing information they aren't allowed to say anything about what it treats in their advertising. So they either have to wait until the government gives them that information, in which case they don't get the ad campaign in gear until after the product has shipped, and they lose money in inventory costs, or they put out the kind of vague advertising that you have seen. Obviously they have determined that the vague advertising costs less than the inventory sitting on the shelves waiting for sales to pick up would cost, otherwise they wouldn't be spending money on it. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam Aut inveniam viam aut faciam -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
in my last post spell check changed the 5th type of abortion to
hysterectomy.. it should read hysterotomy |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jana writes-I don't think anyone will ever be able to pinpoint an exact
time when the human gets a soul. I think logic can narrow it down a bit by saying that it's when the brain develops. Any other part of the human body can be transplanted or amputated and the soul remains unchanged. I want to gently discuss the concept of a soul and expand on your logic a bit if you'll permit. The logical path you've taken is that the soul is contained in the brain. It may be.. but... is conscious thought the soul? Do people with brain damage have a damaged soul? If you subscribe to the belief that a soul even exists then chances are you also believe the soul isn't bound by the physical properties of this world. Brain wave activity can be monitored by various electrical impulses. When those impulses stop, as you yourself have said, the body can continue to function for a bit..... either artificially or simply just winding down. The thing is... brain death and actual death don't always coincide. You said the following,"If you have ever been present at the time of death when a person becomes brain dead, it's all too clear. The body can continue to function for a time or be assisted by life support, but when the brain's gone...it's all over..." If you've ever been in that situation.... if you were paying attention....you would have noticed a brief instance between brain death and actual death. That may be when the soul leaves the body. I do not believe we can begin to understand what is the soul or where it resides or even how it can reside and then leave to go..... where? The problem with applying logic to it is that it's illogical in the first place. I personally don't condemn stem cell research. I'm against using it to justify abortion. Currently, there are over 4,000 abortions performed in the US every day. That's way more research material than we need. There are a sufficient amount of sources for the material needed to conduct research, i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths and even the death of a pregnant woman. Don't see anyone saying a woman ought to include the donating of a fetus in the case of accidental death now do you? You see Jana, you stated earlier that nothing would change your opinion about your hopes for stem cell research and I wouldn't ask you to. What I would ask you to do is to not allow your hope to compromise your values. I do not know if you subscribe to a religious belief or not. I do. My belief includes that one day, by the grace of God and the hope of salvation in Jesus that we all have been given hope of perfect, flawless bodies. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd be happy to via email. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Cramer" wrote in various messages and demonstrated his lack of
understanding of human physiology with comments such as-- If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every orgasm. snip of bandwitdh hogging diatribe and graphic description of medical procedures, every last one of them legal and life-saving, on occasion Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my condolences on learning that you don't. Ditto on the sense of humor. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my
condolences on learning that you don't. Actually Scott you used sarcasm not irony. The fact that a male produces sperm even without an orgasm...... now that's irony. As far as a sense of humor.... well the simple are easily amused. I'm glad you are enjoying yourself. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:32:01 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an entire human being." Aut inveniam viam aut faciam How many cells does it take before you won't kill it? I don't intend to kill any of them. All I've ever said is that I don't believe any of us has the right to make that call for someone else. Somehow that makes me not only a murderer, but a slaver and supporter of Hilter as well, I guess- though I fail to see how. todd Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Damn, it wasn't supposed to be that offensive to everyone, I just thought I'd add a sig file like half the folks on here. Who cares if it's in Latin or English? A quick google search pulls up the definition right away. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Patrick Leach ) Subject: Unidentifyable Jointer Plane View: Complete Thread (3 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.woodworking Date: 1997/01/29 Scot Echols writes: snip of his joinah's description What you have is a plane by the Standard Rule Co. of Unionville, Connecticut. Standard Rule was in business during the 1880's, and later merged with the Upson Nut Company, which lasted into the 1890's until that company bailed, selling out to Stanley. The planes are certainly unique looking contraptions. They never sold all too well, and are quite collectible, depending upon their condition. Usually, the totes are long snapped off since they are so slender about their middle. The lugs under which the lever cap fits are sometimes found snapped off. The planes aren't made too well, especially when compared to the Stanley products of the same era. Like Stanley, Standard Rule made their planes in metallic and wood bottom models. They also made block planes, which along with the #2 size bench plane, are the the rarest products of the company. The #2 size plane is so crammed with all the adjusting gizmos that the front portion of the tote is often lopped off to accomodate adjusting of the iron's set. Standard Rule was one of the first to nickel plate the lever caps of their bench planes (metallic ones), long before Stanley ever did. When the planes are found in near new condition, they are quite striking with the contrast between the typical wild grained rosewood, nickel plating, and honking big brass screws. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Leach Just say Doing my best to avoid oldtools inbreeding. Regards, Tom. "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the bucked for a company that size. Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...1-drug-ads.htm You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing. If the advertising is ineffective in increasing sales then you might have a point. If the increased income from sales is greater than the cost of the ads then the ads pay for themselves. So, playing Fun With Numbers, we find that Vioxx is an arthritis medication, which puts it in the Anti-inflammatory/analgesics category. Merck's sales in that segment were 2.6 billion dollars in 2003. The Vioxx ads cost 6 percent of that. If they increase sales by 6 percent in the first year in that segment then they've paid for themselves. If they increase it by a much smaller amount over the life of the product then they've paid for themselves. Merck did not become a forty billion dollar company with 22 billion dollars a year in annual sales and 63,200 employees by "frittering money away on short videos of people canoeing". You can be sure that that expenditure was carefully scrutinized by a number of levels of management before being authorized. Now, to put it in the perspective of research, Merck increased has increased their research budget about ten percent a year every year since 1994. Between 2002 and 2003 they increased that budget by more than twice the cost of those advertisements. The total research budget is about 20 times the cost of those advertisements. And the advertisements represent less than one percent of Merck's annual sales. Most companies of any size have their annual reports online. They usually contain this kind of information. You got me there, and I'm not going to argue with it. Not enough sleep and too many cries of "murderer" directed at me got me good and worked up, and I started poking my ass out. I just get irritated with the huge number of commericals on every TV station, radio station, highway, bus-stop, taxicab and hundreds of other sources that surround us all the time. You can't get away from it, and it's gotten really offensive to me. No doubt the companies make money as a result of their ad campaigns- but they also make sickness, in my opinion. Some people must have these medicines, but their doctors should be the ones to prescribe them, not the television. (b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government. Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the commercials? Not if the government doesn't allow it. It's frustrating for the pharmaceutical companies and frustrating for the advertising agencies, but they do the best they can with what they've got. Until the government says precisely what conditions are "on label" and what side effects must be listed in the prescribing information they aren't allowed to say anything about what it treats in their advertising. So they either have to wait until the government gives them that information, in which case they don't get the ad campaign in gear until after the product has shipped, and they lose money in inventory costs, or they put out the kind of vague advertising that you have seen. Obviously they have determined that the vague advertising costs less than the inventory sitting on the shelves waiting for sales to pick up would cost, otherwise they wouldn't be spending money on it. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Prometheus" wrote in message Aut inveniam
viam aut faciam How many cells does it take before you won't kill it? I don't intend to kill any of them. All I've ever said is that I don't believe any of us has the right to make that call for someone else. Somehow that makes me not only a murderer, but a slaver and supporter of Hilter as well, I guess- though I fail to see how. Try to follow the point. How many cells does it take until you believe there is something worth protecting? When does an unborn get rights of its own, in your opinion? Only when it breathes air? todd Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Damn, it wasn't supposed to be that offensive to everyone, I just thought I'd add a sig file like half the folks on here. Who cares if it's in Latin or English? A quick google search pulls up the definition right away. I didn't say anything about your sig. At least mine is on-topic. ;-) todd |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mel" wrote in
. com: Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my condolences on learning that you don't. As far as a sense of humor.... well the simple are easily amused. I'm glad you are enjoying yourself. I'm not that easily amused. But your hand-wringing and wailing over the collection of stem cells, and the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way. Just a heads up, Mel: stem cells aren't collected by dumpster diving at Planned Parenthood clinics. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
But your hand-wringing and wailing over the collection of stem cells, and
the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way. I'm going to try to help you understand, whether you agree to the views or not, where the extrapolation comes from.... Some say life begins at conception Some say life begins at birth. Nobody knows for sure. If you believe meaningful life begins at conception then you believe that the loss of a fertilized egg is a loss of life.... accidental or intentional. If you believe meaningful life begins at birth then you believe it doesn't matter until it draws breath. There are many levels of belief in between. The above are the two extremes. We, as a people, are being called to define our belief because of 1) abortion, 2) invetro fertilization, and 3) stem cell research. If you align yourself on the life at conception side then you believe all of these issues warrant responsible consideration. I want to take the liberty to make the statement this view is the only view you know for sure that innocent life is being protected. If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely guessing hence the often occurring need for justification. If you say that you can fertilize an egg and allow it to develop to a point and then discard it then you also say that same stage can be aborted. Hence the extrapolation. Just to define my view....I'm not against stem cell research. As long as the material is collected in a responsible manner with consideration to the protection of innocent life. i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths, accidental death of a mother. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
... In article , says... Mel, that was one of the few reasonable posts in this thread. If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely guessing hence the often occurring need for justification. One small quibble to that. I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a conflict betwen the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the side of the woman. That's the only justification I need. Weigh that against the consequence to the woman (for most, an inconvenience, though of course, a major one) and to the fetus (death). So, if there's a possibility that the fetus is a person with rights, doesn't it deserve additional consideration because the penalty for being wrong is so great? Here's a question no one on the pro-abortion side wants to answer. Let's say for a moment that none of us truly knows if the fetus is a person with rights. Maybe it's a person, maybe it's not. Good Lord, what if you're wrong? 1.3 million persons are exterminated every year! If I'm wrong, a whole bunch of women are inconvenienced for 9 months. (Please leave out the rape cases and those causing death to the mother...they're a tiny fraction of the total). todd |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Wrote:
One small quibble to that. I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a conflict between the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the side of the woman. That's the only justification I need. First, I'd ask you to define conflict and then I'd ask you to apply the logic to the justification to ending any life... fetus to adult. Self-preservation I'll buy along with numerous other extenuating circumstances... personal inconvenience or the avoidance of unpleasant consequences due to poor decisions.... I have to draw the line there. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Michael Roberts" wrote:
Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not your philosophical rants. Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for "off topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a simple solution: don't read them. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Doug,
Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for "off topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a simple solution: don't read them. Interesting as this discussion may be, you have just argued for reducing the entire usenet to one large group - as long as people just start their threads with OT. You cannot be serious ? -- Regards, Soeren * If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer * |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Soeren
wrote: Hi Doug, Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for "off topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a simple solution: don't read them. Interesting as this discussion may be, you have just argued for reducing the entire usenet to one large group - as long as people just start their threads with OT. You cannot be serious ? Ever been in a shop with your co-workers? Did you all focus on the job at hand with a single-minded intensity, or chat about things that had nothing whatsoever to do with work to pass the time between those moments when focus on the job was absolutely necessary? There sure is a place for "shop talk" in a woodworking forum, at least in my opinion. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi,
Prometheus wrote in : Ever been in a shop with your co-workers? Did you all focus on the job at hand with a single-minded intensity, or chat about things that had nothing whatsoever to do with work to pass the time between those moments when focus on the job was absolutely necessary? There sure is a place for "shop talk" in a woodworking forum, at least in my opinion. That would IMO hold true if this was real life, but I think this (and other) discussion group(s) are more to be likened with say books - and who would like a book on one subject waisting time/space on perhaps 50% or more which had absolutely nothing to do with what they got the book for. So I could ask you back: Ever been in a shop where all the nails, screws, bolts etc. of all sizes was tossed in one large box and all the tools in another - I think there is good reasons to keep wood issues in one group and political issues in another, then we _all_ can select what each of us want and be spared what we find "noise" - I guess you wouldn't be too happy if I drummed up a couple of wood working buddies and started a flood of discussions of say metalworking, motorcycling, robotics, local politics, (or whatever we are presently debating amongst us), in this group ? And yes, I know I probably cannot expect any changes on this, but that will not keep me from expressing my opinion on the subject. Of course, it has much to do with the balance of off topic to on topic posts and the general magnitude of the former, so here is a suggestion: Keep one single thread for OT posts and discuss *anything* OT in that single thread - that should appeal to your (and others) arguments of talking about a diverse range of subjects *and* keep the focus on woodwork overall  -- Regards, Soeren * If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer * New forum: URL:http://www.ElektronikTeknolog.dk/cgi-bin/SPEED/ |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
-- IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO GIVE THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE A SEX TOY FOR CHRISTMAS! OR GIVE YOURSELF THAT SPECIAL VIDEO! http://www.sextoysex.com/a2k4 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=- Looking to Find a Date?? with a REAL PERSON?? http://68.82.94.85:2000/Public/singles.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Looking to find local swingers & hookups? Couples? Singles? SEARCH BY ZIPCODE! 100% FREE http://68.82.94.85:2000/public/swingers/index.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- You can also checkout our NEW all GAY site at http://68.82.94.85:7000 "Michael Roberts" wrote in message ... Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not your philosophical rants. "Doug Miller" wrote in message . com... In article , (Jana) wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in message .com... In article , (Jana) wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in message .com... In article , Larry Blanchard Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway. Does that make it right? Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain. Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death? Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown away. This does not trouble you? I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell research if the only resources were from cells that were either aborted or would eventually be used invetro. What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a baby aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one kills a unique human person. We have the right to disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is, though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So, I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more than you to make me give up. I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in any way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that a treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research into adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much more promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* stem cells? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
I found a good site discussing the ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell
Research. The author makes many good points that have been well researched. It even talks about things that you can do to make a difference. I encourage you to visit it: http://www.hesc.cjb.net |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Troll.
"ajb147" wrote in message ups.com... I found a good site discussing the ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The author makes many good points that have been well researched. It even talks about things that you can do to make a difference. I encourage you to visit it: http://www.hesc.cjb.net |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ohmwork | Home Repair | |||
| Bad odor coming from expansion joint around interior wall of home | Home Repair | |||
Linear Mode
