On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:40:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/12/2013 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked
>>> about.
>>> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to
>>> not put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need
>>> to make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people
>>> *are*
>>> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
>>> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.
>>
>> The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But
>> nothing is ever 100% certain - that's life.
>>
>> As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US
>> airports.
>>
> Wow.. And now we have someone else telling me what I think.

If the stated goal is the total eradication of a particular disease, then 
yes, it's a 100% solution that you're looking for.

If I've misunderstood, please, clarify rather than claim that I'm telling 
you what you think.

> And, BTW, the problem with "homeland security" period, never mind in
> airports, is that its all fucking puppet theater. 

Yep, absolutely agree.

> If you think that I am looking for some sort of 100% solution, then what
> the frak does it say that you think we need to merely, somehow,
> "improve", with more theater, and false security, something that isn't
> even a 10% solution?

Um, no, I didn't say anything of the sort.  Please go back and re-read 
what I wrote and then tell me where I even came close to claiming that.

> I must be talking a foreign language, because you and Shay keep reading
> things into what I am saying that have jack all to do with what I
> actually meant. Or, you are just so, stupidly, scared to death of
> anything involved in government that you can't help but imagine that
> anyone trying to fix it, instead of destroy it, wants a damned
> dictatorship, with perfect solutions. Either way... at this point you
> have both lost all respect from me on this issue, in no small part
> because you keep claiming I said things I never bloody did, because that
> is purely what **you** want to believe I meant.

Patrick, you need to calm down.  Seriously, dude, take a chill pill or 
something.

You get so worked up about stuff that you're reading something that's not 
there.  I generally *agree* with you on a lot of stuff, but really - I'm 
not claiming that you've said things.  I've interpreted what you've said 
and have attempted to engage in what is known as "active listening".  So 
if I've misunderstood something, please clarify.

But I would ask that you do it without frakking swearing at me.  OK? :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message