Philip S.

Wow, does throwing a tantrum every time someone points out that one of you moronic raves is...ahem... a moronic rave, often work for you. I know my 3 yr old grandchild thinks it works for her but I'm sure she'll grow out of it soon. Hoping you will also.

Normally I'd just let your ignorance flow by but "egg you now wear on your face" and all that requires that you put in your place.

1. this isn't a government report, its from the Productivity Commission which is independent of government.
2. this report is merely a compilation of data gathered from each state which shows state-wide information, not hospital by hospital information. So they weren't hiding anything, just aggregating data they'd been given.
3. So if anyone's hiding stuff, its the state governments.
4. But wait...they aren't hiding it either. I haven't checked every state but in NSW you can go to the site for any hospital to see data relevant to that hospital for things like "Healthcare-associated infections".
5. So what you're really complaining about is that the data is being hidden from YOU because its not presented in a nice package in a format that even the most innumerate can understand. The government isn't hiding data, they just haven't dumbed the data down far enough for you to access it.

Re your Lusitania comparison, might I suggest that there's little logic in asserting that something done at a different time, by a different country, in a different place for different reasons, doesn't much apply to FDR and Pearl Harbour. That Churchill might have allowed the Lusitania to be attacked (and even here the data is iffy) doesn't mean it proves that FDR let Pearl Harbour be attacked. Drawing such a conclusion or analogy indicates someone who is struggling to find two brain cells to rub together.

Now I understand that you were upset that I didn't support your attempts to get Steely to apologise when he showed you to be wrong but you really do need to get a grip and ponder before you pontificate.

Foxy,

The ' Britannica on Pearl Harbour' article is pretty much spot on. I'd have a few quibbles but its a reasonable canvassing of the main points. It does a good job of pointing out that there are only a few who think that FDR engineered the whole thing. What it doesn't point out is the very important point that some of these (eg Beard and Tansill) were anti-FDR long before the war and argued for an alliance with Japan. They felt they needed to try to vindicate their shattered reputations by concocting this story.

Another important point missed is that if, as these people say, FDR forced Japan to attack so that he could get his war with Hitler, it failed.After the attack, the US immediately prepared to fight Japan but FDR was no closer to getting his war in Europe. That problem was solved when Hitler declared war on the USA.

FDR didn't want to fight Japan - he wanted to fight Hitler. He, FDR, like pretty much everyone else on the planet, massively under-estimated the sheer manufacturing power unleashed by the USA once they committed to the two front fight. Japan thought they'd have 1-2 years to bed down their conquests before the US could gear up to fight back. Hitler thought the US would have its hands full for 2-3 years fighting Japan. FDR and his advisers, in the early days agreed with that. But once the US juggernaut got going they were producing so much that they could fight both Japan and Germany while supplying basically all of Britain's needs and 25% of the Soviet armaments as well as supplying China, Australia and Canada. But in 1941 that was in the future.

There is no aspect of the theory that he engineered the Japan attack that makes sense in 1941. Many people look back knowing the outcome and assume that those in Washington somehow also knew the outcome.

Is Mise,

Your comparison between doctors and guns that
led to my curtain response - was inane.
It matters little if natural causes, or doctors,
or cars, or AIDS, kill more people than guns.

Guns are a significant "preventable"contributor,
to our mortality and guns ought to be dealt with in their own
right rather than being diminished through apples
to oranges comparisons.

We should not minimise or apologise for medical
errors, which clearly occur. But I don't think we
should close our eyes and hold our noses and swallow
something whose odour tells us it is obviously
rotten either.

mhaze,

Thank You for taking the time to read the link from
Britannia. And Thanks for the additional information.
Much appreciated.

mhaze Quote "1. this isn't a government report, its from the Productivity Commission which is independent of government."

** When you can't attack the content attack the source of the content. Simple question can you provide evidence the information is false, if not your whole statement is irrelevant. **

Quote "2. this report is merely a compilation of data gathered from each state which shows state-wide information, not hospital by hospital information. So they weren't hiding anything, just aggregating data they'd been given."

** Wrong again, this info came out before but at the time the headlines were that the Government would not be releasing to the public which hospitals had the worst records. **

Quote "3. So if anyone's hiding stuff, its the state governments."

** Again you display your ignorance with your absurd statement, your statement itself displays that.
Please show me where in the thread or anywhere else here there is a delineation between Government being State, Federal or even Local.
( Do Governments always tell us every thing ) **

Quote "4. But wait...they aren't hiding it either. I haven't checked every state but in NSW you can go to the site for any hospital to see data relevant to that hospital for things like "Healthcare-associated infections"."

** Does it give information about how many people died because of medical malpractice, surgical instruments left inside patients, wrongly prescribed medication, NO again you are plain ignorant. **

For your point 5 I refer you to the answer to Point 4.
With the addition of Look in the mirror for dumb.

Quote "Now I understand that you were upset that I didn't support your attempts to get Steely to apologise when he showed you to be wrong but you really do need to get a grip and ponder before you pontificate."

** You surpassed yourself with that one because you stated there "To tell the truth, I haven't really followed it so can't judge error or not." ALSO "SR acted honourably." implying to all matters but you admit not having followed it.

Foxy,

"Guns are a significant "preventable"contributor,
to our mortality and guns ought to be dealt with in their own
right rather than being diminished through apples
to oranges comparisons"

Very true and as the crime rates are falling where there are more guns in civilian hands, don't you think that we should encourage the ownership of guns?

"Your comparison between doctors and guns that
led to my curtain response - was inane.
It matters little if natural causes, or doctors,
or cars, or AIDS, kill more people than guns"

What?
Are you saying that it matters little that more people die from preventable causes because it doesn't suit your anti-gun owner stance; that's a bit callous.