Too many dealers - Page 4

I'm going to call "Bullshit" on that one.  That's not how things work.  I
believe she may have paid the money and I believe she may have been pressed,
but those are both different from not being admitted until she coughed up
cash.  There's more to this story, I'm sure.

BTW - just how did she go into diabetic shock from being hit?  That's not
how diabetic shock works.  There is indeed much more to this story...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow wrote:

Mike - you should know that you are not allowed to call B.S. on someone
when they are making a liberal argument.  They are allowed to embellish
as they see fit and you can't question it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

If anything, I understated it , and I am not a liberal ( whatever that means
in the US). As for the Canadian system, I have had cancer 3 times, and it
served me well.


Steve R.



--
Due to high levels of spam, all email to this account is being auto deleted.

Slow learner, huh Steve?  Well listen buddy - three's a charm - give up on
this already will ya?  You hafta quit pressing your luck here.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

After the other skier hit her, she slid into a tree with some force. Not
badly injured, but she went into diabetic shock. I talked to her a week
later, after she was back in Canada. Make what ever call you want, it
happened.


Steve R.



--
Due to high levels of spam, all email to this account is being auto deleted.

I don't doubt she had the incident, but it did not cause her to go into
diabetic shock Steve.  12 years as a paramedic and I can assure you that
diabetic shock is caused by low blood sugar.  It has nothing to do with
taking a fall or any other similar incident.  If she suffered diabetic
shock, it was because she was already at a low blood sugar level.  That
though, would make the two incidents unrelated, only coincidental.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow wrote:

If she had low blood sugar, *that* could have been related to the incident.

Note the use of the word "coincidental" above.  Though, the original story
as relayed by Steve is that she was hit by another skier.  The discussion is
only about whether an impact like that can cause diabetic shock.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow wrote:

So you corrected the original assumption.  Fair enough.  Then you
pointed out that *if* she suffered diabetic shock it was she *already*
had low blood sugar.  At that point, the discussion was no longer about
*only* whether impact can cause diabetic shock.  *If* she was
hypoglycemic enough to be approaching diabetic shock, chances are pretty
good, (blurred vision etc.) that it "could have been related" to the
collision. ;)  Getting hit by another skier doesn't necessarily mean the
skier that hit her was entirely at fault.

Well yes, that is correct, but it is not at all germain to the discussion.
To refresh, the original assertion was that the impact put her in diabetic
shock.  That's the only point that has been under discussion.  To suggest
that low blood sugar might have contributed to the incident is potentially
true, but irrelevant.  Contributing to is causal, not a result of.    The
discussion was always about whether impact can cause diabetic shock.  The
proof was the definition of diabetic shock.  There is no other discussion
path at that point or any other.  There was never any discussion at all
about fault.  I'm not sure if you followed the entire thread - it appears
that you might not have.  It would be worth taking a look at it from the
beginning.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow wrote:

LOL, I *did* go back on the thread.  I did get you to admit there was at
least "casual contributing." <g>  Just playing around (and happen to be
prone to hypoglycemia so I couldn't resist).  Sounds like in addition to
paramedic, you are interested in law.

F.H. wrote:


Maybe you intended the misquote that you did, *or* you didn't understand
his precise meaning.  He did use the word "causal" and not "casual" -
different meaning altogether.  (If your misquote was intentional to be
funny or something, then ignore this.)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

No - because neither one of us know if there was.  I stuck to one point and
one point only.  Mine was nothing more than a clarification that diabetic
shock is not trauma induced.  You tried to get me to say something else, but
as I said, everything else is irrelevant.


 <g>  Just playing around (and happen to be

Only in staying away from the penalties of it...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

the original post was about car dealers not  diabetic shock

Mike Marlow wrote:

philthy wrote:

I don't think we should let the thread die...., just yet.  There's more
milk for sure.  Maybe later.

What you say about diabetic shock is undoubtedly true. However the matter
under discussion was that the hospital was unwilling to admit her without
cash up front. This, in spite of the fact that the lady had travel insurance
that included medical.

Steve R.



--
Due to high levels of spam, all email to this account is being auto deleted.

Damn - I hate it when a thread gets yanked back to its original intent.
Don't you know you can give a person whiplash like that Steve?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow wrote:

Heh, that was *my* plan.  I guess its dead now. (famous last words)

Changing the subject is a well known trick of argument.

Want a reference? "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H, Thouless. Pan
Books.  Sorry, no ISBN, my copy is too old for that.

Steve R.


--
Due to high levels of spam, all email to this account is being auto deleted.

Steve R. wrote:



If she'd been an illegal alien, they would have been required by law to
treat her.  So yeah - in that regard our medical system is very screwed
up.  :)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')