If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Mind you, the IT programme is split amongst vendors and trusts, so no doubt different areas may well implement it differently.
The two are not mutually exclusive, dopey.
BTW Have a look at my other comments relating to the NHS and you might get the impression that I have inside knowledge.
Says the "man" who insults us all with most of his posts.
Yep.
Ever heard of the ability to read? It's what makes it possible for me to look at paper based notes. BTW You are what we would refer to as NFT.
But you have broken laws.
You may not agree with them, you may not recognise them, but you have broken them.
I know my records in my home surgery are kept on a computer, as are the ones that my GP at uni keeps. I also know there's been some communication between the two but as far as I'm concerned I have been told whenever any information has been released outside the surgery that holds it (and even if this is not true I do trust the people I see and those who run the surgeries enough to believe that it is only released when necessary and not to all and sundry).
If I have insulted you, that means I haven't been insulted? This is the sort of terrible logic that means I disregard what you write.
In order to be a criminal, the law has to be broken. In order for the law to be broken, it has to exist. It doesn't, so I haven't.
A more obvious way is to state that until I am proven guilty, I am innocent. As I have never been convicted, I am not a criminal. And many more arguments you won't accept for whatever reason.
Must be why Ian Huntley's moved in next door.
Just like a priest waving his hand over a communion wafer or purple clad cultists offing themselves because Halle Berry is appearing in the night sky, you cannot deduce the existence of something from the actions of the mad.
So, would you dispute that Tony Blair is an insider in the Labout Party/Govt?
Hey, you applied that logic to my comment, not me.
I was just using the Pot/Kettle analogy.
I'm pretty sure that in a straw poll you would find that theymajority believe that laws exist. Just because you don't recognise them doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Not being convicted doesn't mean that you aren't a criminal, it just means that you haven't been convicted in a court of law.
If a pot calls a kettle black, what colour is the kettle and what colour is the pot? It's this sort of dodgy logic that makes me disregard what you say.
They are both black, "dopey."
And my whole point is that the beliefs of the majority are not facts any more than the beliefs of a wacky minority. They just have the force to make you follow them.
I can recognise them all day long and they still won't exist.
Lol.
Tony Blair is an insider in the Labour party/govt? Sure, why not. I don't believe him either, and he has a lot more credibility than a semi-anonymous poster on the internet.
Try having a read of some Lysander Spooner and see what you think.
Language only works if we all use the same words for the same meaning. If I point at and say 'There is a blue car' its only going to cause confusion if I'm pointing at what everyone else calls a 'red light'.
You don't seem to use language in the same way as everyone else and insist that we proove to you that the general meaning of what we say is valid otherwise you're going to keep calling it something else.
Sophistry is actually the weakest form of arguing, because it relies on the other person being stupid enough to accept false reasoning. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working in your case - I suggest you may want to try another approach.
Erm, clearly everyone knows this, as that is the entire point of the analogy.
Yeah, but I have only ever seen it used as a defence of the "pot."
Seriously, get help. Soon.
[ignore]
Thanks for the concern MoK, shame you never answer my points.
Bye :wave:
Hmm, I think that your understanding of it differs to mine then.
Still, no matter. Your understanding of a lot of things seems to differ to mine.
lol.
You have so far claimed that laws and countries do not exist, when they quite clearly do. There's no point in arguing that black is black against someone that is claiming the opposite, because its a waste of time.
People who are convinced that white is black (as you seemingly do) will not accept that their view of the world is distorted in the extreme.
Everyone else agrees that countries and laws exist. You have raised no argument to illustrate anything other, and if you are going to go against the general world view then you have to come up with a better argument than "it's all pretend!!!".
Easy.
What facts are you basing your opinions on?
The difficulty here is that you have a person who doesn't understand what he is arguing against. An understanding of human history and the history of english law would actually answer many of the questions being raised.
However, it looks like one concept is being viewed in isolation which gives a very slanted view of reality.