I was asked for my religion today..

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

What are you on about? He was a Jewish who founded a new religion called Christianity hence he became Christian.

He is called Jesus Christ for a reason!. Did you miss religion class that day?:rolleyes:

Err... No Christianity was named after Jesus Christ. The followers of Jesus were for some time after his death still a Jewish subset. The name Christianity came about after Jesus' time.

And you do realise that you're implying that Jesus Christ was named after Christianity right? :pac:

You obviously missed Religion class every single day of the week (Possibly English class as well).

So clueless it's funny

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

gurramok wrote: »

You missed a smiley there! So the founder of Christianity is not Christian!:rolleyes:

no, a christian is someone who follows the christ.

jesus couldn't have been a christian.

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one".[1] It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah.

the only way you could be failing harder is if you were raging over someone asking you for your religion in a hospital

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

You've been missing for around 10hours, did you find the code of ethics in all that time?

Ive been working, advising doctors about things like their code of ethics.....!

So i know all about it! Did you manage to find it or are you still giving views with no foundation whatsoever...?!!:D

Hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoohohohohoohohohohohoohohohoohoohho:D

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

What you on about? He was Jewish who founded a new religion called Christianity hence he became Christian.

He is called Jesus Christ for a reason!. Did you miss religion class that day?:rolleyes:

Someone did not pay attention in Religion. Jesus was Jewish. His followers then founded the religion in honour of him. They were christians, Jesus never was

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

First of all stop padding each post with a million smileys. It makes your posts look even more clueless then they already are.
Second of all, no hospital and no doctor will allow a trial or practice that disagrees with their ethical and moral codes. There are plenty of hospitals that would take no issue with the trial and would be more than happy to host it.

Thirdly of all, you haven't got a clue what pain lung cancer patients go through either so stop acting as if you do. (No offence intended if you have actually suffered from lung cancer).

Firstly, what are you the smiley police? Since when it is a rule on this forum to stop using smileys? Have you informed your fellow fervent Catholic posters to stop using smileys?:rolleyes:

Secondly, its been told to you many a time from extensive evidence that a Catholic ethos hospital stopped a lung cancer trial because it was against Catholism.

Thirdly, at aged 17 you seem to have this superior knowledge of lung cancer as if you were the consultant of said sufferers. It can kill you know and its a disgrace that religion tried to help the sufferers to their deaths through an archaic belief system. :mad:

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

Has the drug since cured lung cancer?

No.

The following links show clinical trials have killed or injured people in the past:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4794782.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article1990908.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/18/dozens-killed-acupuncture-needles

http://www.drugawareness.org/recentcasesblog/celexa-youth-in-india-dies-during-clinical-trial

Show me the link where the lung cancer drug above has cured lung cancer? If it has not, then they were not denied a life saving drug.

Proof of GTFO.

Do you realise the difference between a trial/study/research and emergency/critical care?

Answer the question, stop dodging, stop changing the goal posts:

Can anyone provide any proof where someone was denied or refused critical or emergency care due to their faith in Ireland?
If you can not find proof, end the thread and stop spouting rubbish.

Does anyone think that this would actually happen?

Do you know what a trial is at all?:rolleyes:

Its there to find a working drug to save lives. Of course if the Catholic Church did not interfere in the trial, progress for a cure could of been made.

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Do you know what a trial is at all?:rolleyes:

Its there to find a working drug to save lives. Of course if the Catholic Church did not interfere in the trial, progress for a cure could of been made.

If you are going to talk about hypotheses it could also have killed them.

Answer the question, stop dodging, stop changing the goal posts:

Can anyone provide any proof where someone was denied or refused critical or emergency care due to their faith in Ireland?
If you can not find proof, end the thread and stop spouting rubbish.

Does anyone think that this would actually happen?

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Err... No Christianity was named after Jesus Christ. The followers of Jesus were for some time after his death still a Jewish subset. The name Christianity came about after Jesus' time.

And you do realise that you're implying that Jesus Christ was named after Christianity right? :pac:

You obviously missed Religion class every single day of the week (Possibly English class as well).

So clueless it's funny

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

no, a christian is someone who follows the christ.

jesus couldn't have been a christian.

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

the only way you could be failing harder is if you were raging over someone asking you for your religion in a hospital

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Someone did not pay attention in Religion. Jesus was Jewish. His followers then founded the religion in honour of him. They were christians, Jesus never was

He rose from the dead. His followers founded Christianity in his name as Jesus had in his heart. Of course the 3 of ye knew that already:rolleyes:

drkpower wrote: »

Ive been working, advising doctors about things like their code of ethics.....!

So i know all about it! Did you manage to find it or are you still giving views with no foundation whatsoever...?!!:D

Hohohohohohohohohohohohohohohoohohohohoohohohohohoohohohoohoohho:D

Do you believe in Santa?

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

If you are going to talk about hypotheses it could also have killed them.

Answer the question, stop dodging, stop changing the goal posts:

Can anyone provide any proof where someone was denied or refused critical or emergency care due to their faith in Ireland?
If you can not find proof, end the thread and stop spouting rubbish.

Does anyone think that this would actually happen?

I ain't dodging, you are. The goal posts at your end are at the corner flag by now. You obviously do not know what a trial is. Look it up.

Still shame on you for dismissing lung cancer as not being critical care :mad:

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Firstly, what are you the smiley police? Since when it is a rule on this forum to stop using smileys? Have you informed your fellow fervent Catholic posters to stop using smileys?:rolleyes:

I amn't a Catholic. Told you that about five times already. You don't happen to read people's posts, do you? :P

Secondly, its been told to you many a time from extensive evidence that a Catholic ethos hospital stopped a lung cancer trial because it was against Catholism.

I've told you about 50 times already. A hospital CANNOT under any circumstances allow any trial or practice against their ethical code. It makes no difference where this code is derived from. Stop talking absolute BS.

Thirdly, at aged 17 you seem to have this superior knowledge of lung cancer as if you were the consultant of said sufferers.

Wow? Did I even say that or have you decided to write a novel about me?

It can kill you know

Wow. I never knew. Thank you so much for letting me know oh great knowledgeable one.

and its a disgrace that religion tried to help the sufferers to their deaths through an archaic belief system. :mad:

facepalm^∞

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

I ain't dodging, you are. The goal posts at your end are at the corner flag by now. You obviously do not know what a trial is. Look it up.

He doesn't know what a trial is? He doesn't???

Still shame on you for dismissing lung cancer as not being critical care :mad:

Emergency =/= Critical

gurramok wrote: »

He rose from the dead. His followers founded Christianity in his name as Jesus had in his heart. Of course the 3 of ye knew that already:rolleyes:

What the HELL does that sentence even mean? You post some incoherent garbled rubbish and then make condescending statements trying to act as if you actually know what you're talking about. You've embarrassed yourself enough in this thread.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I amn't a Catholic. Told you that about five times already. You don't happen to read people's posts, do you? :P

Amn't? Whats that word?

So you are not a Catholic, i'm Benedict the Monk then.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I've told you about 50 times already. A hospital CANNOT under any circumstances allow any trial or practice against their ethical code. It makes no difference where this code is derived from. Stop talking absolute BS.

Ain't BS. It was shown to you countless times but you refuse to listen. I can;t help it if you won't pay attention.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Wow? Did I even say that or have you decided to write a novel about me?

I could write a religious novel out of your religious posts

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Wow. I never knew. Thank you so much for letting me know oh great knowledgeable one. facepalm^∞

Thanks for the compliment. Now you see what monstrosity was carried out in your name. Do you condemn it?

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

I ain't dodging, you are. The goal posts at your end are at the corner flag by now. You obviously do not know what a trial is. Look it up.

Still shame on you for dismissing lung cancer as not being critical care :mad:

I am well aware of what a clinical trial is, for reasons I won't go into here. You were the one, who up until a few posts ago, who did not know what a clinical trial was.

I have not or have I ever dismissed lung cancer as being critical care since my
grandfather died from it.

You are dodging the questions with that accusation.

Provide proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care in Ireland due to their religion.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He doesn't know what a trial is? He doesn't???

Are you farna_boy?:eek:

Re-read the post, the lad is clueless about trials.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Emergency =/= Critical

He mentioned critical care. Do keep up.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What the HELL does that sentence even mean? You post some incoherent garbled rubbish and then make condescending statements trying to act as if you actually know what you're talking about. You've embarrassed yourself enough in this thread.

How can you not read a simple post in legible English?

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

I am well aware of what a clinical trial is, for reasons I won't go into here. You were the one, who up until a few posts ago, who did not know what a clinical trial was.

I have not or have I ever dismissed lung cancer as being critical care since my
grandfather died from it.

You are dodging the questions with that accusation.

Provide proof that someone has been denied critical or emergency care in Ireland due to their religion.

Have you read the thread? You look like a newcomer who just jumped in without reading posts.

Read the article that I linked to about the trials and then come back. Lung cancer patients are critical patients and its abhorrent that you think they are not.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Amn't? Whats that word?

A contraction of am and not. Been in use in the English language since Elizabethan times.

So you are not a Catholic, i'm Benedict the Monk then.

You must be seeing as I have never been a Catholic and have only very rarely seen the inside of a Catholic church.

Ain't BS. It was shown to you countless times but you refuse to listen. I can;t help it if you won't pay attention.

You've shown me and everyone else a lot of BS. I kind of stop paying attention after the first 50 times. You're not one to talk about paying attention seeing as 90% of what you write makes no sense. The 10% that's coherent are little gems like "Jesus wasn't a Christian. Herp derp, thought all you little stupid kids knew that :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: herp derp."

Great impersonation? What do the people of AH think? Accurate?

I could write a religious novel out of your religious posts

My religious posts... Hmm...
I don't think posts disputing BS written by clueless people who can't accept the fact they're wrong count as religious posts.

Thanks for the compliment. Now you see what monstrosity was carried out in your name. Do you condemn it?

Whoa man. I wasn't your English teacher. They're the one's to blame.

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Its the reality. What makes you think i'm sad, did you put teardrops in my eyes?



I ain't religious. Did you not realise that? Where have you been?! :rolleyes:

You have done nothing but talk about religion, hence a religious wobbler.

HarryPotter41

scientific1982 wrote: »

Good point. Apparently im also Catholic, dont believe in God though.

Did you put Catholic on the census?

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Have you read the thread? You look like a newcomer who just jumped in without reading posts.

Read the article that I linked to about the trials and then come back. Lung cancer patients are critical patients and its abhorrent that you think they are not.

I have not said that anywhere. Your accusations are becoming tiresome and are baseless.

I have read every single post in this thread, have you?

Find out what a clinical trial is before you accuse anyone of not knowing what a clinical trial is.

You are still dodging. Find any proof yet? How is the googling going?

HarryPotter41

Paparazzo wrote: »

If you were to generalize groups of people based on what a few people post on boards, you must have strange ideas about them.

If you respect the views of others does that include NAMBLA members? And Jehovah's withnesses who rather their kid die than take a blood transfusion? Or the views of the guys that did the 9-11 attacks?

They are entitled to their views matterless whether I agree with them or not, that was my point. Unlike our ranting OP here.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

How can you not read a simple post in legible English?

Take a course in English. Please.

The definition of legible
(of handwriting, print, etc.) capable of being read or deciphered; "legible handwriting

Seeing as you typed your post on an internet forum, it's obviously going to be perfectly legible (Although, for your sake I wish it hadn't). It's incoherent

• without logical or meaningful connection; "a turgid incoherent presentation"
• incoherency - incoherence: lack of cohesion or clarity or organization
• incoherency - incoherence: nonsense that is simply incoherent and unintelligible

I think we can all agree that

He rose from the dead. His followers founded Christianity in his name as Jesus had in his heart. Of course the 3 of ye knew that already.

Out of that post we have three sentences. Everyone more than likely already knows the first sentence already. The second sentence is incoherent and has no meaning and the third is just embarrassing on your behalf.

sparks1234

gurramok wrote: »

Do you know what a trial is at all?:rolleyes:

Its there to find a working drug to save lives. Of course if the Catholic Church did not interfere in the trial, progress for a cure could of been made.

Actually, that is not what a trial is. A trial exist for the sole purpose of investigating the effects of one thing on another, in this case a drug on lung cancer. The doctors have a hypothesis that it will help, but this in and of itself is not proof as the trial itself is the proof and only if it is conducted properly.

A good example of trials showing that a drug has a bad effect is on beta-carotene which is an anti-oxidant and a popular "health supplement". It was thought that this would help to prevent cancer, however the results were so alarming that subsequent trials were cut short because it showed that an excess of this substance actually increased the risk of lung cancer significantly.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2004/final-caret1204

I gave that example to show that a trial is only there to investigate the effect of something and this effect can one of 3 things, good, bad or inconclusive. The canceling/relocation of a trial in one place is not proof that patients suffered for any reason as at the time of decision there was no proof that the drug was effective and therefore no proof that anyone suffered directly, regardless of the reason of cancellation.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A contraction of am and not. Been in use in the English language since Elizabethan times.

Its derived not from standard English but from dialects.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You must be seeing as I have never been a Catholic and have only very rarely seen the inside of a Catholic church.

Very believable:rolleyes:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You've shown me and everyone else a lot of BS. I kind of stop paying attention after the first 50 times. You're not one to talk about paying attention seeing as 90% of what you write makes no sense. The 10% that's coherent are little gems like "Jesus wasn't a Christian. Herp derp, thought all you little stupid kids knew that :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: herp derp."

Great impersonation? What do the people of AH think? Accurate?

More BS. What are you ranting on about now?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

My religious posts... Hmm...
I don't think posts disputing BS written by clueless people who can't accept the fact they're wrong count as religious posts.

You 100% fully back the Catholic religion countless times hence you are a deeply religious person.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Whoa man. I wasn't your English teacher. They're the one's to blame.

I should be your English teacher. Whats wrong with monstrosity oh wise one?

partyatmygaff

sparks1234 wrote: »

Actually, that is not what a trial is. A trial exist for the sole purpose of investigating the effects of one thing on another, in this case a drug on lung cancer. The doctors have a hypothesis that it will help, but this in and of itself is not proof as the trial itself is the proof and only if it is conducted properly.

A good example of trials showing that a drug has a bad effect is on beta-carotene which is an anti-oxidant and a popular "health supplement". It was thought that this would help to prevent cancer, however the results were so alarming that subsequent trials were cut short because it showed that an excess of this substance actually increased the risk of lung cancer significantly.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2004/final-caret1204

I gave that example to show that a trial is only there to investigate the effect of something and this effect can one of 3 things, good, bad or inconclusive. The canceling/relocation of a trial in one place is not proof that patients suffered for any reason as at the time of decision there was no proof that the drug was effective and therefore no proof that anyone suffered directly, regardless of the reason of cancellation.

We might as well give up. He ignores any facts presented to him and then goes on a tangential rant and then comes back to the same BS points only to be put back down again.

This thread deserves to be put in some sort of a hall of fame.

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

You have done nothing but talk about religion, hence a religious wobbler.

Huh? That's a new one.

farna_boy wrote: »

I have not said that anywhere. Your accusations are becoming tiresome and are baseless.

I have read every single post in this thread, have you?

Find out what a clinical trial is before you accuse anyone of not knowing what a clinical trial is.

You are still dodging. Find any proof yet? How is the googling going?

Why do you think lung cancer patients are not critical? Love to hear that one.

I've done enough research thank you. Have you?

hotmail.com

Seaneh wrote: »

The only person I said was an idiot was the OP. I said it's idiocy to piss and moan about Catholic run schools which were founded and built buy the church rather than get off your hole and do something about it.

My kids won't be going to a catholic school but at the same time I won't piss and moan about catholic schools. If there is no non-denominational or educate together in the area I live in I would consider moving closer to one, if that's not an option I would have them opted-out of the R.E. classes like every other non-catholic child in a catholic school.

The Catholic Church got their money off the citizens.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Take a course in English. Please.

Out of that post we have three sentences. Everyone more than likely already knows the first sentence already. The second sentence is incoherent and has no meaning and the third is just embarrassing on your behalf.

Are you trying to be a Proefssor of English now?(which you will fail) Thought you were studying medicine?

sparks1234 wrote: »

Actually, that is not what a trial is. A trial exist for the sole purpose of investigating the effects of one thing on another, in this case a drug on lung cancer. The doctors have a hypothesis that it will help, but this in and of itself is not proof as the trial itself is the proof and only if it is conducted properly.

A good example of trials showing that a drug has a bad effect is on beta-carotene which is an anti-oxidant and a popular "health supplement". It was thought that this would help to prevent cancer, however the results were so alarming that subsequent trials were cut short because it showed that an excess of this substance actually increased the risk of lung cancer significantly.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2004/final-caret1204

I gave that example to show that a trial is only there to investigate the effect of something and this effect can one of 3 things, good, bad or inconclusive. The canceling/relocation of a trial in one place is not proof that patients suffered for any reason as at the time of decision there was no proof that the drug was effective and therefore no proof that anyone suffered directly, regardless of the reason of cancellation.

Welcome new poster with the first post trying to contradict what I said.:rolleyes:

Effect if successful after one trial or many equals the development of a new drug.

Which religious poster sent you?

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Huh? That's a new one.



Why do you think lung cancer patients are not critical? Love to hear that one.

I've done enough research thank you. Have you?

I have never nor would I ever say that for the reasons I outlined above. Prove that I have, or admit you are wrong.

You clearly haven't done enough research. If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation. Keep dodging and googling.

When you can't, come back, change the goal posts and accuse me of something else.

pete2009

It will be decades before Ireland enters into the 21st century....

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, I was visiting a clinic at the Mater Hospital and upon regging ya wan behind the counter went through my details and landed me with this bomb of 'what religion I am'.

I just went 'wtf' in my head and after an awkward slience said 'err no religion'. Then she just wobbled her head and promptly kept typing into her pc.

Now, what frigging relevance is my religion in order to get treatment in a hospital?:mad:

Thought Ireland was in the 21st century and why would a hospital care about my religious beliefs?

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Are you trying to be a Proefssor of English now?(which you will fail) Thought you were studying medicine?



Welcome new poster with the first post trying to contradict what I said.:rolleyes:

Effect if successful after one trial or many equals the development of a new drug.

Which religious poster sent you?

So if someone disagrees with you they are religious?

If someone posts accurate information but their post count is low, it's not a valid argument?

How many posts do you need to have a valid argument or accurate information.

More accusations, more dodging. I think I am seeing a pattern.