TOPIC: BBC Newsnight - mostly talk about media representation & greed

rohcvfighter, well done!

I applaud your effort to help your countrymen. I bet you helped some people to eventually get cured. That's one hell of an achievement, to save someone's life

Greedfighter wrote:
Actually, it seems that you revised your comment as it suggested that an American being on a British committee was somehow wrong and a sign of corruption:


Greedfighter wrote:
Whether you think she is a "shill" or not is irrelevant. Your post simply betrayed your prejudices and ignorance.


Greedfighter wrote:
And in this last post of yours, do you really think you can brush off with an emoticon your stated desire to kick a woman in the mouth because you have decided she represents a point of view that you disagree with?

And then congratulate yourself by shouting, "Yay, team!"?

Unless you wish to have an identity associated with advocating violence, you really need to think a bit before hitting the send button.

Sorry A.L.
Sorry that you don't get that pretty much everyone on this forum finds dealing in death offensive

My parents are from Wales (in the UK). I was born in Canada. I revised my comment because she can't be corrupt, since she represents a pharma trade organization. I initially thought she was a government official. I'm British by heritage, and have no animosity towards Americans.

She defends Gilead's pricing model, which is indefensible. If I could get away with it and not go to jail, I would kick her in the teeth. I hate people who are a piece of shit, they use valuable food and water.

There are people in this world who have no food and water. This woman is a waste of resources.

beaches wrote:
That is not any form of rebuttal – it is the response of a hysterical child attempting to derail an argument with hyperbole.

The commies used to do a similar thing when criticised on specific human rights issues. They would simply say that the US was in no position to comment because they once had slavery, which is a pitiful quality of argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

But to be fair, emotional outbursts and convulsive fits can win arguments, but not in an honourable way, especially when they are accompanied by fantasies or threats of violence as demonstrated by a recent poster.

If I were of a more delicate nature, I'd be reporting one of you to the moderators, but I'm pretty sure that once the bawling has stopped, it will be bedtime and the noise will quieten down, so I'll put such drastic responses aside until they are really necessary.

Greedfighter wrote:
I can't understand how anyone with Hep C would not be deeply, deeply offended when someone starts on about cost vs value. What she was saying amounted to blackmail, pure and simple.

This woman speaks from a position of power.

Gilead has the patent. Pay 95K or die. A position of strength and arrogance. "Let's talk about value", does not mean much if no one values me enough to pay for my life saving treatment.

Sounds kind of like "let them eat cake"

Lots of rich people got separated from their heads shortly after that comment.

A.L. wrote: Go right ahead

Greedfighter wrote: Hi G,

I saw your message only couple of minutes ago.
Thank you, I hope too that some RO people got valuable information in their native language. I tend to believe that a major part of HCV patients from Romania are over a certain age and because of this, they did not had the chance to learn the English language, so if they (or via their friends, children) can read and understand the information, it will be a big plus.

Cheers
RHF

beaches wrote:
Yeah go on do it. It's a new day and you got the time now.

fretboard wrote:
You guys aren't too good with the reading comprehension, are you? I have a strong constitution, so I am quite capable of enduring your company, even though some of you are so crazed by hate that you have announced a violent fantasy. I will not report you today.

One funny thing is that in today's culture of cowardice, I am probably more likely to get into trouble for using logic that is relatively neutral, but embarrassing for you, than that other person here is likely to be censured for voicing his desire to attack a woman he disagrees with. It is all very peculiar.

Aktually, come to think of it, your behaviour is so messy that I have a feeling that I am just being trolled by children or drug addicts. Silly me! I might leave you for a bit until you sober up or decide to try to act a little more mature.

beaches wrote:
No, it doesn't. She was outlining a business position. Interestingly a business position that has allowed many people on this site to get better by buying drugs that Gilead has made cheaply available in certain countries.

Please don't let your desire to be angry at something cloud your reason concerning the medication that is benefiting so many people (if they have more than two brain cells in their heads and a sense of adventure.) She is not responsible for the business environment created by the governments that have been democratically elected.

A.L. wrote:
Yeah you do that.

A.L. wrote:
"I might leave you for a bit."

Perhaps you would be happier and better off somewhere else.

A.L....personally, I enjoy your posts. You bring a different perspective to the table
and obviously, you have a thick skin. Sometimes your posts rub people the wrong
way and your modus operandi is a bit harsh.

Life and reality is not all peaches and cream which seems to underlie your
comments. If that is the case, I happen to agree with you, but try to tone it
down a bit unless you really don't care.....e.