chatdemon rich's page

It is illegal to refuse to hire a person because he or she has a medical condition that would affect your health insurance premiums.

Of course, and honestly, I'm offended that you seem to suggest I'd do so. However, I was talking about moral responsibility. If I'm going to give you a job and provide not only a wage but also your health care, I'd expect some forthright honesty about why you wish to be employed.

But to answer the original question. I had been working for this employer for 3 years before I was diagnosed, and I did notify my manager at the time I was diagnosed.

If I were to search for a new job, I would NOT notify the employer before I was hired that I had a serious health condition.

It's admirable that you let the employer know what was going on. That open dialogue is what I'm talking about. Your statement about a future job search though, if you won't be open and honest, why should they be obliged to provide for you.

Yeah, it's illegal not to hire you for that reason. You think they won't find another, valid reason to do so?

Is this where the debate over preexisting conditions comes from? Would removing that stipulation go a long way towards healing the divide we're experiencing on this issue or not?

Options for people with pre-existing conditions, and removing interstate restrictions on buying insurance (Allowing me, in florida, to buy a policy in texas if it was cheaper, for example) would indeed go a long way towards constructive reform of the system. A far better option than blanket control by the government, IMO.

Noone disagrees that reform is needed. It's all a matter of how much reform, and the manner of reform.

I think you're missing the point that there aren't large to medium sized groups available for individuals to join who can leverage buying power with their numbers. There is an advantage to having larger numbers to seek insurance for.

No, I understand that joining such a group policy outside of employee groups is difficult, but it's not impossible. It's still irrelevant to the point. People can and do get coverage outside of what their employer covers, group policies are not exclusive to work benefits.

Blue cross and other public programs are a good example. Yes, there are some requirements, and restrictions on coverage, especially for pre-existing conditions, but it's affordable and available to almost everyone.

Not exactly. There are very stringent entry requirements for these programs, particularly for anyone who is under the age for mandatory coverage. Like all insurance, they do not cover everything.

And if you've ever owned a home in an area prone to floods or hurricanes, per the original analogy, you know that there are very strict requirements involved, and outrageously high premiums.

The flaw in the example is, you don't NEED flood insurance to survive. Once your mortgage is paid off, noone cares if you're insured or not. For the 99% of us not independently wealthy enough to pay all our health care costs out of pocket, medical insurance is more of a necessity.

Normally, people choose companies based on the total compensation. This cesspool of an economy has reduced those choices greatly, increasing the fear amongst the workforce, especially the unemployed, and increased the desperation for health care reform. Vicious cycle. Companies didn't create the mess, but the have a fiscal responsibility to ensure business continuity by investing in their employee's health., and minimizing training costs.

While I assume many of my employees chose to work for me because of the pay and benefits (insurance payment matching, free meals, whatever else escapes me at the moment), I like to hope that they remain employees at least in part due to the sense of team or family that I mentioned before. That's where my sense of moral responsibility for them comes in. I realize that in larger businesses (My partner and I employ about 30 people) this becomes more difficult, but it's something I try to keep as a top priority in our business plan.

For my business and my employees, I think our arrangement works well. I pay half, they pay half, and I'm more than willing to give advances or modest loans in the event of emergencies, including medical emergencies not covered by our policy (YES, my daughter and I have the same policy they do). If something changes and the government requires me to pay all of it, I can't stay profitable without major changes somewhere. I'd hate to have to make those changes by laying off workers, but that's often the option many employers choose, rightly or wrongly, and it's the main risk of government meddling in these matters (or in the matter of minimum wage, but that's another story).

I have leukemia, and my medicine that keeps the disease in check and prevents me from needing a bone marrow transplant costs $125 a day.

I mean no offense here, but I must ask something. I assume you had that condition when you started your current job? Did you inform the employer of the condition pre-hire? If you're claiming that it's now his/her responsibility to provide for your insurance, is it not your responsibility to provide full disclosure?

I think too there may be a misunderstanding on what employer-provided health insurance does. It spreads the risk to the insurance company among a much larger group, which means, yes, that the healthy people are paying for the sick people like me.

No, that's a benefit of group policies in general, whether they are paid for by those who are covered or their employees. The fact that most employer provided plans will be group policies is irrelevant.

With all the debate on health care reform, what I don't understand is why the government doesn't treat health insurance like it treats flood insurance.

They do. Medicare, Medicaid. Aid for those who can't afford to pay, right?

I provide access to a group plan for my employees. I pay half their premium if they choose to take advantage of that. It's my moral responsibility to the extended family that helps my business succeed. However, I reject any notion that it is my legal responsibility, and resent any notion of the government meddling and telling me how to run my business and the relationship with my employees.

Actually, they dont need to be prayed for or told this was because they dont believe in an American God the way Indonesians were after the Tsunami of 2004...just the help will be fine.

My News coverage is back woods - but it all comes from US News Sources.

Yeah, you hate christians too, I get it.

Funny, our media is reporting on the aid when they mention the military presence needed to expedite delivery. Now you're starting to contradict yourself, but that's your way isn't it? Multiple people have rebuked you, some more bluntly than others, so now it's time to start claiming you didn't mean exactly what you said, right?

Typical.

Pathetic, but typical.

Of course if you could prove that A Journalist kicking a single food parcel into a crowd of a thousand from a chopper didnt start a fight where as deploying a cargo container of supplied did, i would like to see it.

I could prove many things.

I could prove I've been to Haitim and you haven't. So what?

I could prove I've donated to this crisis and you haven't. So what?

I could point out that you've already admitted that your "news" is carrying incomplete coverage. So what?

You've done a fine job for years proving how much you hate America. I don't feel a particular need to prove anything to little boys posting from their mother's basement. I only feel a need to call b+$&@~#+ when you do so at the expense of a nation of people who need to be prayed for and helped, not used as ammunition in a pathetic loser's continuing tirades.

Well thank god something is getting done other than the Journalists starting food riots and political grandstanding. Pity they dont bother with that sort of inclusion on our News outlets.

Every time you post you prove yourself more ignorant. Journalists causing riots? Food riots and crime is par for the course in Haiti, it's been that way forever.

Try using the 'net for news if yours sucks. If you can get past your childish hatred of everything american long enough to use a search engine.

You are, as always, an antiamerican idiot. Quit taking your talking points from Chavez and shut the hell up, jackass.

What really disgusts me is asshats like you using the tragedy in Haiti to advance your pathetic agenda.

Go to hell.

And you DO realize, don't you, that Bill Clinton is the UN Envoy to Haiti? Or are you talking about George W Bush, who is there working with Clinton? Or is your head so far up your ass that you're talking about one of our dead presidents?

Also, to Chatdemon: Mellow out! If you want to argue, please do it in another thread.

Responding to a comment specifically about me is arguing?

I'll keep that in mind.

In order to keep our messageboards friendly and fun, here are some reminders about our policies:

* Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
* Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
* Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
* Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
* Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.

Violating any of these rules may result in suspension or permanent removal from our messageboards.

Guess that doesn't apply when the person being disparaged is unpopular, and the one doing it kisses up to the moderators, eh?

...and then there were the whackos that used to try to hijack the Civil Religious Discussion thread

Civil?

Just because I no longer stoop to responding to jackassery here doesn't mean I don't lurk around now and then.

And if you'd checked your facts, you'd see I have posted quite recently.

I think that's a fine argument, but as many people have stated, a very vocal majority would be upset if their marriages were suddenly null and void

Who said anything about nullifying existing marriages? You'd just get a letter from the government saying "the state now refers to your marriage as a civil union"

Macaroni salad is not a traditional hawaiian food, but my guess (as a chef/restauranteur) is that the reason is simple. Mac salad is cheap. It's also a good alternative to the pig for guests who follow a kosher or halal diet. The presence of tuna in many macaroni salads gives it a bit of legitimacy on a polynesian menu as well.

Likewise, a lot of luau hosts now offer chicken teriyaki, other fish and sushi to appeal to the variety of guests.

In a strictly traditional luau, the menu would be hog, salmon and chicken, prepared hawaiian style, but in such a strict luau, the guests would all be locals who are used to that kind of diet. As hawaii has grown more tourism focused, and luaus have cropped up in other places, they need to cater to a wider variety of guests.

Can I point out, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is NOT the only religion to condemn homosexuality? Judeism and Islam outlaw it as well.

I'm from california originally, it's not a bible belt state, and contrary to the picture painted by the opponents of prop. 8 and some in the mainstream media, the supporters of prop. 8 are by no means all christian bible thumper wackos. Some not so religious folks just don't like the idea of gay marriage either.

Through civil unions, Ca. grants identical (as far as I can tell) rights to same sex couples as it does to traditional married couples, so it all comes down to the word "marriage". It's been mentioned earlier here, and I agree, take the word marriage out of government, give it to the churches, and have the gov. recognize only "civil unions" for all domestic partnerships. Equal rights for all, and no gov. imposition of it's definition on churches, and vice versa. Problem solved, except that extremists on both sides of the issue are obsessed with having the government define the word marriage.

What I find odd is that florida, where I live now, passed an almost identical bill in the nov. elections, and it gets almost no attention...

The last time he got like this, it tainted the community for a week, resulted in multiple threads getting locked, and someone getting banned.

Let's be truthful here. Me getting banned had NOTHING to do with Sam. It had to do with anonymous complaints to fuhrer teter about me complaining about bigotry in the off topic forum.

They are always looking for a Paizo "fanboi" to attack, and will do so at the drop of a hat.

Yes, and you are SO welcoming of unpopular opinions here. I should be ashamed of my preference for that forum over this one.

Is anyone planning on answering this?

For what it's worth, I now lump you in the same group as yellowdingo, who at least has a hint of whimsy to him.

So I'm now a fine upstanding member of the forum, whom everyone here will defend, no matter how offensive and annoying I get? Yippee!

chatdemon rich wrote:

So, if I go out and champion the KKK, I'm a patriot?

Here. You could've said the exact same thing without that nauseating bit of inciteful rubbish. See how my editing of your statement makes your content a little more acceptable? It doesn't modify your point whatsoever, assuming your primary goal isn't one of muckraking.

I wasn't trying to be nice, I was trying to make a point, and your reaction tells me i succeeded.

Language insulting to blacks offends you. Language insulting to jews offends me. Get it now?

Um, no. That statement proves you don't have a clue what being an American is all about. Defending the rights of bigots makes you a patriot.

So, if I go out and champion the KKK for putting them damn n*%~~~s in their place, I'm a patriot? And if you criticize me for doing so, you are the bad guy?

How the hell does that work?

And for the record, I have no ill feelings or disrespect for any race, color, ethnicity. The language above was used for shock value to make a point. My apologies to any who take offense at such use of a racial slur.

Rich, wake up and smell the coffee. It is not what you are saying, it is the way you are saying it. No one can debate with you because you turn nasty, so it turns into a slanging match.

Ah, let me rephrase.

"Please mr bigot, dont call us americans nazis anymore, I really dont like it."

I didn't quote the other posts where YD makes jokes about hitler. I didn't post complaints about the people in the win the war thread who blamed jews for all the problems in the middle east and promoted the destruction of Israel.

I'm not Jewish, but listen well, there is no civil response to that manner of bigotry. It must be dealt with harshly, or it gets to a point where noone complains about, or worse, to a point where those who do complain about it are attacked by the status quo.

And sorry, Gary, you might need to close this thread too.

Why should he bother? He'll just let people resume the same discussion in a new thread.

Hmm, kind of reminds me of the whole reason I posted in this thread....

That was on a joke/casual "conspiracy" thread, you twit.

Calling americans nazis is not a joke, in any context, ever.

This is my point right here. There's simply no call for this. This doesn't achieve anything, calling everybody a pinko anti-semite because they don't champion your latest attempt at trolling as the epitome of patriotism.

No see, it's the out of hand dismissal of me as a troll when I DARE to question anyone who is posting bigtory that makes you a bigot. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but if you're going to defend those spouting off hate here, we're going to have issues.

Let it go. If he has anything intelligent to say, he'll learn to post respectfully. And if he doesn't, he's more than welcome to leave the community and find someplace where his level of discourse is appreciated.

And you are more than welcome to kiss my ass, idiot.

DID ANY OF YOU NOTICE THE POST WHERE ERIK MONA AGREES WITH MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS THREAD? ANYONE?

Quit f*+#ing attacking me for disagreeing with your buddies and read the damned thread.

Oh, get lost then. And you are wrong. I'm actually quite right wing

No, I am not wrong. Defending the words of bigots makes you a bigot. It's that simple. If you insist on defending the people who ignored the win the war thread's closure and continued it here, and continue to defend yellowdingo's hate filled tirades against the US by calling me a troll when I speak any words critical of them, you are defending bigots. Entirely your right, but don't try and hide behind some wall of righteousness.

Jeez, I was was trying to be nice - take your inadequacies somewhere else.

By the way, do you actually play D&D? (That's a rhetorical question - we will not be communicating again.)

TRYING TO BE NICE???

B@$~#&&~ like this is why i don't post here that often. I don't need to be part of your circle jerk to validate my gaming. I don't need to endlessly post here about what I dislike about Paizo's D&D and Greyhawk material. I do have a right to speak up when I see behavior like that of the people who decided to ignore the moderation of the win the war thread and continue it here.

If you were truly responding with an unpopular opinion, you'd at least say it intelligently. Hell, I do it all the time. However, what you're doing is inflammatory.

And what you're doing, as usual, is riding your pals' bandwagon. Have you even read what I've said? Have you read where Erik said I was correct in saying that replaying the closed thread in this one is improper? I doubt it. Doesn't jive with what your buddies want to say. Doesn't champion the people trying to take cheap final shots at others from the closed thread. Doesn't make me look like anything more than a troll. That can't be allowed, any of it, right? Gotta keep the riff raff out of your little clique, right?

If you don't want it, fine, but this is a generally pleasant community and I like virtually everyone one here, so it would be a shame if you end up stalking off in a huff. Just saying.

Let's be totally straight with each other here. This community is insular and unwelcoming to anything that isn't lockstep embrace of the popular ideas. It's only pleasant if you, like the rest of the "lords of the boards" are an america hating, bush hating, jew hating piece of crap. If that's not you, you're a troll.

And yes, I mean you, any of you who defend the bigotry that got the win the war thread closed. Any of you who defend yellowdingo's ignorant campaign of attacks on the US when I call him out on it. I mean you.

For example: where does he call anyone a Nazi?

and
When did he say Americans practice genocide?

Drop your blind attack on what I'm saying and read his g## d~!ned posts, as I quoted them. HIS WORDS, not mine:

Sure Osama is vermin, but lets get it right...so are the guys on the otherside

Despite the Firemen blocking six lanes of inbound traffic to the World Trade centre prior to the crash of the first plane, the only conspiracy there was George Bush throwing money at the vermin just in time to finance their attack

ROSWELL: Try deformed people as a result of Experiments using radiation on children-something a bunch of NAZI nuclear scientists have no problem with. More a crime of the US Government of the day than anything else.

Ok, so you agree with the basis of YD's posts. Fine.

When you posted, just now, your opinion on why the US is in Iraq, you did not call Americans or Bush:

Killers of Innocents for no reason.
Nazis.
Slaves to the draft.
Terrorist equals to Bin Laden.
Financiers of the 9-11 attacks.
Devoid of "ethics, strength of will and character".
Practitioners of genocide.

YD did so, all of them, in his posts I quoted. That is the crap I am talking about, not his views. He's not the only one here who isn't a conservative republican, but he's the only one I chose to respond to, does that tell you anything?

Now that's out of the way- who do you think should get the Republican nomination and why?

I support Duncan Hunter, for being strong on immigration, dedicated to finishing the job Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan, and (IMO), strong on traditional family values.

I'm not familiar with yellowdingo's attacks, so cannot comment.

As long as this crap is tolerated here, you really need to be prepared for the fact that now and then, someone is going to take offense and tell him what to do with himself.

BTW, I notice that you seem to equate Republicans with Americans-

What part of Americans and Republicans didn't you understand?

Sheesh, are we going to have to close this tread too? Let's lay off the nastiness, it's over. I quite like the political threads, as this community is generally well informed, but people do get over-excited. So let's drop it. All of it.

Quite telling that you feel the need to say that to me, but not to anyone calling me a troll.

You need to watch yourself. I've seen your posts on other threads, and if you want to stay on the boards, you'll stop trolling.

Reply in kind to idiocy is trolling now?

Or is it that I'm responding with an unpopular opinion?

I'm confused, please clarify.

These kinds of personal attacks have no place here.

But apparently, attacks like those yellowdingo constantly makes on republicans and americans are? Thanks for letting me know, I won't intrude on your bush hating any more.

chatdemon rich wrote:

And Gary calls himself a moderator.

I don't believe he does. He's the site admin and programmer, to my knowledge, which you should be thankful for, as you'd be ban-hammered already.

Banned for pointing out what a joke the moderation is here? Uh oh, thread's locked, lets continue it in another one!

High minded debate is a treasure and not to be shied away from.

It's good to know that spiteful anti-american ranting and accusations of israel being the cause of all the evil in the world are considered high minded debate. I'll keep that in mind.

I never want to see it reopened.

There's no reason to reopen the thread when people will just come here and continue their same ranting and attacking other posters.

And Gary calls himself a moderator. What a joke.

Would he be capable of actually getting Americans to vote Republican of their own free will at the next election?

Were you born an a@$+#@!, or do you practice at it?

People who vote republican have no free will?

Have your little Ron Paul fantasy all you like, it's nothing but a fantasy, the man cannot win the republican nomination.

Two quick questions about this article.

Since it's attributed only to the Dungeon & Dragon staff, who authored the section about Tasha?

Why, unlike any of the other entries, was the following statement made?

"Until Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, nothing more had been published in any official capacity..."

Is there perhaps something unofficial published on her that was seen as important to discredit?

It may be a retcon, but it's not incorrect.

Well, I'd say "it may be canon, but it's not correct". It's just another example of the poor research and uninspired development by the author of Scarlet Brotherhood. C1 clearly establishes that all 3 names for Zotz are used in the amedio.

I'd prefer an explanation for the varying names closer to that offered by the Living Greyhawk "return of Tloques-Poplocas" (not the exact title) author's, which as I'm told states that Zotzilaha is the dark/evil aspect of the god, since C1 only uses that name for him in reference to T-P's (a vampire) worship of him. Camazotz would then be the more neutral or good aspect, with Zotz being the informal name used in everyday parlance.

different names due to regional variance...snip...The Olman pantheon is very much based on various real-world Central American myths and deities, down to (in most cases) using exact names.

As I explained in my previous post, regional variance is not the source of the varying names.

While C1 claims to have based its design on Mayan, Aztec and Toltec myth, the real world gods that were used are exclusively Aztec.

Long Answer: Camazotz (or simply "Zotz") is the Hemponaland name, while Zotzilaha is the Amedio variant of the name.

That is incorrect, actually. Camazotz, Zotz and Zotzilaha are all used in C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. Tamoachan, as we all know, is in the Amedio, therefore Camazotz is not simply a "hepmonaland variant".

I did not think there was anything wrong with Chatdemon rich's initial post but after you disparaged him, he went on a prolonged tirade.

No, actually, for me, that tirade was rather brief, ask anybody.

If the rest of your demeaning tirade wasn't eternally etched in Cyberspace, right up above, maybe your little violin soliloqy would play better.

Im not seeking your sympathy moron. I simply will not sit back and let Rob run his petty little mouth when I was AGREEING WITH HIM.

Is that clear enough for you idiots? I WAS AGREEING WITH HIM.

G*~ d!$n.

See? This is it, right here. Little boys... you like to demean entire swathes of people and that's why you're so popular tonight.

Still want me to bring balloons to your party?

What's wrong, you want to play with the big boys but can't take it when it comes back to you?

Will you come make balloon animals at my next party?

If you and the other little boys and girls really want a clown THAT bad, sure, I'll pencil you in.

I'll even bring a pony...