quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That would be up to the parent, Lucy, in this situation.

But, yes, I do ensure my kids do their homework with various incentives and "monitoring."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Once again, I do not think the NHS or it's doctors are going to force anyone into doing anything.

quote:

And has been reiterated many times: there is NO force or coercion!!

That's what I fucking said! Holy shit!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The verb "to ensure" has as it's object, "they are eating better and exercising more." That was the phrase. That is how it is parsed.
How am I wrong in that?

quote:

Because you are only taking ONE part of the definition of how it is used and refusing to see the others.
Ergo: you end up on the wrong end of the argument and failing to see the other.

It really hasn't anything to do with the definition there. It's rules of grammar, unless Yoda was the article's writer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Thinking of syntax, not grammar, you are.

Syntax, specifically, yes. Part of grammar, syntax is.

No, it's not. That's why "Joe went off to the store" and "Off to the store went Joe" are both fine (different syntax), while "Joe go to the store" is not (without changing the meaning to a command, in which case there's a punctuation error, a comma after "Joe"). Grammar plays with the meaning and clarity; syntax plays with the emphasis and the "story" of a sentence (though granted, poor syntax will harm clarity).
Then there's style. "Joe went off to the store" is technically correct grammatically, but it's poor style, as the extra preposition "off" is unnecessary.
I've been doing this for 30 years. I'm pretty on top of it.
Nonetheless, there always have been, and always will be, self-proclaimed "grammar" police:
[it's a style problem, not a grammar error]

quote:

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That would be up to the parent, Lucy, in this situation.
But, yes, I do ensure my kids do their homework with various incentives and "monitoring."

And yet earlier, you categorically stated: "The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force".
So... what threat of force do you use on your kids?? Hold a gun to their heads?? Huh??
You have already stated your opinion on this... so perhaps a sensible answer would help to clarify your use of the "ensure" in your post??!?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Once again, I do not think the NHS or it's doctors are going to force anyone into doing anything.

quote:

And has been reiterated many times: there is NO force or coercion!!

That's what I fucking said! Holy shit!

And yet you maintain: The "close monitoring" that was to ensure compliance. Of course, "close monitoring" can be defined in many ways, but when paired with ensuring something (that is, guaranteeing that something is going to happen), there is an underlying implication of force and loss of liberty.
You again state (in post#272): The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force.
And now you are agreeing with me that there is NO force implied????
So which is it???

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The verb "to ensure" has as it's object, "they are eating better and exercising more." That was the phrase. That is how it is parsed.
How am I wrong in that?

quote:

Because you are only taking ONE part of the definition of how it is used and refusing to see the others.
Ergo: you end up on the wrong end of the argument and failing to see the other.

It really hasn't anything to do with the definition there. It's rules of grammar, unless Yoda was the article's writer.

Nope. Not rules of grammar.
Rules of definition of the word.
In one context, the word has one style and meaning.
In another context, it has a very different and definitive (aggressive) meaning.
The article in question, and the general "us" (as in most of us) are using one definition.
You and Aylee are using the other.This is not only causing confusion (well, only to you and Aylee), but changing the whole emphasis of the topic being discussed.
Just to close the topic: those that want it, get it, for free, gratis, paid for (in the UK).
And if you haven't grasped it by now, the directive was to ensure GP's made the offerings and recorded outcomes instead of just the usual "being fat" verbal lecture.
If you still can't grasp what has been 'splained to you many times in this thread - go back to fucking school!
There. Subject fucking closed!!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You can be so, what is your word, daft?

This entire thread was about how compliance would be ensured. For someone from the UK, you sure can't seem to understand English. How the fuck did you not get that?

My response to her was not that the NHS would go all gestapo and force compliance, which, while my example is hyperbole, what Aylee was thinking.

But, you didn't get that. Go pour yourself another cuppa joe, and maybe, just maybe you'll wake up. I doubt it, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Thinking of syntax, not grammar, you are.

Syntax, specifically, yes. Part of grammar, syntax is.

No, it's not. That's why "Joe went off to the store" and "Off to the store went Joe" are both fine (different syntax), while "Joe go to the store" is not (without changing the meaning to a command, in which case there's a punctuation error, a comma after "Joe"). Grammar plays with the meaning and clarity; syntax plays with the emphasis and the "story" of a sentence (though granted, poor syntax will harm clarity).
Then there's style. "Joe went off to the store" is technically correct grammatically, but it's poor style, as the extra preposition "off" is unnecessary.
I've been doing this for 30 years. I'm pretty on top of it.
Nonetheless, there always have been, and always will be, self-proclaimed "grammar" police:
[it's a style problem, not a grammar error]

Apparently, not everyone agrees with you...

Grammar

quote:

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You can be so, what is your word, daft?
This entire thread was about how compliance would be ensured. For someone from the UK, you sure can't seem to understand English. How the fuck did you not get that?
My response to her was not that the NHS would go all gestapo and force compliance, which, while my example is hyperbole, what Aylee was thinking.
But, you didn't get that. Go pour yourself another cuppa joe, and maybe, just maybe you'll wake up. I doubt it, though.

Trust me bruv, I got what the fucking thread was about. It was about the insitence that the nasty British Government, commie bastard that Cameron is, would ENSURE all the instructions from the sntre would be carried out forthwith.
Once you learn that the wourd ensure was being used in a different connotation, and that it was just an idea and not actually government policy, get back to me with a few thoughts. Until then I am sure you will just keep pissing and moaning about the NHS.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Wikipedia. What a shocker.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Except that it is to ensure healthy eating and exercise. So that is not something the GP would or would not be doing.

Uummmmm.... yes, it is the GP's responsibility to monitor their patient and offer anything that might help the situation.
Whether that is just monitoring (and recording) the clinical data or whether something more drastic needs to be considered is another ball of wax - which also needs to be recorded under the new directive.

And I saw nothing in the linked report beyond offering the necessary support for the patient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: From the report -
GPs will be asked to identify patients who are putting on weight under a new national programme to help fight obesity.

Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, said it was time for Britain to "get back in shape" in order to protect millions of people from a host of obesity-related diseases.

Under the scheme, family doctors will be asked to identify anyone who has gained weight and is at risk of diabetes – particularly those aged below 40.

They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more.

All for the GP to record and monitor.
If the patient can't be assed - then that's their problem.
There is NO coercion, no force, nothing sinister.

You are nit-picking over ONE word and ignoring everything else about the topic.
Get real!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiveSpark
And the point you either aren't getting or are willfully ignoring that GPs ARE doing those things but there is only so much they can do.

If they are already doing this, then what's the point of a program that asks GP's to do what they're already doing?

It's in the article.

A partnership.

The age-old belief that 'two heads are better than one'.

There is an element of government control, of course there is, because the government are involved as one stakeholder of a few and so they want results and want some sway in controlling the path toward those results. That much is obvious and should be taken as read, and certainly unworthy of page after page of what amounts to a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence which thinly veils an attempt to manipulate posters into stating: "yes, there is an element of government control"; and one thing this type of correspondence is certainly failing to do, miserably, is masquerade as discussion.

The idea that government intervention is always mischievious, or malevolent, or taking liberties; is a touch distasteful, especially as the government interfere in many aspects of life, some of which are genuinely dangerous and often times go ignored by the 'libertarian' (not that such a thing exists in practice: it's tantamount to a monumental load of bollocks serving only to self-deceive) advocates.

In terms of economics, obesity is costing the British tax-payer an inordinate amount of money that would be better served elsewhere. And, after all, the government have been elected to serve all of our interests, not only those who are ferociously busy trying to eat themselves into oblivion.

In terms of the social/health aspect, I doubt that many people are overly concerned with the health of some bloke down the street who is too lazy to buy some vegetables and steam them, but, and this much should be obvious: we don't want to pay for the outcome.

You continue to ask why the government are poking their noses in when 'all of the information is out there'. Are you're being mischevious, or are you leading posters down a path to your next question, or are you simply bored?. I would suggest you take a look around you, and even a cursory glance would lead to the conclusion that the information 'being out there' alone, is evidently not sufficient to check a growing problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

11 pages and still no answer as to how healthy eating and exercise will be ensured through close monitoring. *sigh*

Aylee,

Are you suffering from the same severe case of boredom?

Why does anyone monitor anything?

Monitoring is a control tool which is aimed at 'ensuring' results.

Spelling it out for the untutored in basic monitoring philosophy here you are: information will be gathered to understand the extent of the problem, solutions will be proposed and agreed, targets will flow out of the solution aimed at supporting the agreed solution, these targets will be monitored to ensure they are being met and by extension the agreed solution is being met, the targets may be reappraised depending upon progress.

This couldn't be more basic, understood by all - even burrow owls, and undertaken the world over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

ensure is also a nutritional drink/shake
FFS this is bloody stupid, because an article states" ensure", we have the put forward the fat fema camps and glutton gulags as a DIG at the "glimmer" of patients being forced.
I know some of you have this reds under the beds terror thing going on(that or the "eeebil moooozlems"), but that is YOUR issue to deal with, not ours.
Its bloody dumb and its gone 13 pages with paranoia rampant.. from the usual suspects.

The doctors, and health services may come together with a great plan, but it wont do any good if the diet and food industry dont agree to do anything about it. That includes GMOs HFCS or added glucose in practically EVERYTHING. They lie about their claims, they lie about their ingredients, hormones, preservatives, EVERYDAMN thing and the diet industry makes a living confusing everyone. For DECADES.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words.

Not in my English it doesn't.
There is NO such implication at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance.

Nope.
I can "ensure" that my plants grow better. But if they don't??? Meh!! What do I do, chop them down or dig them up?

Jeeezz... You can be a real dunce sometimes Desi.


Merriam Webster
Main Entry: com£pli£ance
Pronunciation:k*m-*pl*-*n(t)s
Function:noun
Date:circa 1630


1 a : the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion
b : conformity in fulfilling official requirements
2 : a disposition to yield to others
3 : the ability of an object to yield elastically when a force is applied : FLEXIBILITY


"We" (generally), are using definition 1a (the main part); with the doctors using 1b.
You, however, are taking ONLY the latter part of 1a and 2 and are refusing to even acknowledge the main part of 1a (and 1b).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Aylee, your point about 1984 wasnt pertinent, it was childish. Nothing in your link posted in the OP states anything here is government policy, let alone compulsory.
You seem hung up on the word "Ensure" and as several of us have already explained to both you and Desi, it doeant mean force. let me try and keep this civil and give you an easy example.
A few years ago I had very high blood pressure and high levels of Cholesteral. My doctor put me on a programme to ensure healthy eating, basically cut out the bad fats.
The only checks I have to ensure this are my weight, cholesteral and blood pressure, being taking in my yearly health check. Nothing is compulsory, nothing is forced, it just is what it is, a yearly health check.
I am unsure why you find this so hard to understand.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The use of close monitoring to ensure compliance implies a threat of force. That there is going to be any force is not something I hold. I've already stated that point, just not in those words.

Not in my English it doesn't.
There is NO such implication at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes, "compliance" wasn't in the quote. However, compliance would mean they are "eating better and exercising more." So, if you "ensure" they are "eating better and exercising more," you are ensuring compliance.

Nope.
I can "ensure" that my plants grow better. But if they don't??? Meh!! What do I do, chop them down or dig them up?

Jeeezz... You can be a real dunce sometimes Desi.


Merriam Webster
Main Entry: com£pli£ance
Pronunciation:k*m-*pl*-*n(t)s
Function:noun
Date:circa 1630


1 a : the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion
b : conformity in fulfilling official requirements
2 : a disposition to yield to others
3 : the ability of an object to yield elastically when a force is applied : FLEXIBILITY


"We" (generally), are using definition 1a (the main part); with the doctors using 1b.
You, however, are taking ONLY the latter part of 1a and 2 and are refusing to even acknowledge the main part of 1a (and 1b).

What happened to number 3?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Aylee, your point about 1984 wasnt pertinent, it was childish. Nothing in your link posted in the OP states anything here is government policy, let alone compulsory.
You seem hung up on the word "Ensure" and as several of us have already explained to both you and Desi, it doeant mean force. let me try and keep this civil and give you an easy example.
A few years ago I had very high blood pressure and high levels of Cholesteral. My doctor put me on a programme to ensure healthy eating, basically cut out the bad fats.
The only checks I have to ensure this are my weight, cholesteral and blood pressure, being taking in my yearly health check. Nothing is compulsory, nothing is forced, it just is what it is, a yearly health check.
I am unsure why you find this so hard to understand.

How did your doctor ensure your healthy eating? Or, did your doctor merely advise and counsel you to eat healthier and how to do eat healthier? Neither of those ensures that you'll eat healthier (or drink Ensure, for a nod to Lucy). You can still choose to not eat healthier, can't you?

There is a difference between having high cholesterol and being overweight. If we're all honest with ourselves, we know when we're overweight without going to a doctor, or getting any tests done. That's not really the case with high cholesterol, though, is it?

Either way, the only person that can ensure you do anything, is you, unless there is force being used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Aylee, your point about 1984 wasnt pertinent, it was childish. Nothing in your link posted in the OP states anything here is government policy, let alone compulsory.
You seem hung up on the word "Ensure" and as several of us have already explained to both you and Desi, it doeant mean force. let me try and keep this civil and give you an easy example.
A few years ago I had very high blood pressure and high levels of Cholesteral. My doctor put me on a programme to ensure healthy eating, basically cut out the bad fats.
The only checks I have to ensure this are my weight, cholesteral and blood pressure, being taking in my yearly health check. Nothing is compulsory, nothing is forced, it just is what it is, a yearly health check.
I am unsure why you find this so hard to understand.

How did your doctor ensure your healthy eating? Or, did your doctor merely advise and counsel you to eat healthier and how to do eat healthier? Neither of those ensures that you'll eat healthier (or drink Ensure, for a nod to Lucy). You can still choose to not eat healthier, can't you?
There is a difference between having high cholesterol and being overweight. If we're all honest with ourselves, we know when we're overweight without going to a doctor, or getting any tests done. That's not really the case with high cholesterol, though, is it?
Either way, the only person that can ensure you do anything, is you, unless there is force being used.

I'll answer your questions one by one seeing as you are playing a dunce again.
Q: How did your doctor ensure your healthy eating?
A: He doesn't. He ensures you get the info AND that he records the details.

quote:

Q: Or, did your doctor merely advise and counsel you to eat healthier and how to do eat healthier?
A: More than likely offer a course on healthy eating at a local clinic or with a dietician.

quote:

Neither of those ensures that you'll eat healthier (or drink Ensure, for a nod to Lucy). You can still choose to not eat healthier, can't you?

Yes, you can. But if you want to get better - follow the plan.

quote:

Q: There is a difference between having high cholesterol and being overweight.
A: Ya don't say!!!

quote:

If we're all honest with ourselves, we know when we're overweight without going to a doctor, or getting any tests done.
Explain that to a 5ft nothing person tipping the scales at 300+ lbs and thinks it is perfectly normal.

quote:

That's not really the case with high cholesterol, though, is it?
Cholesterol isn't necessarily linked with obesity.
I know people with high cholesterol who are normal weight.
I also know grossly overweight people who have normal cholesterol.
Your point is???

quote:

Either way, the only person that can ensure you do anything, is you, unless there is force being used.
Exactly!!!! But... there is no "unless". We are using a different meaning of "ensure".
NO force. NO coercion. NO costs. NO penalties. NO government involvement. NO overseer. NO consequences.
Nothing but words to encourage you.

quote:

ETA: You really must get it through your head that "ensure" in itself does NOT imply any force, coercion or loss of liberty except for one very particular meaning of it.
We are NOT using that particular meaning and neither is the document. Geddit??

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
So two people in the world found this word incomprehensible. Fortunately neither of them were English and so in the end it didn't really matter.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)