quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

No one found the word incomprehensible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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: DesideriScuri

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.

No one found the word incomprehensible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

No one found the word incomprehensible.

Not incomprehensible, no.
But, you (and Aylee) are both stuck on taking only ONE particularly small meaning of it.
Which, incidentally, doesn't apply to the article in question.
You keep positing force (implied or otherwise) when there is none.
Apparently, it is only you two that are hung up on this one word and derailed the entire thread.
Everyone else could see it except you two.

• 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: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

And you wonder why I call you stupid. Sadly no one can improve that for you.

quote:

quote:

No one found the word incomprehensible.

You fucking did. Just as you couldnt spot that I used the subject of my Cholestrol as an example of how things are ensured, not as an equal to obesity. If you have any more doubts then reread my post above, over and over and over.

• 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

And you wonder why I call you stupid. Sadly no one can improve that for you.

I don't wonder at all. It's quite easy to see you have little in your arsenal other than calling people names.

Why not actually answer the questions, Polite?

quote:

quote:

No one found the word incomprehensible.

You fucking did. Just as you couldnt spot that I used the subject of my Cholestrol as an example of how things are ensured, not as an equal to obesity. If you have any more doubts then reread my post above, over and over and over.

You're dead wrong. Again. You used cholesterol as an example, but it wasn't an example that really fit the situation, as explained in my post. And, even FD admits that I took a meaning (the wrong one, he claims) of the word, proving that it wasn't incomprehensible. But, don't let that stop you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

And you wonder why I call you stupid. Sadly no one can improve that for you.

I don't wonder at all. It's quite easy to see you have little in your arsenal other than calling people names.
Why not actually answer the questions, Polite?

quote:

quote:

No one found the word incomprehensible.

You fucking did. Just as you couldnt spot that I used the subject of my Cholestrol as an example of how things are ensured, not as an equal to obesity. If you have any more doubts then reread my post above, over and over and over.

You're dead wrong. Again. You used cholesterol as an example, but it wasn't an example that really fit the situation, as explained in my post. And, even FD admits that I took a meaning (the wrong one, he claims) of the word, proving that it wasn't incomprehensible. But, don't let that stop you.

Thanks for proving my point.

• 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: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

• 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

I asked questions about your example, and you haven't answered any of them.

While we disagree on "ensure," it continues to "not sink in with you," that I accepted, quite a few pages ago, the idea that there wasn't going to be coercion or force involved in the program. What you don't get is that for the last however many pages, it's been about a word, and not the program at all. I've stated, several times, that I think a better word would have been "support" or "promote," which still seems to me what the program is actually doing.

Perhaps you're the stupid one for not being able to figure that out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Double standards or just plain obtuseness on your part??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Double standards or just plain obtuseness on your part??

My guess is both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

I asked questions about your example, and you haven't answered any of them.
While we disagree on "ensure," it continues to "not sink in with you," that I accepted, quite a few pages ago, the idea that there wasn't going to be coercion or force involved in the program. What you don't get is that for the last however many pages, it's been about a word, and not the program at all. I've stated, several times, that I think a better word would have been "support" or "promote," which still seems to me what the program is actually doing.
Perhaps you're the stupid one for not being able to figure that out?

The problem is, Desi, you are quite happy to use the word "ensure" in your own post in a context where there is no force, yet fail to apply that very same meaning you used to the same word when quoted in the original link.
That is what has exasperated us.
Double standards or just plain obtuseness on your part??

1. to secure or guarantee
2. to make sure or certain
3. to make secure or safe, as from harm
4. insure (definitions 1-3)

• 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: PeonForHer
FR
Fecking hell - this thread is priceless! Thanks for ensuring* that I got a good laugh tonight.
... And I needed the laugh. My dad was taken into hospital just before Christmas with repeated heart attacks that his pacemaker couldn't handle. It was a harrowing time for us all - at one point we were beginning to accept that he wouldn't make it. However, he's had a new pacemaker fitted (at a cost of £18,000 to the NHS, apparently) and is back at home, growling at the television, as usual.

quote:

[*Though I want to make it clear that my use of that term shouldn't be taken to imply that any of you were here in my sitting room ready with guns drawn in case I should fail to laugh.]

• 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

I asked questions about your example, and you haven't answered any of them.
While we disagree on "ensure," it continues to "not sink in with you," that I accepted, quite a few pages ago, the idea that there wasn't going to be coercion or force involved in the program. What you don't get is that for the last however many pages, it's been about a word, and not the program at all. I've stated, several times, that I think a better word would have been "support" or "promote," which still seems to me what the program is actually doing.
Perhaps you're the stupid one for not being able to figure that out?

The problem is, Desi, you are quite happy to use the word "ensure" in your own post in a context where there is no force, yet fail to apply that very same meaning you used to the same word when quoted in the original link.
That is what has exasperated us.
Double standards or just plain obtuseness on your part??

Merriam-Webster defines ensure as: to make sure, certain, or safe.

The dictionary entry at reference.com for ensure defines it as:

1. to secure or guarantee
2. to make sure or certain
3. to make secure or safe, as from harm
4. insure (definitions 1-3)

Now, what was the claim for the program? The claim was that the program would include close monitoring to ensure patients would eat healthier and exercise more. How can a program secure, guarantee, make sure or make certain a patient eats healthier or exercises more? The short answer is: it can't. And, that's why I disagree that "ensure" was the correct word to use. You claim the program ensures patients that the doctors are going to do things. That may well be true, but that wasn't what the article in the OP stated, now was it? When you ensure (guarantee, secure, make sure, or make certain) that someone else performs some action, how can you do that, without there being an implication of use of force if that someone else doesn't perform that action?

And, as I've said numerous times now, I don't believe the NHS program was going to involve forcing the patients to do anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

I asked questions about your example, and you haven't answered any of them.
While we disagree on "ensure," it continues to "not sink in with you," that I accepted, quite a few pages ago, the idea that there wasn't going to be coercion or force involved in the program. What you don't get is that for the last however many pages, it's been about a word, and not the program at all. I've stated, several times, that I think a better word would have been "support" or "promote," which still seems to me what the program is actually doing.
Perhaps you're the stupid one for not being able to figure that out?

The problem is, Desi, you are quite happy to use the word "ensure" in your own post in a context where there is no force, yet fail to apply that very same meaning you used to the same word when quoted in the original link.
That is what has exasperated us.
Double standards or just plain obtuseness on your part??

Merriam-Webster defines ensure as: to make sure, certain, or safe.
The dictionary entry at reference.com for ensure defines it as:

1. to secure or guarantee
2. to make sure or certain
3. to make secure or safe, as from harm
4. insure (definitions 1-3)

Now, what was the claim for the program? The claim was that the program would include close monitoring to ensure patients would eat healthier and exercise more. How can a program secure, guarantee, make sure or make certain a patient eats healthier or exercises more? The short answer is: it can't. And, that's why I disagree that "ensure" was the correct word to use. You claim the program ensures patients that the doctors are going to do things. That may well be true, but that wasn't what the article in the OP stated, now was it? When you ensure (guarantee, secure, make sure, or make certain) that someone else performs some action, how can you do that, without there being an implication of use of force if that someone else doesn't perform that action?
And, as I've said numerous times now, I don't believe the NHS program was going to involve forcing the patients to do anything.

There you go again.
You are using 1 & 2, we and the article are using 3 & 4.
You are happy to use it in a non-violent, non-forceful way but won't accept that same meaning in the article.
Merriam Webster
Main Entry:insure
Pronunciation:in-*sh*r
Function:verb
Inflected Form:in£sured ; in£sur£ing
Etymology:Middle English, to assure, probably alteration of assuren
Date:1635
transitive verb
1 : to provide or obtain insurance on or for
2 : to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
intransitive verb : to contract to give or take insurance
synonyms see ENSURE
Seeing as #1 doesn't fit (because it's not insurance), that leaves definition #2.
From mainline definition: to assure
From meaning #2: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
Perfect fit!!
Ergo: the correct word was used.

• 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
Except, what was "ensured" was that the patient would "eat healthier and exercise more." How is the program "making certain?" Is the program going to take "necessary measures and precautions?" What are those measures and precautions? How is writing notes and offering help going to "make certain" a person acts in a desired way?

Thus, "ensure" is not the correct word. Rather "support" or "promote" would have been much more accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Except, what was "ensured" was that the patient would "eat healthier and exercise more." How is the program "making certain?" Is the program going to take "necessary measures and precautions?" What are those measures and precautions? How is writing notes and offering help going to "make certain" a person acts in a desired way?
Thus, "ensure" is not the correct word. Rather "support" or "promote" would have been much more accurate.

Nope, it fits perfectly!
One could also argue that many articles could be re-written in hindsight.
Why oh why can't you accept the word with the SAME meaning that you used in your post???
Is it soo hard for you to do that??
Jeez Desi, it's enough to drive a saint mad!!
And that's the last I'm going to comment on this one. I'm outta here.

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