From a Washington Post blog.

I struggle to understand your point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl......t-ebola/

Precisely!

The pink signifies bird flu.
Glaxo Smithkline are on overtime with multi-national government backed sales incentives.
A quango here, a quango there. Everybody's a winner. Except the man on the street.

I think that it's wonderful that most of Africa has been able to help stop the spread by closing their borders to the countries that have it, don't you?

I am asking what YOUR point is? What is your exact position? I don't want to assume and respond and be told you never said that.

My point is that the scope of the threat of Ebola to the world has been greatly exaggerated. My point is that when British and American teachers are threatened with their jobs because they've been to Kenya, some large number of people do not understand some basic facts about the disease and its prevalence.
Nee
My point is that when children are isolated from classmates that have been to Rwanda, there is something truly amiss. Need I go on, citing attempts to quarantine a school principal because it was believed that he had visited Nigeria? Or a Texas college that refused admission to a man from Nigeria because they were afraid he would bring Ebola to their campus.

The geography of Africa is relevant.

Yes John you in particular should rehabilitate so we know what you are saying and don't have to guess. Thank you.

Or perhaps, Danny, you could think on your own without hounding me. I know you can do it.

I do not want to apply my thinking to your posts and make assumptions that are not right. It is better if you are clear do you don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Why is clarity such a problem for you? Why be sarcastic and condescending when all I wanted is clarity? Having a bad day?

Ahh, the king of obstinate obtuseness.

Sure just nameless faceless name calling. But what is wrong with me wanting to know what was said instead of assuming? I still have not heard an answer. Just name calling and sarcasm as usual.

I've been accused several times of putting words in someone's mouth for trying to guess what they meant by some statement. Of course, there are many here who like to be obtuse with their statements so that they can't be pinned down to a particular position.

Exactly then when you DO make an assumption these are the first ones to accuse you of putting words in their mouths. They intentionally make it a moving target, a sure sign a strong viewpoint.

Ask Bob for clarification and what do you get? By God you get his opinion clarified. I may have a different point of view but at least I know exactly what he means.

Why does it take name calling and sarcasm to get to clarification?

Wow, do really think what you two are doing passes for logical debate and deserves anything but ridicule and condesension?

Right thanks for proving the point. But I an sure the second we agree with you EVERYTHING changes right?

What's wrong? Election results got you down?

Don't be so cranky. Nothing is going to change. These guys are probably more incompetent. I am sure by 2016 everyone will see. Don't sweat it.

I think unintended irreversible consequences (see War, Iraq) is what we need to worry about here.

I think intended irreversible consequences are just as bad. See the last 6 years.