rec.sport.football.college

On Aug 7, 10:29 pm, Jay Furr wrote:

> A few years ago, a friend of mine hemorrhaged at home after giving birth to
> her second child and wound up receiving more blood in terms of transfusions
> than her body actual holds -- it was like they were pouring it in as fast
> as she bled it out. If her little local western Massachusetts hospital had
> been short of blood due to conditions like we're currently in, she'd have
> died.

FAIL

say her little local western Massachusetts hospital was
run by a madman, who demanded that the blood bank
have 80 billion gallons of blood at all time.

Next say the blood bank were short by 5 gallons. It
has 79 billion 999 million 999 thousand 995 gallons. It's
short, so according to you she should die, but it isn't
so. They are able to give her the ten gallons she needs
and still have more than 79 billion gallons in store.

Since you lied here, your whole argument is in contempt,
and should be shunned.

--