_radar

I guess you people have to have the true meaning of a word spelled out for you don't you? :roll: Wanker is a pejorative term of British origin, also common in Australia and New Zealand, literally meaning one who wanks (masturbates). It is particularly used of someone (usually male) who is self-obsessed and/or a show-off. It has the similar meanings and overtones to American pejorative terms such as "jerk", "jerk-off", or "prick". Although masturbation is now seen as a widespread and acceptable practice, the insulting properties of these terms still remain. The idea is not to draw attention to the fact that a male masturbates; rather, it is to emphasise that (because of his very poor social skills) he has so little sexual interaction with others that his only remaining option is to masturbate. As with many profanities, it is considered much less shocking today than before, but is nevertheless an insult.

Yes Dustdevil, I have been reading long enough, and my head is firmly where it needs to be. I have been on this forum long enough to see you double back on many things that you have posted. Myself not being retired as you are, I do not have the time, at present, to go and look up and quote everthing you have double talked on. What I can cite quickly enough at this point is that Dallas/Arlington is nowhere near Halifax or, as your profile read not too long ago, "Just south of Winnipeg". And your spelling, such as labour instead of the American labor, is also recent. And just to let you know, that spelling is European, where I come from, not Candadian. When I get time, I will quote you on your double backings in PMs. To all other posters, sorry to have hijacked the thread. Will not happen again.

Ok, I usually keep silent. I mostly read the posts, roll my eyes :roll: , laugh , and just move on. But some things just get under my skin and I have to break my silence just to relieve the need to yell at the screen when I read some of this stuff. I will start out by saying that I agree, for the most part, about the amount of education versus just training that EMTs receive. I do believe that there should be more education as to the reasons, indications/contraindications for the things that we are trained to do, more pathophysiology. But that is the education side of it. As for the age limits, the State of Texas, or at least my area, requires those taking EMS courses to be at least 18 years of age to begin with. But how about the logistics of it all? Many are stressing the raising of the minimum age limit of an individual to enter into the EMS profession. And still more are using this as an opportunity to restress the need for greater education. Changing the structure takes not only time but money. And are we forgetting that no matter how much education you receive, no matter how much time you spend getting that education, most of what anyone of any profession, especially the medical profession, learns is in the field/hospital/clinic? No amount of education or time spent in education can properly prepare anyone for any and every eventuality that can come down the pike. A minimum age limit? Perhaps to raise the maturity level a bit. But does that not just throw a blanket over the problem without addressing the 35 year old Paramedic(yes I said Paramedic) who knows his stuff, but is the most immature person I have ever been around in my life?