In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>
>Than what? Your MB?

Than pretty much any CAR.

>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>
>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.

Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?

>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>cheaper to buy than using our own.

And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?

>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>
>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.

Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
the Persian Gulf?

>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>
>Where?
>>hurts our balance of payments,
>
>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>and increases global warming.
>
>That's truly laughable.
>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>many mammoths?
>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>fault completely ignore the past?

I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.

>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>
>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>

 

In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>
>Than what? Your MB?

Than pretty much any CAR.

>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>
>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.

Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?

>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>cheaper to buy than using our own.

And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?

>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>
>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.

Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
the Persian Gulf?

>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>
>Where?
>>hurts our balance of payments,
>
>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>and increases global warming.
>
>That's truly laughable.
>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>many mammoths?
>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>fault completely ignore the past?

I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.

>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>
>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>

 

In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>
>Than what? Your MB?

Than pretty much any CAR.

>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>
>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.

Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?

>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>cheaper to buy than using our own.

And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?

>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>
>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.

Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
the Persian Gulf?

>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>
>Where?
>>hurts our balance of payments,
>
>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>and increases global warming.
>
>That's truly laughable.
>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>many mammoths?
>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>fault completely ignore the past?

I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.

>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>
>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>

 

Did I insult you Lloyd ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3fu9$ipg$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
: In article <KwXkb.760$qE5.7107783@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: >
: >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be treated
in
: >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
:
: Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting insulted
: back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
:
: >

 

Did I insult you Lloyd ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3fu9$ipg$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
: In article <KwXkb.760$qE5.7107783@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: >
: >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be treated
in
: >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
:
: Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting insulted
: back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
:
: >

 

Did I insult you Lloyd ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3fu9$ipg$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
: In article <KwXkb.760$qE5.7107783@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: >
: >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be treated
in
: >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
:
: Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting insulted
: back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
:
: >

 

And at 6 as opposed to 4 deaths per billion miles, it is insignificant
compared to other causes of death.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in
message news:bn3glh$d98$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
: Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
: be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
: information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
: all about YOUR vehicle.
:
: There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
: single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
: driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
: conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
: zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle
maintenance).
: Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality
(or
: prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
:
: But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
: that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
: support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
: been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
: included in the report). The original post took that even further by
: quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
: posted by Chris Phillipo).
:
: It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
: categories, as well.
:
:
: "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
: > This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
: > the various classes of cars.
: >
: > Ed
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: > >
: > > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: > > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: > > weight. See:
: > >
: > > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
:
:

 

And at 6 as opposed to 4 deaths per billion miles, it is insignificant
compared to other causes of death.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in
message news:bn3glh$d98$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
: Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
: be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
: information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
: all about YOUR vehicle.
:
: There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
: single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
: driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
: conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
: zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle
maintenance).
: Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality
(or
: prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
:
: But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
: that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
: support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
: been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
: included in the report). The original post took that even further by
: quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
: posted by Chris Phillipo).
:
: It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
: categories, as well.
:
:
: "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
: > This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
: > the various classes of cars.
: >
: > Ed
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: > >
: > > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: > > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: > > weight. See:
: > >
: > > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
:
:

 

And at 6 as opposed to 4 deaths per billion miles, it is insignificant
compared to other causes of death.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote in
message news:bn3glh$d98$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
: Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
: be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
: information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
: all about YOUR vehicle.
:
: There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
: single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
: driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
: conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
: zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle
maintenance).
: Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality
(or
: prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
:
: But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
: that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
: support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
: been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
: included in the report). The original post took that even further by
: quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
: posted by Chris Phillipo).
:
: It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
: categories, as well.
:
:
: "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
: > This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
: > the various classes of cars.
: >
: > Ed
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: > >
: > > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: > > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: > > weight. See:
: > >
: > > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
:
:

 

Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
countries.
Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
with a big boot (trunk) still.

Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
luxary Calais.
then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.

rhys


"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f95286f$0$19400$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com ...
> Where are these built/sold?
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
>
> "rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:3f947871$1@news.iconz.co.nz...
> >
> [...................................]>
>
> > Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais
sedans
> > and stationwagons.
> >
> > rhys
> >
> >
>
>