Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> Nice backpeddle.
Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:
<snip>
Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to do.
I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
viable at the time.
In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
while we may still be able to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
been explained, only accepted.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Joe wrote:
>
> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>
> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> terror:...
And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
they existed they would have to have been:
(1) Dissipated (by use)
(2) Moved and found (so far no)
(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
(4) Shot into space
All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
decided that they really didn't mean it.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
