"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8meu$8s6$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <FAllb.10282$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.
> >
> >Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
> No, the why is entirely settled.

Yep, and it isn't caused by man.

>
> >
> >I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
> >happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
> >Is that how you teach?
> >
> I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8meu$8s6$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <FAllb.10282$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.
> >
> >Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
> No, the why is entirely settled.

Yep, and it isn't caused by man.

>
> >
> >I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
> >happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
> >Is that how you teach?
> >
> I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8meu$8s6$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <FAllb.10282$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.
> >
> >Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
> No, the why is entirely settled.

Yep, and it isn't caused by man.

>
> >
> >I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
> >happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
> >Is that how you teach?
> >
> I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
> >
> >I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
> The
> >only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
> >Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
> >Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>
> I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
> selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
fix.

The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
> >
> >I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
> The
> >only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
> >Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
> >Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>
> I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
> selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
fix.

The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3F97D3B0.3404AC32@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
> >
> >I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
> The
> >only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
> >Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
> >Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.
>
> I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
> selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
fix.

The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).

Ed

 

> Subaru (any model).

Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four comfortably. Even
four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave

 

> Subaru (any model).

Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four comfortably. Even
four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave

 

> Subaru (any model).

Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four comfortably. Even
four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
>>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>>already...
>
>
> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.

Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.

Matt