Too damn expensive and too damn small.
I don't think you get the Mitsubishi Delicia Spacegear 4x4 minivan in the
USA, but it's good here. 2.7L turbo diesel and 4X4 while carrying 8 people.

rhys

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote > Subaru (any model).
>

 

In article <3F984838.7010700@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> than other basic forces.
>>
>>
>>>Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> behaviors.
>>
>>
>>>Atoms are established fact.
>>
>>
>> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

> No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
> humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
> accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

Sorry, 'and then he created man' doesn't have the kind of supporting
evidence of evolution does. We could also toss in genetic meddling by
ETs etc, etc, but in the end evolution best explains the data we have.

> And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
> for the big bang come from?

And who says that evolution wasn't the process behind 'and then he
created man' ?

And now it's *REALLY* off topic.

 

In article <3F984838.7010700@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> than other basic forces.
>>
>>
>>>Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> behaviors.
>>
>>
>>>Atoms are established fact.
>>
>>
>> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

> No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
> humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
> accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

Sorry, 'and then he created man' doesn't have the kind of supporting
evidence of evolution does. We could also toss in genetic meddling by
ETs etc, etc, but in the end evolution best explains the data we have.

> And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
> for the big bang come from?

And who says that evolution wasn't the process behind 'and then he
created man' ?

And now it's *REALLY* off topic.

 

In article <3F984838.7010700@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> than other basic forces.
>>
>>
>>>Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> behaviors.
>>
>>
>>>Atoms are established fact.
>>
>>
>> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

> No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
> humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
> accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

Sorry, 'and then he created man' doesn't have the kind of supporting
evidence of evolution does. We could also toss in genetic meddling by
ETs etc, etc, but in the end evolution best explains the data we have.

> And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
> for the big bang come from?

And who says that evolution wasn't the process behind 'and then he
created man' ?

And now it's *REALLY* off topic.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>>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.

IMHO teaching critical thinking skills is far more important than
teaching "facts." Teaching "facts" is an excellent way to stamp out the
ability of the student to think for himself.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>>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.

IMHO teaching critical thinking skills is far more important than
teaching "facts." Teaching "facts" is an excellent way to stamp out the
ability of the student to think for himself.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>>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.

IMHO teaching critical thinking skills is far more important than
teaching "facts." Teaching "facts" is an excellent way to stamp out the
ability of the student to think for himself.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 

In article <bn8ol4$arm$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

I had a 72 Corolla too, with the 1600cc hemi engine. It was a great car
(and my first). I had it for about 5 years.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

 

In article <bn8ol4$arm$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

I had a 72 Corolla too, with the 1600cc hemi engine. It was a great car
(and my first). I had it for about 5 years.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

 

In article <bn8ol4$arm$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

I had a 72 Corolla too, with the 1600cc hemi engine. It was a great car
(and my first). I had it for about 5 years.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069