Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-24-2003, 12:06 PM
#2001
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94l7$ubsfu$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:06 PM
#2002
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94l7$ubsfu$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2003
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2004
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2005
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.
Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Nice backpeddle.
>> >>
>> >>>>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?
>> >
>> >Yup. Do you?
>> >No emergencies.
>> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>>
>> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
>sucked
>> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
>of
>> fuel, ...
>>
>>
>> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >Actually, we could.
>>
>> With ANWR?
>>
>>
>> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>> >today.
>> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>> >"Full"?
>> >>
>> >>>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?
>> >
>> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>> >They can.
>> >Like I said.
>> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>> >
>> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>>
>> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
>It
>> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>> >
>> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>>
>> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>>
>> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>>
>> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
>in
>> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
>scientific
>> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>> causing GW.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2006
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <k09hpvs5sr1tol14i9p3eo557og83e2srv@4ax.com>, Marc wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2007
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <k09hpvs5sr1tol14i9p3eo557og83e2srv@4ax.com>, Marc wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
10-24-2003, 12:07 PM
#2008
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <k09hpvs5sr1tol14i9p3eo557og83e2srv@4ax.com>, Marc wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.
And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)
Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.
Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.
I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.
While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.
10-24-2003, 12:08 PM
#2009
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >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
>>
>> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>>
>
>That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>would have remembered that.
They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
> Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>Iraq by Saddam?
We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>did.
>>
>
>Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>Question is Where are they
>now, not do they exist.
Prove their existence first.
>If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>Saddam provide proof of it?
Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>
>! =-----
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >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
>>
>> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>>
>
>That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>would have remembered that.
They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
> Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>Iraq by Saddam?
We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>did.
>>
>
>Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>Question is Where are they
>now, not do they exist.
Prove their existence first.
>If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>Saddam provide proof of it?
Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>
>! =-----
>
>
10-24-2003, 12:08 PM
#2010
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >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
>>
>> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>>
>
>That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>would have remembered that.
They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
> Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>Iraq by Saddam?
We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>did.
>>
>
>Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>Question is Where are they
>now, not do they exist.
Prove their existence first.
>If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>Saddam provide proof of it?
Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>
>! =-----
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >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
>>
>> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>>
>
>That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>would have remembered that.
They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
> Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>Iraq by Saddam?
We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>did.
>>
>
>Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>Question is Where are they
>now, not do they exist.
Prove their existence first.
>If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>Saddam provide proof of it?
Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>
>! =-----
>
>
