Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2011
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.
>
>! =-----
>
>
#2012
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
#2013
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
#2014
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
out at the top of the list for a long time....
If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
#2015
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
#2016
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
#2017
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
wrote:
>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.
Where did I claim that Brent?
You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.
>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.
It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.
>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.
LOL. Psychic, eh?
To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.
>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.
And a special device to monitor your psychic output.
Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.
#2018
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
It could be the server he's using... that was the problem with my odd posts
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>
#2019
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
It could be the server he's using... that was the problem with my odd posts
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>
#2020
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
It could be the server he's using... that was the problem with my odd posts
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.
"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>