Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
were there?
>
>
> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
> >Iraq by Saddam?
>
> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >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?
>
The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
happened to them.
>
> >Question is Where are they
> >now, not do they exist.
>
> Prove their existence first
Well documented, look it up lazy.
..
>
>
> >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.
Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything. If I were, I would
destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
records, he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
caled his bluff.
Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.
>
>
> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
> >
> >! =-----
> >
> >
#2062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0s9$r7e$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why they
were there?
>
>
> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
> >Iraq by Saddam?
>
> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >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?
>
The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
happened to them.
>
> >Question is Where are they
> >now, not do they exist.
>
> Prove their existence first
Well documented, look it up lazy.
..
>
>
> >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.
Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything. If I were, I would
destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
records, he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed them
but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
caled his bluff.
Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded Liberal.
>
>
> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
> >
> >! =-----
> >
> >
#2063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> >
> >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
> in?
What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
#2064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> >
> >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
> in?
What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
#2065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> >
> >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>
> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
degree
> in?
What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
#2066
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
#2067
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
#2068
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
> I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
> is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
> accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
> answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
> scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
> claim that evolution is fact based.
Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
in fact.
> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't say
> either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
the wrench now doesn't it :)
#2069
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote in
news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the
>>mid 19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
> What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
> (i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>
>
They measured gases frozen in layers of glacial,Arctic,and Anarctic
ice.Drilled core samples,checked the layers.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the
>>mid 19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
> What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
> (i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>
>
They measured gases frozen in layers of glacial,Arctic,and Anarctic
ice.Drilled core samples,checked the layers.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
#2070
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote in
news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>and nothing else.
>>
>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>
>>
>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>
>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the
>>mid 19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>
> What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
> (i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>
>
They measured gases frozen in layers of glacial,Arctic,and Anarctic
ice.Drilled core samples,checked the layers.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
news:3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.c om:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bn94sb$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.
>
> What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
> (i.e. How does anybody know what level it was that long ago?)
>
>
They measured gases frozen in layers of glacial,Arctic,and Anarctic
ice.Drilled core samples,checked the layers.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net