Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:52:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
wrote:
>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>
>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
as a Suburban.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
wrote:
>>with good
>>towing capacity. -Dave
>>
>
>Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?
That *you* don't tow does not mean others don't.
Be a little more honest, and you'll gain much in the way of being
believed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
> In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
Only in your mind.
>> 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.
>
>
> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>
>
> Then you're stupid too.
True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.
Plonk.
