"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:b71opv8v0in3q2ra8l4u8fd4t6qa8p9vhb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
> >>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
> >>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
> >
> >No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> Then where did all the ice go?
> It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
> following global warmings).

Only an idiot would believe the climate we have now is stable. It has never
remained stable for long, regardless of whether man were here or not the
climate would still warm for awhile, then cool off again, then warm again,
just as it always has. Lloyds claim is that the current global warming is
man made. He ignores all the evidence which contradicts his claim. He is a
joke, a self delusional wannabe scientist grasping for any fame he can find.
He is actually prety pathetic, but not so much I won't laugh at his stone
age beliefs.

 

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:G0Wmb.4112$X22.1702@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic> wrote in message
> news:zOKmb.16229$zx2.12038@edtnps84...
> > Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
> > trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
> > stayed awake in school.

I agree. My truck handles great, as long as I don't try to drive it like a
sports car.

>
> What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave

You must not have had Drivers education then.

>
>

 

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:G0Wmb.4112$X22.1702@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic> wrote in message
> news:zOKmb.16229$zx2.12038@edtnps84...
> > Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
> > trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
> > stayed awake in school.

I agree. My truck handles great, as long as I don't try to drive it like a
sports car.

>
> What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave

You must not have had Drivers education then.

>
>

 

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:G0Wmb.4112$X22.1702@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic> wrote in message
> news:zOKmb.16229$zx2.12038@edtnps84...
> > Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
> > trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
> > stayed awake in school.

I agree. My truck handles great, as long as I don't try to drive it like a
sports car.

>
> What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave

You must not have had Drivers education then.

>
>

 

The Ancient One wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F9C207A.20704@computer.org...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Or when your chatting with Lloyd, calling him names is fun.
> WHy is it fun? Because it's true! ;-)
>
>
>>Plonk.
>>
>
>
>

For a brief time, then it becomes a waste of time. That is what twit
filters are for and now Lloyd is in mine so I don't have to seen his
rantings any longer.

Matt

 

The Ancient One wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F9C207A.20704@computer.org...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Or when your chatting with Lloyd, calling him names is fun.
> WHy is it fun? Because it's true! ;-)
>
>
>>Plonk.
>>
>
>
>

For a brief time, then it becomes a waste of time. That is what twit
filters are for and now Lloyd is in mine so I don't have to seen his
rantings any longer.

Matt

 

The Ancient One wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F9C207A.20704@computer.org...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Or when your chatting with Lloyd, calling him names is fun.
> WHy is it fun? Because it's true! ;-)
>
>
>>Plonk.
>>
>
>
>

For a brief time, then it becomes a waste of time. That is what twit
filters are for and now Lloyd is in mine so I don't have to seen his
rantings any longer.

Matt

 

Hey, that simple comparison was to refute the original statement that
Mercedes and Volvo had better reputations for safety than SUV's. Alas,
those two models were the only ones I could find to compare with
directly.

=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA

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.

 

Hey, that simple comparison was to refute the original statement that
Mercedes and Volvo had better reputations for safety than SUV's. Alas,
those two models were the only ones I could find to compare with
directly.

=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA

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.

 

Hey, that simple comparison was to refute the original statement that
Mercedes and Volvo had better reputations for safety than SUV's. Alas,
those two models were the only ones I could find to compare with
directly.

=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA

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.