In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
troops
>>haven't found them
>
>Let's try again:
>Hypothetical question:
>It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
>The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
>you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
>fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
>within your house.
>Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
>
We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

 

In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
troops
>>haven't found them
>
>Let's try again:
>Hypothetical question:
>It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
>The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
>you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
>fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
>within your house.
>Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
>
We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

 

In article <rf1opv49nqcr4sem3r3f71dl1lem4a8a0s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
troops
>>haven't found them
>
>Let's try again:
>Hypothetical question:
>It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
>The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
>you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
>fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
>within your house.
>Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
>
We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

 

In article <iq1opv0282cpne3pgcumaeq1vuvkebfo4l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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.

Suburban -- 132 cu.ft. cargo space
Sienna -- 149
Town & Country -- 168

(From edmunds.com)

 

In article <iq1opv0282cpne3pgcumaeq1vuvkebfo4l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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.

Suburban -- 132 cu.ft. cargo space
Sienna -- 149
Town & Country -- 168

(From edmunds.com)

 

In article <iq1opv0282cpne3pgcumaeq1vuvkebfo4l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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.

Suburban -- 132 cu.ft. cargo space
Sienna -- 149
Town & Country -- 168

(From edmunds.com)

 

In article <3F9C207A.20704@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.
>

No, in something you don't know anything about -- science.

>
>>> 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.

It's not name calling when it's an accurate observation.

>
>Plonk.
>

 

In article <3F9C207A.20704@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.
>

No, in something you don't know anything about -- science.

>
>>> 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.

It's not name calling when it's an accurate observation.

>
>Plonk.
>

 

In article <3F9C207A.20704@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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.
>

No, in something you don't know anything about -- science.

>
>>> 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.

It's not name calling when it's an accurate observation.

>
>Plonk.
>

 

In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bngqte$8h4$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vpjaesbkbtavd2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bnc0s9$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?
>> >
>>
>> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>troops
>> haven't found them.
>
>Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that they
>existed.

Not in 2003.


>That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as well.
>Or do you think that is also a lie?

Is he as big as the WMD?

>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
>
>Turn your brain on for a minute Lloyd, I know thinking is painful for you,
>but do try. WHEN they are found, I'll be waiting for you to admit your
>ignorance, IF they are not found, you can bet they will be used someday.

So if they're found, that's proof Saddam had them. If they're not found,
that's also proof Saddam had them?

>Again, the fact that Saddam had them is well documented,

Not in 2003.


>where they are now
>is a mystery,

The UN inspectors destroyed them.


>are you reallty to dumb to understand something as simple as
>that, or is it all an act?
>BTW, yes, I do think you are dumb, you prove it with every post you make.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Question is Where are they
>> >> >now, not do they exist.
>> >>
>> >> Prove their existence first
>> >
>> >Well documented, look it up lazy.
>> >..
>>
>> Liar. Prove they existed this year.
>
>Look it up lazy, should take you about ten minutes to find all the proof you
>can handle. It is well documented, and has been reported numerous times.
>Pull your head out of the sand, look up Halejba, he used them there. Sheesh,
>you're not only dumb, you enjoy being ignorant. Saves you the trouble of
>thinking.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.
>
>Even you know better than that dumbass. Read what I wrote, IF i had been
>ordered to destroy any drugs, or anything for that matter, I would do so in
>the presence of witnesses the government would accept, such as the UN
>inspectors were in Iraq before Saddam kicked them out in 98. You do know how
>to read don't you Lloyd?
>
>>
>>
>> >If I were, I would
>> >destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
>> >records,
>>
>> How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
>> from its inventory.
>
>Saddams habits are well documented, look it up lazy.
>
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were
>lied
>> to as the reaons.
>
>We enforced international law, which Saddam has been violating for twelve
>years. Yes, we invaded a country, and the majority of the Iraqi people are
>glad we did, of course, the Liberal media focuses on the negative, so the
>positive results are seldom reported until you talk to people who are
>actually there. And yes, I have, though a liar like you will never believe
>anyone ever tells the truth.
>
>>
>> >Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded
>Liberal.
>>
>> Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
>> right-winger.
>
>LOL, you're a joke Lloyd. The difference between you and me is that although
>I hate the war as much as you do, I know that the price of freedom is always
>paid for with the blood of brave men and women. A warmongering sheep? When
>did you ever see a sheep go to war?
>There is a time for talk and negotiation, there is a time to back it up.
>There is also a time for you to grow up, and now is the time. The real world
>isn't all sugar and spice, sometimes you have to trim a few thorns.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>> >> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>> >> >
>> >> >! =-----
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>