"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04...
> In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> > The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> > peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> > to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> > possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> > theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> > perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> > rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> > a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> > scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> > explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they
wouldn't
> > be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> > scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> > until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> > publishing.
>
> You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
> the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
> X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
> group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
> get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
> a career, etc etc.
>
> It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
> difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
> by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
> group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
> followed, etc and so forth.
>
> It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
> and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
> surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
> get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
> the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
> shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
> of the titatic.
>
> Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
> one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
> careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
> hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
> for so many things.
>

This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Naknb.43901$Fm2.20291@attbi_s04...
> In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> > The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> > peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> > to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> > possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> > theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> > perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> > rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> > a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> > scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> > explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they
wouldn't
> > be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> > scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> > until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> > publishing.
>
> You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
> the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
> X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
> group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
> get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
> a career, etc etc.
>
> It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
> difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
> by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
> group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
> followed, etc and so forth.
>
> It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
> and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
> surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
> get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
> the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
> shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
> of the titatic.
>
> Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
> one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
> careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
> hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
> for so many things.
>

This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

 

In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:

> This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.

If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
car. :)

 

In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:

> This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.

If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
car. :)

 

In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:

> This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?

Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.

If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
car. :)

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mDknb.34757$9E1.133399@attbi_s52...
> In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> > This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> > pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?
>
> Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.
>
> If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
> years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
> braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
> car. :)
>
>

LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with Lloyd
before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mDknb.34757$9E1.133399@attbi_s52...
> In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> > This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> > pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?
>
> Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.
>
> If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
> years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
> braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
> car. :)
>
>

LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with Lloyd
before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)

 

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mDknb.34757$9E1.133399@attbi_s52...
> In article <vprkoqb5aif957@corp.supernews.com>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> > This thread is to long, I'm leaving it, but I must say it has been a
> > pleasure reading your posts. What group are you posting from?
>
> Thanks. Nate, aardwolf, and I post from rec.autos.driving.
>
> If you think this is a long thread, you should google for the one
> years ago where we (regulars of r.a.d) tried to teach lloyd how
> braking antilock braking systems worked and how they varied from car to
> car. :)
>
>

LOL, I can imagine, I've tried to hold an intelligent discussion with Lloyd
before, I discovered it can't be done. ;-)

 

I drive either a V6 3.8L sedan, bigger than the majority of sedans available
in the USA, or a 2.8TD SUV. of the two I prefer the sedan for safety, ABS,
195/7-R15 tyres giving more grip per Kilo over 31x10.5-R15 tyres on the SUV,
and more manuverabilty without rollover risk. But I use the SUV more since
it has more visability and it's flat hip height rear storage can be loaded
and unloaded easier then the sedans sunken boot with a lip.

I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.

Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
rhys

"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BC9nb.1759$Tf.280317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
> drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
> themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or
a
> Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
> minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
> to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B
is
> down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
> have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit
blaming
> the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
> statistics what they are..
>
> --
> History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
>
> <jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> > AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> > make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
> >
> > chris
> > g1

 

I drive either a V6 3.8L sedan, bigger than the majority of sedans available
in the USA, or a 2.8TD SUV. of the two I prefer the sedan for safety, ABS,
195/7-R15 tyres giving more grip per Kilo over 31x10.5-R15 tyres on the SUV,
and more manuverabilty without rollover risk. But I use the SUV more since
it has more visability and it's flat hip height rear storage can be loaded
and unloaded easier then the sedans sunken boot with a lip.

I've never owned anything like a small hot hatchback, nor even driven them,
as far as performance cars go, rather than a 1.6 turbo four in a Civic, I'd
rather have a V-8 in a serious big car.

Have a search on Google for V8 Holden Monaro, and HSV 185i Senator. Thats
what I'd like, big grunty serious cars.
rhys

"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BC9nb.1759$Tf.280317@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
> drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
> themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or
a
> Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
> minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
> to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B
is
> down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
> have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit
blaming
> the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
> statistics what they are..
>
> --
> History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..
>
> <jduchock@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ac8nb.76697$5n.33957@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> > AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> > make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
> >
> > chris
> > g1