Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4041
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>
It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>
It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....
#4042
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> Well...no. There is no "unbiased research" sitting on a dark shelf
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>
It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....
somewhere waiting to be sought out. It's up to the reader to look at a broad
enough range of research to get an idea of the variety of hypotheses and
experimental results and do the homework of finding out who paid for each
study, then make up his own mind.>
It's a lot easier just believeing everything spouted by a Leftist green gas
(bag) theorist on CNN, like all the rest of your friends....
#4043
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> > > > if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> > > > person (at least in the U.S.) would do
> > >
> > > Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
> > > the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?
> > > Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.
>
> > I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> > [the] Moon.)
>
> Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.
So are these "rules" written down somewhere, or is it by common useage?
>
> > The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> > other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> > as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> > saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> > not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> > usage.
>
> You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
> to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".
>
> DS
We disagree. I probably get out as much as you do. My observations are
different, or perhaps you hang out with pretentious people. 8^) I
don't know anyone that leaves the "the" out (except in the movies, on
TV, etc.).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4044
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> > > > if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> > > > person (at least in the U.S.) would do
> > >
> > > Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
> > > the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?
> > > Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.
>
> > I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> > [the] Moon.)
>
> Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.
So are these "rules" written down somewhere, or is it by common useage?
>
> > The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> > other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> > as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> > saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> > not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> > usage.
>
> You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
> to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".
>
> DS
We disagree. I probably get out as much as you do. My observations are
different, or perhaps you hang out with pretentious people. 8^) I
don't know anyone that leaves the "the" out (except in the movies, on
TV, etc.).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4045
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > > I always am skeptical of people who pretentiously refer to the Earth as
> > > > if it were a person saying "Earth" instead of "the Earth" as any normal
> > > > person (at least in the U.S.) would do
> > >
> > > Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
> > > the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?
> > > Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.
>
> > I thought about that before I posted. (BTW, you left out [the] Sun,
> > [the] Moon.)
>
> Naw, I didn't. Those aren't planets.
So are these "rules" written down somewhere, or is it by common useage?
>
> > The fact is, normal people (in the U.S. anyway), while they refer to the
> > other planets as [name of planet] *without* the "the" refer to the earth
> > as "the Earth". You want to argue with that, go right ahead. I'm not
> > saying it's logical that we use "the" when referring to the Earth but
> > not with the other planets - but it happens to be a fact of common
> > usage.
>
> You must not get out much. Lots and lots of normal people in the US refer
> to Earth as Earth. Without any "the".
>
> DS
We disagree. I probably get out as much as you do. My observations are
different, or perhaps you hang out with pretentious people. 8^) I
don't know anyone that leaves the "the" out (except in the movies, on
TV, etc.).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4046
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FADC066.361957AB@kinez.net>...
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously.
>
> Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?
You asked "Were you offended?". I replied "No..." You kept your direct
question and my direct answer in your reply. Why do you ask the same
question again?
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4047
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FADC066.361957AB@kinez.net>...
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously.
>
> Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?
You asked "Were you offended?". I replied "No..." You kept your direct
question and my direct answer in your reply. Why do you ask the same
question again?
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4048
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FADC066.361957AB@kinez.net>...
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously.
>
> Were you actually offended by what Howard Dean said?
You asked "Were you offended?". I replied "No..." You kept your direct
question and my direct answer in your reply. Why do you ask the same
question again?
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4049
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> > > "Sharpton" of your own.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?
>
> So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
> out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
> assertions.
Let's just say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek, as in: I believe
everything liberals tell me, so I must believe Al Sharpton when he
indicates that we should be offended, and the subsequent theater of
Sharpton publicly stating that he isn't sure that he accepts Dean's
apology to him on behalf of all black people. It just points out the
absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
Democratic contenders' debates.
I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
they all aren't.
Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
must agree with Dean that his remarks were offensive to people. (note:
more tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that doesn't warrant followup by serious
questions)
> Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?
Heh! You have to ask?
> Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
Who knows (and does it really matter)? He publicly refused to accept
Dean's apology. So who am I to believe? Reverend Al is obviously
either truly offended or playing a part in a pathetic bit of theater. I
think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
he's genuinely offended? (I think I've got you wrapped around the axle
no matter how you answer. If there's a third alternative to how I
interpreted the "event" that would put either Dean or Reverend Al or
both in a good light, then throw it on the table.)
Howard Dean could tell me personally to my face that I am an idiot and I
would not be offended since I would consider the source.
The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
"candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
and that the south (and all of its constituency) is critical to whoever
gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
offended practically everyone who would otherwise potentially take his
remarks seriously (that would not include me). Hence my reference to
his spastic tap dancing. Is it really that hard to comprehend? You're
reading way too much into this (or at least pretending to, but I think
your charade is backfiring on you).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4050
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> > > Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
> > > "Sharpton" of your own.
> >
> > No - I'm part of the other 5%. I can do that since I take nothing he
> > says seriously. Sharpton of my own? What the heck does that mean?
>
> So you weren't offended by what he said, yet you feel free to point
> out that "some people" were offended on the basis of Al Sharpton's
> assertions.
Let's just say that my comments were tongue-in-cheek, as in: I believe
everything liberals tell me, so I must believe Al Sharpton when he
indicates that we should be offended, and the subsequent theater of
Sharpton publicly stating that he isn't sure that he accepts Dean's
apology to him on behalf of all black people. It just points out the
absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
Democratic contenders' debates.
I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
they all aren't.
Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
must agree with Dean that his remarks were offensive to people. (note:
more tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that doesn't warrant followup by serious
questions)
> Are you a follower of Al Sharpton?
Heh! You have to ask?
> Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
Who knows (and does it really matter)? He publicly refused to accept
Dean's apology. So who am I to believe? Reverend Al is obviously
either truly offended or playing a part in a pathetic bit of theater. I
think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
he's genuinely offended? (I think I've got you wrapped around the axle
no matter how you answer. If there's a third alternative to how I
interpreted the "event" that would put either Dean or Reverend Al or
both in a good light, then throw it on the table.)
Howard Dean could tell me personally to my face that I am an idiot and I
would not be offended since I would consider the source.
The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
"candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
and that the south (and all of its constituency) is critical to whoever
gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
offended practically everyone who would otherwise potentially take his
remarks seriously (that would not include me). Hence my reference to
his spastic tap dancing. Is it really that hard to comprehend? You're
reading way too much into this (or at least pretending to, but I think
your charade is backfiring on you).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----