Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
Very Lloyd-like.
> Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
>
> DS
Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
activities.
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
> Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
> the Religious Reich types.
Very Lloyd-like.
> Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
> having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
>
> DS
Nice try at illogic - those are inherited traits, specifically *NOT*
activities.
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
You dodged the question, Lloyd, I mean, Dan. His examples are more
realistic than (not ridicuouls like) my man-dog and man-tree examples.
So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
against those others.
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
You dodged the question, Lloyd, I mean, Dan. His examples are more
realistic than (not ridicuouls like) my man-dog and man-tree examples.
So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
against those others.
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
>
> > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > is too.
>
> Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> remember?
You dodged the question, Lloyd, I mean, Dan. His examples are more
realistic than (not ridicuouls like) my man-dog and man-tree examples.
So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
against those others.
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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:b476cfa59405dcfe6bdc1b0c08b21fba@news.terane ws.com...
>> No system is ideal and some people would rather pay for service now
>> than have it in six months for free.
>
>Thank you, that is the point I have been trying to make from the start. If
>the US changed it's system to mimic yours then those people would lose the
>option of coming here, and they would suffer for it. If you are diagnosed
>early then you have a much better chance of a full recovery with early
>treatment, in Canada you may have to wait for treatment, which reduces your
>chances of a successful cure, that is why those people choose to come here
>at their own expense.
It has nothing to do with that. If the need is urgent, they deal with
it immediately. If it's not urgent, then other people who have either
a) been waiting longer or b) have more urgent needs get seen to first.
>I'm through discussing it though, I don't see it advancing any further and
>we are upsetting the youngsters, who are threatening to tell their Mommies
>on us. Peace and Happy Holidays man, pleasure discussing this with a
>rational person, as opposed to LLoyd, who has never had a rational thought
>in his life. ;-)
I think that the biggest problem that the unified health plan has is
that people like Lloyd are promoting it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>
>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>
>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>ignore what they believe in.
>
>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>experience?
>>
>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>recognized.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>
>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>
>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>ignore what they believe in.
>
>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>experience?
>>
>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>recognized.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>
>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>
>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>ignore what they believe in.
>
>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>experience?
>>
>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>recognized.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>>
>>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>>
>>Depends on how you look at it.
>>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>>ignore what they believe in.
>
>Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
>to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
>to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>>experience?
>>
>>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>>recognized.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"