>
> Fast forward 15 years and there won't be any cars left to hear you tell
> it, they will all be destroyed by SUVs.
> --

I know you weren't responding to me. I think you are a bit confused. -Dave

 

> >
>
> Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> a plan. Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! But actually, we need the station wagons based on that
beast. Oh, and AWD wouldn't hurt, but just limited slip RWD would
uffice. -Dave

 

> >
>
> Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> a plan. Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! But actually, we need the station wagons based on that
beast. Oh, and AWD wouldn't hurt, but just limited slip RWD would
uffice. -Dave

 

> >
>
> Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
> a plan. Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! But actually, we need the station wagons based on that
beast. Oh, and AWD wouldn't hurt, but just limited slip RWD would
uffice. -Dave

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:fhvkb.2379$Bg6.19572900@news-text.cableinet.net...
> of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
> like everybody else.
>

I guess I'm lucky to be alive then. (shudder) :) -Dave

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:fhvkb.2379$Bg6.19572900@news-text.cableinet.net...
> of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
> like everybody else.
>

I guess I'm lucky to be alive then. (shudder) :) -Dave

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:fhvkb.2379$Bg6.19572900@news-text.cableinet.net...
> of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
> like everybody else.
>

I guess I'm lucky to be alive then. (shudder) :) -Dave

 

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> fight against cancer.

And over the years, it probably has.

> Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.

If I'm driving down the road at 60 mph with a severely dented fender,
and the oil light comes on, I would pull over immediately and invest in
whatever it took to get the oil pressure back up. The fender could cost
a couple of thousand dollars to repair and the oil light may take $2 in
motor oil to correct, but the urgency of the fender repair (i.e., cost
of not acting) was not nearly as great and was no reason to pull over.

We have to do both (anti-terrorism and anti-cancer). And in many ways,
terrorism is like cancer.

Speaking as the father of a childhood cancer survivor whose initial
statistical chances of survival were less than 35%...
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! =-----

 

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> fight against cancer.

And over the years, it probably has.

> Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.

If I'm driving down the road at 60 mph with a severely dented fender,
and the oil light comes on, I would pull over immediately and invest in
whatever it took to get the oil pressure back up. The fender could cost
a couple of thousand dollars to repair and the oil light may take $2 in
motor oil to correct, but the urgency of the fender repair (i.e., cost
of not acting) was not nearly as great and was no reason to pull over.

We have to do both (anti-terrorism and anti-cancer). And in many ways,
terrorism is like cancer.

Speaking as the father of a childhood cancer survivor whose initial
statistical chances of survival were less than 35%...
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! =-----

 

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> fight against cancer.

And over the years, it probably has.

> Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.

If I'm driving down the road at 60 mph with a severely dented fender,
and the oil light comes on, I would pull over immediately and invest in
whatever it took to get the oil pressure back up. The fender could cost
a couple of thousand dollars to repair and the oil light may take $2 in
motor oil to correct, but the urgency of the fender repair (i.e., cost
of not acting) was not nearly as great and was no reason to pull over.

We have to do both (anti-terrorism and anti-cancer). And in many ways,
terrorism is like cancer.

Speaking as the father of a childhood cancer survivor whose initial
statistical chances of survival were less than 35%...
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! =-----