you get my point though.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UPykb.594744$cF.259764@rwcrnsc53...
: In article <%7ykb.2560$df.21706856@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne
wrote:
: > Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is
delivered
: > in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
: > Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
:
: Food is taxed in some states.
:
:

 

you get my point though.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UPykb.594744$cF.259764@rwcrnsc53...
: In article <%7ykb.2560$df.21706856@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne
wrote:
: > Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is
delivered
: > in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
: > Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
:
: Food is taxed in some states.
:
:

 

you get my point though.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UPykb.594744$cF.259764@rwcrnsc53...
: In article <%7ykb.2560$df.21706856@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne
wrote:
: > Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is
delivered
: > in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
: > Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
:
: Food is taxed in some states.
:
:

 

I've never understood the US attitude towards children - they seem to be
sacred until they get to 18, when the electric chair beckons :-)

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BCD4.91BC6834@kinez.net...
:
:
: Dave Milne wrote:
: >
: > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
:
: Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
: that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
: driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
: children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
: continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
: killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
: punished."
:
: 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! =-----

 

I've never understood the US attitude towards children - they seem to be
sacred until they get to 18, when the electric chair beckons :-)

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BCD4.91BC6834@kinez.net...
:
:
: Dave Milne wrote:
: >
: > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
:
: Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
: that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
: driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
: children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
: continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
: killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
: punished."
:
: 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! =-----

 

I've never understood the US attitude towards children - they seem to be
sacred until they get to 18, when the electric chair beckons :-)

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BCD4.91BC6834@kinez.net...
:
:
: Dave Milne wrote:
: >
: > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
:
: Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
: that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
: driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
: children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
: continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
: killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
: punished."
:
: 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! =-----

 

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> >
> > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > >...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.
> >
>
> That's one man's opinion.

As is yours - mine is no less valid.

> Seems to me that the more measures that are
> taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.

Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
point: Hitler.

One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
negotiate with them.

It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
people, it's necessary.

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! =-----

 

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> >
> > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > >...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.
> >
>
> That's one man's opinion.

As is yours - mine is no less valid.

> Seems to me that the more measures that are
> taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.

Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
point: Hitler.

One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
negotiate with them.

It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
people, it's necessary.

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! =-----

 

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> >
> > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > >...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.
> >
>
> That's one man's opinion.

As is yours - mine is no less valid.

> Seems to me that the more measures that are
> taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.

Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
point: Hitler.

One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
negotiate with them.

It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
people, it's necessary.

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! =-----

 

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.

Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.

Matt