Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <w4Fkb.323$nS3.2917509@news-text.cableinet.net>,
jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
Awoke the sleeping giant up off the couch as it were.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
Awoke the sleeping giant up off the couch as it were.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave Milne wrote:
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932080.7050305@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932080.7050305@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932080.7050305@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.