Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#971
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
#972
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
#973
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
> 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.
No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.
Matt
#974
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932394.1010807@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#975
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932394.1010807@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#976
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F932394.1010807@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>
Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#977
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
#978
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
#979
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>
You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
#980
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
>>crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
>>enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
>>are running.
>>
>
>
> You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
> like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
>
>
Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
Matt
>>I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
>>crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
>>enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
>>are running.
>>
>
>
> You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
> like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
>
>
Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
Matt