Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1711
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
#1712
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
#1713
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
#1714
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
already...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >
> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >>
> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >
> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >>
> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >>
> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >>
> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >>
> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >>
> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
ships
> >in
> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >>
> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >
> >> >Where?
> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >
> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >
> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >>
> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
as
> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >>
> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >
> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >> >
> >
> >
#1715
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
#1716
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
#1717
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
(jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
>passes w/ flying colors."
>Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
>the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
wheels turn less per engine revolution.
Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
less pollution per mile.
#1718
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
heres an anology you may understand...
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.
#1719
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
heres an anology you may understand...
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.
#1720
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
heres an anology you may understand...
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.
if a new well maintained car puts out 1 unit of pollution, then a well
maintained 68 Charger would put out somewhere around 100 units of pollution.
yet a "Gross polluter" no matter the age, given most are younger than 10
years, puts out more than 30,000 units.
so yes, 1 and 100 are vurtuallally indistinguisable when lined up against a
30,000 vehicle.
comprehend now?
on you finger anology, it's more like losing the first joint of your little
finger (new), the little finger itself ('68 charger) or your head (Gross
Polluter).
rhys
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65i1$f7v$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's
foolish
> to
> >> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
> >
> >_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
> polluter,
> >which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not,
compared
> to getting your head cut off, I guess.