Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1801
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
#1802
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
#1803
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
#1804
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96F5EA.6020502@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
#1805
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
#1806
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
#1807
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space
(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.
And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.
>
>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! =-----
#1808
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
#1809
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
#1810
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.