Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:kvh1svkqne0tqu50v0ce66easicm0hac71@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>
> >Kevin wrote:
> >> RJ wrote:
> >>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> RJ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
> >>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> >>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
> >>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
> >>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
> >>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
> >> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
> >
> >istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> >prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>
More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very high
speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in the trunk you
might just get a fire.
#1832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8m7g$8s6$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
#1833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8m7g$8s6$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
#1834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8m7g$8s6$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!
Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.
#1835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
#1836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
#1837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
> Gravity is an established fact.
Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.
> Relativity is an established fact.
No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.
> Atoms are established fact.
Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
> Evolution is an established fact.
It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.
#1838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n2i$8s6$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <7OAlb.1739$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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.
> 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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.
#1839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n2i$8s6$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <7OAlb.1739$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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.
> 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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.
#1840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn8n2i$8s6$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <7OAlb.1739$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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.
> 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...)
I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.
What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.