Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:46:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?
wrote:
>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?
#2272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:46:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?
wrote:
>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts?
>
>The universe?
The universe?
Are you saying that it came from parts that were just floating around?
Doesn't that just beg the question: "where did those parts come from"?
#2273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
#2274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
#2275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
wrote:
>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
>haven't found them
Let's try again:
Hypothetical question:
It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
within your house.
Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
#2276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
#2277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
#2278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
wrote:
>>The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>>happened to them.
>
>LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Let's try this yet again:
Hypothetical question...
Firget it, you don't get it.
#2279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:52:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.
#2280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:52:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.
wrote:
>In article <0j4jpv86af0sqfa8dr3u9lhgrtu354oavh@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:05:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>>>>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>>>>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>>>>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>>>>
>>>>Mercedes C class = 52
>>>>Volvo 850 - 39
>>>>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>>>>
>>>Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than
>an
>>>S-class.
>>
>>The the larger size *does* make the SUV safer?
>>
>Apples should not be compared to oranges.
That's it?
*THAT'S* your answer?
That's pretty disingenuous of you.
Can you not grasp the question? Is your reading comprehension that
bad? It certainly seems so.