Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2321
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
#2322
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
#2323
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > What school did you go to? I don't remember studying the handling
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
> > characteristics of vehicles in school. -Dave
>
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
I take it you received "Drivers education" somewhere outside the United
States then. If someone told me any driver's ed class here in the U.S.
covered handling characteristics of vehicles, I'd be so shocked I'd probably
experience instant heart failure. The driver's ed I remember consisted of
lots of lectures and movies that made you lose your lunch. It was far from
helpful, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with driving. -Dave
#2324
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
Whats drivers ed? :)
No such thing here in school, but you have to pass a test to get the licence
here, and handling of trucks isn't part of it.
rhys
#2325
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
Whats drivers ed? :)
No such thing here in school, but you have to pass a test to get the licence
here, and handling of trucks isn't part of it.
rhys
#2326
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote
> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>
Whats drivers ed? :)
No such thing here in school, but you have to pass a test to get the licence
here, and handling of trucks isn't part of it.
rhys
#2327
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
#2328
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
#2329
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
wrote:
>In article <3f99929f.212852660@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
#2330
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>behaviors.
>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
in your initial and followup statements.
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>
>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>whole or in part)
> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>>>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".
>>
>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>
>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>
>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>>As usual didn't see you
>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
make everything fit the bible.
>>>>"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.
>>> Yes it is.
>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
> evolution.
Theory != fact, and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
on what measures you use.
> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
> stupidity.
Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
>>> in?
>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
> Then tell us again.
Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
then you're too stupid to even use google.
>>> You're the church here.
>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
> of disease?
Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
beat your wife?
Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
> Try learning some science.
I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>behaviors.
>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.
*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.
>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
in your initial and followup statements.
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>
>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>whole or in part)
> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."
You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.
>>>>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".
>>
>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>
>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>
>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>US warm spell was global warming in action.
> You saw scientific facts and explanation.
Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
warming, you and others would ream that person a new ------- and say he
didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".
>>As usual didn't see you
>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.
> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.
I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
make everything fit the bible.
>>>>"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.
>>> Yes it is.
>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.
> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
> evolution.
Theory != fact, and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
on what measures you use.
> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
> stupidity.
Hey you ------- moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
you haven't published jack ----, right parker?
>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
>>> in?
>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.
> Then tell us again.
Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
then you're too stupid to even use google.
>>> You're the church here.
>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
> of disease?
Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
beat your wife?
Is that the kind of lame -------- you want to play with parker? I can play
that game too and play it better than you if I need to.
> Try learning some science.
I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.