Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2681
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#2682
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#2683
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.
And in your pointing that out, you implied that trying was pointless, as
you ridiculed someone that said you should.
I did read it. I read it again. Apparently, those that read it didn't
take it the way you intended, but the intent was clear. You insulted
someone that said you should predict the actions of others.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#2684
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp0je$656$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
#2685
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp0je$656$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
#2686
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnp0je$656$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
>>Evolution is not a fact Lloyd. It is a theory.
> Bzzzt. Again, someone does not know what "theory" means in science. We have
> something called "atomic theory." Does that mean atoms are not factual?
Evolution is a theory, change in living things is a fact.
#2687
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
#2688
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
#2689
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Very well stated BrentP, bravo!
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
These people are Socialists and crypto-Communists striving to control the
masses via the old Leninist/Stalinist tactic of "The Big Lie". They'll use
any fable, concocted theory, etc. for alarmist purposes in an attempt to
gain political control.
The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas. These
morons first sought control through the CO/NOx scares of the 60's & 70's.
When industry brought those toxic gasses under control quite easily, they
had to concoct something like the "global warming" CO2 scare. CO2 emissions
are virtually impossible to reduce without sending everyone back into the
caves, or better for the leftists, into government mandated employment,
housing and transportation schemes. It provides the leftists an excuse for
wealth, land & property confiscation and is nothing more than a
"communism-masquerading-as-green" agenda. All these rants are
paint-by-numbers recitations from the Socialist/Green playbook and the
sooner we all see through the con job the better we'll all be. (And to think
I used to be a Liberal Democrat!)
> Global warming theory is being used for a political agenda because it
allows for _control_ of the population, control of economies, central
control by self appointed elites. It allows them to micro manage everyone's
life for the good of the planet. Meanwhile they get to continue living the
way they want. Note how dr. parker screams about putting too much CO2 into
the air yet drives a mercedes benz. This is rather typical. There'd be alot
more credibility if drove an insight or a metro.
>
> Then there are all the environmental policies designed to constrain
developed western nations while allowing 'developing' nations to make all
the same mistakes that were made in the west. We know better now. If it were
about the environment the policies would not be structured this way.
Needless harm to the environment simply would not be allowed. <
#2690
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Al Lewis" <big@boss.man> wrote in message
news:hojupvo338i74kjd3v31teul35l5e0opbs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:16:28 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com>
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
>
> Not as dumb as you, who can't remember back as far as 8 months ago.
>
Plonk