Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2921
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
October 30, 2003
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
#2922
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
October 30, 2003
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
#2923
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
October 30, 2003
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
> he passed the test with flying colors.
And so will you, as long as you continue to crosspost to sci.environment.
Please remove sci.environment from your crosspost list.
It's way out of context to your discussion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
#2924
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
#2925
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
#2926
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
Real men don't drive SUV's.
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>
#2927
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2928
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2929
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnsm7511ag5@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,
Which lies got us into.
>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.
Like Bush.
>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.
You're an idiot.
>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these ******** have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
#2930
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <eCbob.146$Eu7.2109481@news-text.cableinet.net>,
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>