Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
That's very funny. Seriously, I laughed. No, I wasn't that crazy. First of
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
#3062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population
control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
>
>
They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
nominal.
rhys
#3063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population
control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
>
>
They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
nominal.
rhys
#3064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population
control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
>
>
They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
nominal.
rhys
#3065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>
>
> The Ancient One wrote:
> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
been,.
> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>
> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
> mass/matter.
>
Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
into Iraq, because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
around
spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first
set of facts.
Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe
that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
view,
I have never once seen him do so.
Ted
#3066
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>
>
> The Ancient One wrote:
> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
been,.
> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>
> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
> mass/matter.
>
Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
into Iraq, because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
around
spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first
set of facts.
Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe
that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
view,
I have never once seen him do so.
Ted
#3067
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>
>
> The Ancient One wrote:
> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
been,.
> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>
> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
> mass/matter.
>
Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
into Iraq, because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
around
spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first
set of facts.
Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe
that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
view,
I have never once seen him do so.
Ted
#3068
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
> > speak of more robust.
>
> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
> that's just my opinon.
>
Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
anti-abortion
laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.
Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.
So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
Nirviana.
Ted
#3069
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
> > speak of more robust.
>
> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
> that's just my opinon.
>
Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
anti-abortion
laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.
Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.
So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
Nirviana.
Ted
#3070
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
> In article <3FA465DC.E54812C7@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
> > speak of more robust.
>
> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
> that's just my opinon.
>
Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
anti-abortion
laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.
Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.
So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
Nirviana.
Ted