Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So now this is becoming a religious thread here, too...?..
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"John T. Waisanen" <jwaisane@NOTumich.edu> wrote in message
news:4jSpb.4675$H91.97823@news.itd.umich.edu...
[..................]
> for christ's sake.
>
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"John T. Waisanen" <jwaisane@NOTumich.edu> wrote in message
news:4jSpb.4675$H91.97823@news.itd.umich.edu...
[..................]
> for christ's sake.
>
#3182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> >> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> >> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> >> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> >> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> >> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> >> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> >> >> to protect it.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
> >>
> >> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
> >
> >That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
> >housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
> >intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
> >houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
> >out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
> >contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
> >clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
> >
>
> So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.
>
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
Oh - I agree - I think a person is crazy to build a house there or at a
shoreline that gets hit by a hurricane regularly - if you do, do so at
your own risk - don't expect me to subsidize your re-build either
through gov't aid or insurance.
I guess I would only take exception to your phrase "supposed to".
That's determined by the people thru whatever legal or political system
is in place (zoning, etc.) - but either allow the building *AND* the
proper management to protect the property, or don't allow building and
let nature take its course. But don't allow people to build and provide
streets, water and other tax supported infrastructure, and then forbid
them to protect their property - that's insanity.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> >> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> >> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> >> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> >> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> >> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> >> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> >> >> to protect it.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
> >>
> >> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
> >
> >That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
> >housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
> >intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
> >houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
> >out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
> >contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
> >clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
> >
>
> So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.
>
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
Oh - I agree - I think a person is crazy to build a house there or at a
shoreline that gets hit by a hurricane regularly - if you do, do so at
your own risk - don't expect me to subsidize your re-build either
through gov't aid or insurance.
I guess I would only take exception to your phrase "supposed to".
That's determined by the people thru whatever legal or political system
is in place (zoning, etc.) - but either allow the building *AND* the
proper management to protect the property, or don't allow building and
let nature take its course. But don't allow people to build and provide
streets, water and other tax supported infrastructure, and then forbid
them to protect their property - that's insanity.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7E78C.86AAC220@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> >> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> >> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> >> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> >> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> >> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> >> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> >> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> >> >> to protect it.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
> >>
> >> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
> >
> >That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
> >housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
> >intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
> >houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
> >out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
> >contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
> >clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
> >
>
> So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.
>
> >Bill Putney
> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >address with "x")
Oh - I agree - I think a person is crazy to build a house there or at a
shoreline that gets hit by a hurricane regularly - if you do, do so at
your own risk - don't expect me to subsidize your re-build either
through gov't aid or insurance.
I guess I would only take exception to your phrase "supposed to".
That's determined by the people thru whatever legal or political system
is in place (zoning, etc.) - but either allow the building *AND* the
proper management to protect the property, or don't allow building and
let nature take its course. But don't allow people to build and provide
streets, water and other tax supported infrastructure, and then forbid
them to protect their property - that's insanity.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3185
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:bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
> didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
no
> popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
> before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>
> Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
> poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
alleged,
> because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT
had
> an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
1/2
> of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
it
> would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
> it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>
> Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
Democrats
> have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
> mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
> Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
> got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
ONE
> major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
You
> can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
> repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
> even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
> bad habit.
> >
>
>
The problem with counting up all the votes in 2000 and calling it a popular
votes is that there wasn't a popular vote campaign. The two campaigns spent
all of their time in battleground states trying to get out the vote. They
spent either no time or very little time in states where the state election
was not in doubt. Why would Gore have spent 5 minutes in Massachusetts
trying to get more Democrats out to vote when he didn't need any more to win
there?
I agree about Clinton being less of a liberal than being self absorbed.
I'll never forget when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention back in
'88 when he went on and on rambling even when the crowd started booing him.
#3186
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:bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
> didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
no
> popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
> before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>
> Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
> poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
alleged,
> because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT
had
> an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
1/2
> of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
it
> would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
> it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>
> Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
Democrats
> have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
> mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
> Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
> got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
ONE
> major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
You
> can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
> repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
> even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
> bad habit.
> >
>
>
The problem with counting up all the votes in 2000 and calling it a popular
votes is that there wasn't a popular vote campaign. The two campaigns spent
all of their time in battleground states trying to get out the vote. They
spent either no time or very little time in states where the state election
was not in doubt. Why would Gore have spent 5 minutes in Massachusetts
trying to get more Democrats out to vote when he didn't need any more to win
there?
I agree about Clinton being less of a liberal than being self absorbed.
I'll never forget when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention back in
'88 when he went on and on rambling even when the crowd started booing him.
#3187
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:bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
> didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
no
> popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
> before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>
> Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
> poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
alleged,
> because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified. Had we NOT
had
> an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
1/2
> of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
it
> would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
> it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>
> Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
Democrats
> have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
> mount no effective opposition other than obstruction. Their recent hero,
> Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
> got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
ONE
> major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
You
> can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
> repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
> even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
> bad habit.
> >
>
>
The problem with counting up all the votes in 2000 and calling it a popular
votes is that there wasn't a popular vote campaign. The two campaigns spent
all of their time in battleground states trying to get out the vote. They
spent either no time or very little time in states where the state election
was not in doubt. Why would Gore have spent 5 minutes in Massachusetts
trying to get more Democrats out to vote when he didn't need any more to win
there?
I agree about Clinton being less of a liberal than being self absorbed.
I'll never forget when he spoke at the Democrat National Convention back in
'88 when he went on and on rambling even when the crowd started booing him.
#3188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
#3189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
#3190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
necessary"
Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all the
"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8jur$3lv$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
snip
> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
something
> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.