Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0lp$s2a$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7wVpb.9500$Oo4.4594@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bo8k18$3lv$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
> >resort
> >> >to name-calling. <
> >> >
> >> >Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with
> >you
> >> >is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> >> >
> >> >> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> >> >
> >> >> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
> >> >commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
> >> >
> >> >But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he?
Neither
> >was
> >> >Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
> >> >
> >> >By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all
the
> >> >Socialist indoctrination
> >>
> >> If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to ****
and
> >moan
> >> when they call you names.
> >>
> >>
> >> >you've been fed you'll find that people in the
> >> >middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on
matters
> >> >that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
> >> >
> >> >I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill
Clinton
> >was
> >> >not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He
was
> >a
> >> >HYPOCRITE of the first order.
> >>
> >> And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
> >>
> >> >Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
> >creamed
> >> >because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him
to
> >> >Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
> >vote
> >> >which he'd not convinced.
> >> >
> >> >> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote
for
> >Bush
> >> >this time for sure.
> >> >
> >> >> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
> >> >
> >> >And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a
> >MAJORITY
> >> >of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to
> >being
> >> >irrelevant....)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
I'm not a right-winger Lloyd, I've just got enough common-sense to not
swallow either line from the far left or far right hook, line, and sinker
like you so obviously do from the far left.
#3232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0lp$s2a$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7wVpb.9500$Oo4.4594@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bo8k18$3lv$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
> >resort
> >> >to name-calling. <
> >> >
> >> >Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with
> >you
> >> >is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> >> >
> >> >> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> >> >
> >> >> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
> >> >commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
> >> >
> >> >But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he?
Neither
> >was
> >> >Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
> >> >
> >> >By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all
the
> >> >Socialist indoctrination
> >>
> >> If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to ****
and
> >moan
> >> when they call you names.
> >>
> >>
> >> >you've been fed you'll find that people in the
> >> >middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on
matters
> >> >that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
> >> >
> >> >I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill
Clinton
> >was
> >> >not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He
was
> >a
> >> >HYPOCRITE of the first order.
> >>
> >> And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
> >>
> >> >Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
> >creamed
> >> >because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him
to
> >> >Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
> >vote
> >> >which he'd not convinced.
> >> >
> >> >> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote
for
> >Bush
> >> >this time for sure.
> >> >
> >> >> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
> >> >
> >> >And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a
> >MAJORITY
> >> >of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to
> >being
> >> >irrelevant....)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
> >
> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
> >
> >
> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
I'm not a right-winger Lloyd, I've just got enough common-sense to not
swallow either line from the far left or far right hook, line, and sinker
like you so obviously do from the far left.
#3233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Each state certified its election returns.
>
>
> >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.
>
> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >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.
>
>
> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
> batting .500.
>
> >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.
>
> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
rights
> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>
>
I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
an issue.
The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
a Wal-Fart parking lot.
A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
#3234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Each state certified its election returns.
>
>
> >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.
>
> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >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.
>
>
> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
> batting .500.
>
> >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.
>
> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
rights
> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>
>
I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
an issue.
The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
a Wal-Fart parking lot.
A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
#3235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Each state certified its election returns.
>
>
> >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.
>
> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >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.
>
>
> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
> batting .500.
>
> >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.
>
> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
rights
> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>
>
I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
an issue.
The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
a Wal-Fart parking lot.
A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
#3236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA93957.6F9BA899@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
> > scientists publish in.
>
> I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat
irritating. Can
> you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"?
Do you
> consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who
don't are
> "false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
> scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
> journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider
that to
> be a peer review?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
"Real Scientist" - Ultra-left wing liberal who follows whatever facts that
support the agenda of the UN, Democratic party, CR, or any other group that
thinks it knows what's best for everybody else in the world. you
know..elitests.
"False Scientist" - Anyone w/ a different opinion who's facts are to be
debunked, ignored, and ridiculed as right-wing propaganda whether they are
or not.
#3237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA93957.6F9BA899@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
> > scientists publish in.
>
> I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat
irritating. Can
> you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"?
Do you
> consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who
don't are
> "false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
> scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
> journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider
that to
> be a peer review?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
"Real Scientist" - Ultra-left wing liberal who follows whatever facts that
support the agenda of the UN, Democratic party, CR, or any other group that
thinks it knows what's best for everybody else in the world. you
know..elitests.
"False Scientist" - Anyone w/ a different opinion who's facts are to be
debunked, ignored, and ridiculed as right-wing propaganda whether they are
or not.
#3238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA93957.6F9BA899@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
> > scientists publish in.
>
> I find your repeated reference to "real scientist" to be somewhat
irritating. Can
> you define a "real scientist" as opposed to just a plain old "scientist"?
Do you
> consider "real scientist" to be ones that agree with you and those who
don't are
> "false scientist"? I know there are plenty of people who call themselves
> scientist that I don't agree with. Many of them publish in peer reviewed
> journals. Some of them just post messages to newsgroups. Can we consider
that to
> be a peer review?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
"Real Scientist" - Ultra-left wing liberal who follows whatever facts that
support the agenda of the UN, Democratic party, CR, or any other group that
thinks it knows what's best for everybody else in the world. you
know..elitests.
"False Scientist" - Anyone w/ a different opinion who's facts are to be
debunked, ignored, and ridiculed as right-wing propaganda whether they are
or not.
#3239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>
> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
until
> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
pollution
> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
> place....didn't you?
>
> Ed
>
What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
#3240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>
> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
until
> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
pollution
> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
> place....didn't you?
>
> Ed
>
What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.