Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3701
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FAAFE16.D9910DE@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
#3702
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FAAFE16.D9910DE@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
#3703
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3FAAFE16.D9910DE@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...
>
>something like 16 out of 17
>
>> ...and Gore would win some
>
>something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
>only "correct" one.
>
>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! =-----
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
#3704
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm2cs5v8alnf1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#3705
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm2cs5v8alnf1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#3706
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm2cs5v8alnf1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
>Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
>EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
>And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
>with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
>election without a problem.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#3707
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
#3708
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
#3709
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
>like
>> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>> thing
>> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>> >
>> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>> calling.
>> >
>> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >or self-agrandizement being
>> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>> >
>> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
>expertise.
>> >
>>
>> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is
>at
>> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
>just
>> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make
>me
>> an expert in physics.
>>
>> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
>answers,
>> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
>the
>> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
>>
>> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
>Phd's
>> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>> check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
>You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
>him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
Like atmospheric chemistry?
>Someday I
>really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
>in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
>
>
Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
#3710
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <yLOdnbTulOtwLzaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>
>>CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>>It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>Man's hardly making a dent. (and man is not exactly separate from
>nature anyway).
Gee, you know more science than the thousands in IPCC, EPA, NASA, NOAA,
National Academy of Sciences, and American Geophysical Union!
>
>Now, you want to talk about pollution, at one time there were these
>single-celled organisms that released as waste a corrosive gas which
>eventually became up to 30% of the atmosphere. MAJOR die-offs then,
>the stuff was deadly poison to nearly all the organisms alive at the
>time. And perfectly natural, too. Man? Man's a piker. Pushed up
>CO2 levels a little maybe, but not even anywhere near all-time highs.
>And the stuff's nowhere near as toxic as the earlier gas.
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
>Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote:
>>
>>CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
>>It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
>Man's hardly making a dent. (and man is not exactly separate from
>nature anyway).
Gee, you know more science than the thousands in IPCC, EPA, NASA, NOAA,
National Academy of Sciences, and American Geophysical Union!
>
>Now, you want to talk about pollution, at one time there were these
>single-celled organisms that released as waste a corrosive gas which
>eventually became up to 30% of the atmosphere. MAJOR die-offs then,
>the stuff was deadly poison to nearly all the organisms alive at the
>time. And perfectly natural, too. Man? Man's a piker. Pushed up
>CO2 levels a little maybe, but not even anywhere near all-time highs.
>And the stuff's nowhere near as toxic as the earlier gas.