Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:12:18 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Not proven. <
>>
>>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>>
>>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>>different safety features, etc. <
>>
>>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>>research.
>
>They analyzed it.
>
>
>>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
>
>Not so.
>
>
>>Simple, end of
>>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
>
>People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.

Interesting.
Those who propose free choice are fascists.
Those who propose less governmental interference are fascists.
When I look up 'fascist', that's not even close to the definition I
get.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:12:18 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Not proven. <
>>
>>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>>
>>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>>different safety features, etc. <
>>
>>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>>research.
>
>They analyzed it.
>
>
>>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
>
>Not so.
>
>
>>Simple, end of
>>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
>
>People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.

Interesting.
Those who propose free choice are fascists.
Those who propose less governmental interference are fascists.
When I look up 'fascist', that's not even close to the definition I
get.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:12:18 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <boe9os0vt8@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Not proven. <
>>
>>Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
>>and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.
>>
>>> And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
>>together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
>>different safety features, etc. <
>>
>>Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
>>research.
>
>They analyzed it.
>
>
>>These people died because the cars lacked mass.
>
>Not so.
>
>
>>Simple, end of
>>argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
>>by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.
>
>People are dead because fascists like you herded them into death camps.

Interesting.
Those who propose free choice are fascists.
Those who propose less governmental interference are fascists.
When I look up 'fascist', that's not even close to the definition I
get.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:23:45 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>than
>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
>being
>>>dramatically overstated.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>>
>>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>>at all.
>
>Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
>example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
>caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.

Actually, if the remedies being proposed will cause an upheaval in the
way we live, they'd damn well better find out of the remedies will
actually work.
>
>>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>>
>>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>to hear. That's reality.
>
>The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.

Like I said, models can be made to say anything the makers want it to
say.
Including, in the short run, current conditions.
Since the current environment is fairly static in the short run, it's
easy to do this.
>
>>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>>want.
>
>Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.

In industrialized nations.
Where do you think the production will go?
>
>>
>>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>with some workable answers.
>>
>Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
>NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
>know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
>that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
>commentary on the state of education today.

I *have* read much of it. And I'm not particularly impressed with
those who have an obvious bias against mankind.
When those scientists are able to divorce themselves from political
bias (including yourself), they will have much more credibility. As it
is, their science so reeks of politicization that their results are
open to much debate.
Especially when you come along and completely ignore past warming
periods, and act as if this one is somehow a freakish occurance, and
we are the cause.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:23:45 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>than
>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
>being
>>>dramatically overstated.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>>
>>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>>at all.
>
>Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
>example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
>caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.

Actually, if the remedies being proposed will cause an upheaval in the
way we live, they'd damn well better find out of the remedies will
actually work.
>
>>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>>
>>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>to hear. That's reality.
>
>The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.

Like I said, models can be made to say anything the makers want it to
say.
Including, in the short run, current conditions.
Since the current environment is fairly static in the short run, it's
easy to do this.
>
>>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>>want.
>
>Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.

In industrialized nations.
Where do you think the production will go?
>
>>
>>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>with some workable answers.
>>
>Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
>NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
>know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
>that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
>commentary on the state of education today.

I *have* read much of it. And I'm not particularly impressed with
those who have an obvious bias against mankind.
When those scientists are able to divorce themselves from political
bias (including yourself), they will have much more credibility. As it
is, their science so reeks of politicization that their results are
open to much debate.
Especially when you come along and completely ignore past warming
periods, and act as if this one is somehow a freakish occurance, and
we are the cause.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:23:45 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>than
>>>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
>being
>>>dramatically overstated.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>>
>>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>>at all.
>
>Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
>example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
>caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.

Actually, if the remedies being proposed will cause an upheaval in the
way we live, they'd damn well better find out of the remedies will
actually work.
>
>>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>>
>>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>to hear. That's reality.
>
>The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.

Like I said, models can be made to say anything the makers want it to
say.
Including, in the short run, current conditions.
Since the current environment is fairly static in the short run, it's
easy to do this.
>
>>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>>want.
>
>Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.

In industrialized nations.
Where do you think the production will go?
>
>>
>>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>with some workable answers.
>>
>Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
>NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
>know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
>that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
>commentary on the state of education today.

I *have* read much of it. And I'm not particularly impressed with
those who have an obvious bias against mankind.
When those scientists are able to divorce themselves from political
bias (including yourself), they will have much more credibility. As it
is, their science so reeks of politicization that their results are
open to much debate.
Especially when you come along and completely ignore past warming
periods, and act as if this one is somehow a freakish occurance, and
we are the cause.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:20:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>>caused all the other warming trends?
>>
>If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
>cause it to do so today?

No, of course not.
But until you rule out other causes, simply treating the virus can
leave you dead.
If you don't know the causes of prior warmings, how can you possibly
rule them out now?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:20:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>>caused all the other warming trends?
>>
>If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
>cause it to do so today?

No, of course not.
But until you rule out other causes, simply treating the virus can
leave you dead.
If you don't know the causes of prior warmings, how can you possibly
rule them out now?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:20:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>>caused all the other warming trends?
>>
>If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
>cause it to do so today?

No, of course not.
But until you rule out other causes, simply treating the virus can
leave you dead.
If you don't know the causes of prior warmings, how can you possibly
rule them out now?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Kingbarry2000

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe58v$i0q$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <NDbqb.10704$9M3.5530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bob0k1$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.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

And arrows. Specially the pointy ones ...

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse