Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4801
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:45:18 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
>> <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>> >first nuclear bomb.
>>
>> Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
>> Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
>For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
>killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
>However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>magnitude of what they did.
They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
>> <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>> >first nuclear bomb.
>>
>> Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
>> Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
>For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
>killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
>However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>magnitude of what they did.
They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
#4802
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:58:34 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
#4803
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:58:34 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
#4804
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:58:34 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>
>CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
>That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
>CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Why not answer the question, then?
If CAAFE were applied to *all* passenger vehicles (which you seem to
be saying would include light trucks/SUVs), what would the consumers
have bought then?
#4805
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
#4806
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
#4807
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
<ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
>>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
>istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
They need to be hit pretty hard.
Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
#4808
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>
#4809
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>
#4810
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 03 09:52:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>
wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>>Nice backpeddle.
>>>
>>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>>
>>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>>
>>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>>Yup. Do you?
>>No emergencies.
>>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
>I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
>out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
>fuel, ...
Then be careful asking for more gas taxes.
>
>
>>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>>
>>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>>
>>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>>Actually, we could.
>
>With ANWR?
>
>
>>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>>today.
>>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>>"Full"?
>>>
>>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>>
>>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>>the Persian Gulf?
>>
>>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>>They can.
>>Like I said.
>>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>>
>>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
>We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
>seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
You speak as someone who would rather do nothing, because he can't do
everything.
>
>>>
>>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>>
>>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>>
>>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>>many mammoths?
>>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>>
>>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>>
>>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
>Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
>Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
I have.
They are *all* speculation, based more on an agenda (and programming)
than on science.
>
>>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
>No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
>the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
>principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
>causing GW.
No.
You are trying very hard to say that CO2 is *only* produced by human
activities, and you (should) know better.
I say "trying" becasue, when you don't actually say it, but only do
you rbest to get that idea across without actually saying it, you can
backpeddle.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>>
>>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>>
>>