Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6691
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" wrote:
> Lesbian couples can even have children.
Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
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! =-----
#6692
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD1581D.9BDBF2AB@greg.greg...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve
<no@spam.thanks>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>Greg wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> > was
> > >> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> > >> >efficiency, such
> > >> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements
to an
> > >> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> > >> >
> > >> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not
_modifications_.
> > >>
> > >> I see.
> > >> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> > >> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
> > >
> > >The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air
obviously
> > isn't
> > >important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because
he
> > favors
> > >perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
> > modifications"
> > >Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
> > >
> > No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children
and
> > grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
>
> Strawman.
>
> > Every good right-wing
> > fundamentalist knows that.
>
> I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is
powered by
> those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of
horrors
> windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and
computer are
> specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its
owner,
> right?
Aw, c'mon, Lloyd doesn't need any of that, he uses electricity, heat,
shelter, etc. all provided by Emory University!
#6693
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD1581D.9BDBF2AB@greg.greg...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve
<no@spam.thanks>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>Greg wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> > was
> > >> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> > >> >efficiency, such
> > >> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements
to an
> > >> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> > >> >
> > >> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not
_modifications_.
> > >>
> > >> I see.
> > >> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> > >> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
> > >
> > >The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air
obviously
> > isn't
> > >important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because
he
> > favors
> > >perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
> > modifications"
> > >Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
> > >
> > No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children
and
> > grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
>
> Strawman.
>
> > Every good right-wing
> > fundamentalist knows that.
>
> I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is
powered by
> those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of
horrors
> windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and
computer are
> specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its
owner,
> right?
Aw, c'mon, Lloyd doesn't need any of that, he uses electricity, heat,
shelter, etc. all provided by Emory University!
#6694
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Greg" <greg@greg.greg> wrote in message news:3FD1581D.9BDBF2AB@greg.greg...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Funk wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve
<no@spam.thanks>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>Greg wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written
law.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources,
which
> > was
> > >> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
> > >> >efficiency, such
> > >> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements
to an
> > >> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
> > >> >
> > >> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not
_modifications_.
> > >>
> > >> I see.
> > >> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
> > >> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
> > >
> > >The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air
obviously
> > isn't
> > >important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because
he
> > favors
> > >perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
> > modifications"
> > >Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
> > >
> > No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children
and
> > grandparents dying of respiratory illness.
>
> Strawman.
>
> > Every good right-wing
> > fundamentalist knows that.
>
> I'm sure YOUR house isn't connected to the grid. The grid which is
powered by
> those awful fuel burning, atom splitting, and even those chamber of
horrors
> windmills! No, I'll bet your lights, precious air conditioner, and
computer are
> specially powered by an unlimited supply of hot air emitted from its
owner,
> right?
Aw, c'mon, Lloyd doesn't need any of that, he uses electricity, heat,
shelter, etc. all provided by Emory University!
#6695
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
> >children)
> >> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
> >providing
> >> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >> >society.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
> >have
> >> children? Or simply don't want children?
> >>
> >> It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
> >serves
> >> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
> >marriage
> >> >for childless couples.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
> >reduce
> >> disease transmission, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
> >do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
> >institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
> >Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
> >families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
> >what you're arguing for.
> >
> >> >
> >> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >> >gays in society in every way,
> >>
> >> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
> >equal.
> >>
> >
> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>
> The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
> bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.
Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities. It is not a race, it
is not a ---, it is not a religion, it is not a national origin, and trying to
tack on to the struggle of any of the aforementioned groups is silly.
#6696
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
> >children)
> >> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
> >providing
> >> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >> >society.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
> >have
> >> children? Or simply don't want children?
> >>
> >> It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
> >serves
> >> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
> >marriage
> >> >for childless couples.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
> >reduce
> >> disease transmission, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
> >do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
> >institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
> >Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
> >families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
> >what you're arguing for.
> >
> >> >
> >> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >> >gays in society in every way,
> >>
> >> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
> >equal.
> >>
> >
> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>
> The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
> bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.
Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities. It is not a race, it
is not a ---, it is not a religion, it is not a national origin, and trying to
tack on to the struggle of any of the aforementioned groups is silly.
#6697
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read
> >children)
> >> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is
> >providing
> >> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >> >society.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
> >have
> >> children? Or simply don't want children?
> >>
> >> It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but
> >serves
> >> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against
> >marriage
> >> >for childless couples.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
> >reduce
> >> disease transmission, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
> >do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
> >institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
> >Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
> >families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
> >what you're arguing for.
> >
> >> >
> >> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >> >gays in society in every way,
> >>
> >> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
> >equal.
> >>
> >
> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>
> The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
> bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.
Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities. It is not a race, it
is not a ---, it is not a religion, it is not a national origin, and trying to
tack on to the struggle of any of the aforementioned groups is silly.
#6698
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
> > "marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
> > others do the same.
>
> Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
> law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
> affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
> direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
> articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
>
> DS
But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate my
point, i.e., those "groups" could complain for the same reasons, or they
could have additional reasons, no less valid in an "everything goes" world,
like you are restricting those things to humans/people, or, say to human
*adults*).
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! =-----
#6699
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
> > "marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
> > others do the same.
>
> Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
> law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
> affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
> direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
> articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
>
> DS
But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate my
point, i.e., those "groups" could complain for the same reasons, or they
could have additional reasons, no less valid in an "everything goes" world,
like you are restricting those things to humans/people, or, say to human
*adults*).
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! =-----
#6700
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
> > "marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
> > others do the same.
>
> Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
> law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
> affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
> direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
> articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.
>
> DS
But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate my
point, i.e., those "groups" could complain for the same reasons, or they
could have additional reasons, no less valid in an "everything goes" world,
like you are restricting those things to humans/people, or, say to human
*adults*).
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! =-----