Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7181
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <b5b4685f.0312081137.2afc7b9@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
#7182
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <b5b4685f.0312081137.2afc7b9@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
#7183
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
In article <b5b4685f.0312081137.2afc7b9@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <bqinim$him$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.
Cite?
> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?
If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.
That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.
How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.
#7184
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FC7AD02.B67B6843@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
#7185
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FC7AD02.B67B6843@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
#7186
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FC7AD02.B67B6843@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
> z wrote:
> >
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.
Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.
#7187
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
z wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> > z wrote:
> > >
> > > ...It all started with that
> > > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
> >
> > Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> > verse, please."
>
> UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
>
> In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
> like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
> running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
> circuit unto the ends of it.
> Psalms 19:4
>
> The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
> Psalms 93:7
>
> The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
>
> And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
> vengeance on their enemies.
> Joshua 10:12
Pretty laughable. So if you yourself ever refer to the sun as setting
or rising, then by your own example, that means that you believe that
the the earth is stationary relative to the universe?
Ever hear of "relative postion" and "relative velocity" (which are the
terms that human beings commonly refer to their own position or velocity
without even realizing it)? I bet you even talk about driving your car
at, say "55 mph", when in reality, that's only one component in the
combination of linear and angular velocities that you are doing relative
to the earth *PLUS* the earth's velocity relative to the universe. So,
again, by giving speed and position references relative to the earth,
you must be implying that the earth is staionary in the universe and
that the sun moves around the earth. I bet you even refer to people as
"standing still".
I won't even get into figurative and prophetic language.
Say what you will to elevate man's "wisdom" above God's, the Word of God
will be standing when your human logic is long gone.
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! =-----
#7188
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
z wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> > z wrote:
> > >
> > > ...It all started with that
> > > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
> >
> > Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> > verse, please."
>
> UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
>
> In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
> like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
> running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
> circuit unto the ends of it.
> Psalms 19:4
>
> The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
> Psalms 93:7
>
> The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
>
> And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
> vengeance on their enemies.
> Joshua 10:12
Pretty laughable. So if you yourself ever refer to the sun as setting
or rising, then by your own example, that means that you believe that
the the earth is stationary relative to the universe?
Ever hear of "relative postion" and "relative velocity" (which are the
terms that human beings commonly refer to their own position or velocity
without even realizing it)? I bet you even talk about driving your car
at, say "55 mph", when in reality, that's only one component in the
combination of linear and angular velocities that you are doing relative
to the earth *PLUS* the earth's velocity relative to the universe. So,
again, by giving speed and position references relative to the earth,
you must be implying that the earth is staionary in the universe and
that the sun moves around the earth. I bet you even refer to people as
"standing still".
I won't even get into figurative and prophetic language.
Say what you will to elevate man's "wisdom" above God's, the Word of God
will be standing when your human logic is long gone.
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! =-----
#7189
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
z wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD2E0E.9D4203@kinez.net>...
> > z wrote:
> > >
> > > ...It all started with that
> > > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
> >
> > Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> > verse, please."
>
> UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
>
> In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
> like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
> running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
> circuit unto the ends of it.
> Psalms 19:4
>
> The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
> Psalms 93:7
>
> The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
>
> And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
> vengeance on their enemies.
> Joshua 10:12
Pretty laughable. So if you yourself ever refer to the sun as setting
or rising, then by your own example, that means that you believe that
the the earth is stationary relative to the universe?
Ever hear of "relative postion" and "relative velocity" (which are the
terms that human beings commonly refer to their own position or velocity
without even realizing it)? I bet you even talk about driving your car
at, say "55 mph", when in reality, that's only one component in the
combination of linear and angular velocities that you are doing relative
to the earth *PLUS* the earth's velocity relative to the universe. So,
again, by giving speed and position references relative to the earth,
you must be implying that the earth is staionary in the universe and
that the sun moves around the earth. I bet you even refer to people as
"standing still".
I won't even get into figurative and prophetic language.
Say what you will to elevate man's "wisdom" above God's, the Word of God
will be standing when your human logic is long gone.
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! =-----
#7190
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
> > > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government
contracts.
> >
> >
> > Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
> >
>
> Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
> lease deal?
For Lloyd thats allowed because it's a leftist democrat's crony.
Just like Terry McAuliffe making millions off of Global Crossing just before
they went bankrupt. A bigger bankruptcy than Enron to boot. Then there's
also the book deal for which Hillary got an $8 million advance. Just like
Newt Gingrich except 3X the amount and Newt had to give his back because
there would be a conflict of interest since he was a Republican
Representative. Can we say double standard?
Of course Lloyd will now call me a right wing **** racist idiot that needs
to learn some science. :-)
>
> > 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! =-----
>
>