"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F988F80.E880379B@itis.com...
>
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
> > the Kadett was a horrible piece of ****, with a rusty body, awful
gearbox
> > and weak 4 cyl thrashy engine. The brakes were great and the handling
was
> > pretty good for a small car, but the build quality sucked..
> >
> > I had one ...
>
> Too bad they never imported the Holden Torana--a slightly lengthened,
reinforced
> Kadett that in one version, Holden actually had plans to stuff a 5-liter
V8
> into. They were also available in left-hand drive versions until about
1980,
> and the post-1974 models were actually slightly larger than Vegas (101"
> wheelbase), and _were_ available with 5-liter engines (or fours or sixes),
as
> well as radial tuned rally suspension.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
real bad boys cars those.
Lots on the road here in NZ, now they're a popular Drag conversion car, with
big tubbed wheels and a 5.7L cehv 350ci engine running Menthol with a turbo
per 2 cylinders.

rhys


 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7108FB.F2C51FD8@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
> > life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
> > seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
>
> Germans have the same sort of laws as the Japanese. There are very few 9
> year old cars in Germany. The average age of cars in Europe as a whole
> is only around 7 years, compared to something like 10 years in the US. I
> suspect this is the reason why VWs and Mercedes has such poor long term
> reliability. In this county people seem to be willing to spend
> incredible amounts of money to keep German cars running. It has always
> been a mystery to me why people do this. One of my old office mates had
> a really crappy 240D that he spent more on in repairs than I paid in new
> car payments. The car was uncomfortable, dead slow and ugly, but he
> seemed to think it was some sort of status symbol To me it was a second
> rate taxi.
>
> Ed

Average age of cars here in NZ last i heard was in the range of 19 years.

I drove an '82 Mitsi as my first car, followed by a '83 Nissan. now a '88
Bighorn

rhys


 
Dave C. wrote:
>>>You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>>>claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>>Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.
>>
>
>
> Well at least that doesn't stretch credibility beyond the breaking
> oint. -Dave
>
>

It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...


Matt

 
All the passengers would be "average"... the "freaks of nature" are on their
own :)

"RJ" <re_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1g3b6nv.86dppd1toltpmN%re_johnson@hotmail.com...
> Joe <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Subaru cars are not "small". My Legacy Sedan hold 4 adult males (fat US
> > male (that's for you Leo Lee)) comfortably. Easily holds 5 females. My
> > Wagon holds 5 adults very comfortably.
>
> None of those 5 have long legs, if they are comfortable.


 
Dave Milne wrote:
> the '80s Jaguar XJ6 / XJ12s used to do that - they had fuel tanks in
> each rear quarter which would burst and spray fuel into the
> interior.. Changed with the XJ40s
>
>
> "rickety" <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote in message
> news:3f97d78b@rpc1284.daytonoh.ncr.com...
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety

I'm glad I didn't know that when I had one!

--
Rickety


 
FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:kvh1svkqne0tqu50v0ce66easicm0hac71@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>>
>
> More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very
> high speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in
> the trunk you might just get a fire.

It's interesting, as your points are highly believable, but they don't come
up in the news programs. I would have thought that if ammunition was a
contributing factor then Ford would have been highlighting that in public
announcements.

--
Rickety


 
Dave C. wrote:
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave

Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.

--
Rickety


 
In article <k09hpvs5sr1tol14i9p3eo557og83e2srv@4ax.com>, Marc wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.

>>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>>blinders.
>>
>>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>>the truthfulness of my statement.
>
> It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
> is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
> think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
> to be alert.
>
> Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
> and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
> of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
> useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
> you will be able to predict other drivers.
>
> If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
> incompetent.

And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is generally
considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it avoids.
(outside a few BMW commericals)

Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
afford for when they crash.

Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
tell, that I ignored.

I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving experience
to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of drivers to
be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.

While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
both front and rear would need to be filmed.




 
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:07:50 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:


>And incompetent would describe most drivers in this country (USA). In
>fact drivers are trained to be incompetent. First, practically all
>collisions are generally called 'accidents' as if they were all not
>predictable. Then throw in tons of speed kills stuff like carl's
>unexpected. No call to pay attention to the task of driving, to
>understand driving, only to go slow so *when* someone crashes it
>won't be as bad. On top of all of this, safety in the USA is
generally
>considered how well a vehicle survives a crash, not how many it
avoids.
>(outside a few BMW commericals)
>
>Combine all these things and we get a bunch of people driving with
>the views of the person you replied to. Accidents 'just happen', they
>aren't in control, they aren't responsible, they cannot predict, they
>can't do anything but get the biggest/strongest vehicle they can
>afford for when they crash.

Where did I claim that Brent?

You need to join Marc and go back and read the posts in question.

>Practically everything I see other drivers do on the road is
>predictable to me and when someone does something I didn't predict
>I often believe I should have been able to. I recall some sign, some
>tell, that I ignored.

It is impossible to predict the actions of every driver.

That's why some accidents are truly accidents, i.e. unavoidable. To
claim that you have the absolute ability " to *predict* what other
drivers are going to do and *avoid* being collected by them" is
ridiculous, hence my reply.

>I have (as do many others, it's nothing special) enough driving
experience
>to be able to read a road situation and the individual styles of
drivers to
>be able to predict what they are going to do before they do it.
>It only takes knowledge and paying attention to detail.

LOL. Psychic, eh?

To claim that you can predict what every driver is going to do is
ridiculous.

>While ideally, predictability should be what is seen on the autobahn,
>even though the flow of US driving appears chaotic, the movement of
>individual vehicles is rather predictable. I don't know how to prove
>this other than to do a carl with a video camera and give a rolling
>commentary. I would need two cameras and picture in picture because
>both front and rear would need to be filmed.

And a special device to monitor your psychic output.

Situational awareness is one of the cornerstones of safe driving but
to think that it makes you immune from the actions of other drivers is
the height of arrogance, or ignorance.

 
Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
out at the top of the list for a long time....

If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
thing.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Bill Funk wrote:
>
<snip>
 
It could be the server he's using... that was the problem with my odd posts
about a months ago. Used 2 servers. Ones timw was off. Now it's just
dead.

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F995060.2359139F@sympatico.ca...
> Bill, your computer date is waaay off which makes your cross posts hang
> out at the top of the list for a long time....
>
> If you weren't cross posting to 3 groups I read you wouldn't be so
> annoying, but I just thought you should know about the date and time
> thing.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> <snip>


 
In article <bn94hv$ut0mr$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>

Then you're stupid.

>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
 
In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.


> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
 
In article <bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Lies, all a pack of lies."
>Lloyd, these are all BILL CLINTON statements... Are you saying that BILL
>CLINTON lied? I guess it depends on your definition of LIE...

No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...

>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
><snip>
>> > If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
>his
>> >footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>> >with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United
>Nations
>> >Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>> >program.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
>those
>> drones that could deliver it all here?
>>
>> Lies, all a pack of lies.
>
>
 
In article <2NTlb.3076$I04.786@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
 
In article <bn94l7$ubsfu$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."

Liar.

>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.

And based on science, discovered it was not.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
>credible
>> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>> >>
>> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
>look
>> >at
>> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
>etc.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>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?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >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?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >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?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <vpg80s99dfk95a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Joe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
>> body
>> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
>having
>> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
>best...
>> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>> >>
>> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> >> terror:...
>> >
>> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>> >
>> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>> >
>> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>> >they existed they would have to have been:
>> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
>> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>> >(4) Shot into space
>>
>> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>>
>
>That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
>would have remembered that.

They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.


> Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>Iraq by Saddam?

We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.

>
>> >
>> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>>
>> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
>did.
>>
>
>Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.

Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?


>Question is Where are they
>now, not do they exist.

Prove their existence first.


>If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>Saddam provide proof of it?

Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.


>Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>
>! =-----
>
>
 
In article <bn94sb$u9r3o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>and nothing else.

Liar. Noone has ever said that.


>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??

There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.

>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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, ...
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>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.
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
 
In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.

The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.

>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.

No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.

>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?

But they don't refute the existence of atoms.

>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.

>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.

No, warming on a global scale.


>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".

The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.

>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.

Yes it is.

>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.

So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?

>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.

No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.

>
>
 
no argument here...

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnc0n1$r7e$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bn94hv$ut0mr$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
> >I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
> >
>
> Then you're stupid.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
> >
> >"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially
the
> >betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
> >purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
> >
> >Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering
liberal
> >from MA) state:
> >http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
> >"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war
against
> >it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort;
it
> >shall not be bailable."
> >Note the giving the enemy aid part...
> >Punishable by LIFE in prison:
> >http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
> >> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
> >> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
> >>
> >> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
> >>
> >
> >
> >


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
10K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
6K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
59K
Alibro
Alibro