"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" wrote:

First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?

I do. Unfortunately, part two, where I tried to pick the "who with"
got me an elbow in the face. Still have the broken nose...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:10:35 GMT, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
wrote:

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
news:mnuyh.3316: Are you saying that all things held
equal, adding more
: mass to a vehicle will not change the force required to
: accelerate said vehicle enough to overcome friction
: and maintain a constant velocity?
: peace
: dawg
:
:
: I am saying that once you get the mass up to speed it
matters very
: little how much mass. It would probably be easy to
get stretch limo up
: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH. The stop
and go of city
: driving negates any improvement to mileage that I
could do or think of
: except to carry some amount of batteries for that
kind of driving.
: Some things are hard to engineer.
: Bill Baka

I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here
on earth with gravity your argument does not hold
water. The more weight (mass affected by the force of
gravity) the more friction and the more energy to
maintain the velocity. If you have your lime at 65mph
and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
and stop. The more mass in the limo the faster it
stops. You are simply ignoring friction which is a fact
of life dude. ................ are you a republican?

The more mass in the limo, the farther you will
coast on level ground.
Are you an auto engineer?

Joe Fischer

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:


Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
friendly to motorists.


How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
portion of Walnut Street?

That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
parking lane.

Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
lane being restricted to bikes.

So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
parked on it.


OK, so here's a situation where it was made worse for both street users.

Wayne

Fred G. Mackey wrote:


My brother and I once filled 70 trash bags with leaves and branches when
I was a teenager. We used rakes. THat was before the advent of
leaf-blowers.

Apparently, people are unwilling to take care of their own yards in your
town.


Actually, people rake or blow their yards and put the leaves at the curb
(we keep and compost ours), then the town picks them up. They are then
composted and residents can purchase a pickup truck load for $10. The
town will also freely deliver a full dump truck load (probably about 3
tons) of uncomposted leaves to anyone who wants it.

Why are you unable to mentally process this, and instead act like a
confrontational ignoramus?

Wayne

no spam wrote:


Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so that
stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs don't exist,
the transportation engineer in charge should be notified.


Transportation engineer BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!! wiping tears from my
eyes Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from didn't even have
building inspector (note that is for the entire COUNTY) and you expect them
to have a transportation engineer.

As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the summer
tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic accidents (one
time involving a state trooper).

The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not expected are
dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car, tractor, bike or cow..



Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses responsible
for a known hazardous situation that could easily be fixed.

Wayne

no spam wrote:



I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger because
people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat us
that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it will
pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they don't.

In 20 years of motorcycle riding, I've never been passed by another
driver in my same lane. So by definition every time I was overtaken the
driver moved over into the adjacent lane.

Wayne

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen"
wrote:

You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the primacy
of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated
debate about it.

I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy
of the Pope.

Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say
they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the
doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy,
but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies
(and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are
Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones).

While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three
largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be
true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is
located. It could be true, but I doubt it.

As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical
Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific
example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot
of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity,
their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they
won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I
was able to find in Kansas City via Google:

http://www.ecclnet.org/

Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no
where.

So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me. Let's take buying
groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other
than a 'quickie mart' store (they don't tend to sell much in the line of
fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my driveway (just a couple
hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide dirt road. Take it for about a
mile where I get to the paved county road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about
3 miles on that I can get on a state highway and go only about 45 miles.
Yeah, I can see how me thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.

My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the
weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for
the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven.
Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic
church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true
teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church.

You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the primacy
of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated
debate about it.


The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many
decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the
Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be
kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings
on birth control, divorce and more.


As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with
practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.
Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I
dated one for a while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following
the teachings of the church. The rest looked at them as guidelines not
rules.


Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow
their own rules.

Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef,
chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not?

I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been
talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside marriage, use
birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO.


That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally
question some of the tenets of the church without being excommunicated. I
forget what it's called, what can be questioned, and the details about how
it works, but it's an involved enough process that I'm guessing the people
you're talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not "officially"
questioning the church.... :-)

My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked them
because they are world known and I know a little about their religion. My
point was and is you can't condemn a group based on actions of people who
are only claiming to be members of that group.

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.
IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and
must be followed. It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic
subset of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible.

So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of hot air
on his rulings on homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his
post in the church? Sorry don't think so.

Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings
change over time. Not really, Corse it is.

Not the basic rules. But my point is even if the rules do change what does
it matter if you ain't following them go begin with?

you have rules and if you are a true insert something here you follow
the rules. Its nothing like as black and white as that mindlessly
superficial line.

Sure it is. If you don't believe and follow the rules then you shouldn't
claim to be a member of the group. Just because I eat pork or beef every
meal does that mean I'm not a vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT DOES. It doesn't
matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian." if I don't follow the
rules and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am.

I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob banks
for a living am I a Christian? Nope. Therefore you saying that Christians
screw around on their wife's and rob banks is foolish.

A hell of a lot of what protestantism is about isnt about 'rules'

Such as?

Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.
And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ?
Seems they don't care as long as they keep getting money from the
non-Catholic Catholics. It aint primarily about money.

Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of the
church? Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and
had abortions to be married "in the church".

In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages with 5
kids to be annulled so someone can get married 'in the church' but not
allowing divorce. Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.

Hockey Pucks! If it ain't about the money then what is it about?

Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, most obviously with the
execution of abortionists.

Give me plenty of examples then. The weak one you gave fails on three
reasons. 1) you can't show me one church that calls for that; 2) check out
what I have been telling you, just because someone calls himself a Christian
doesn't mean he is; 3) abortionist are not being killed day in and day out.

You missed 60's and love, love, love. Still a lot of hate
there. Just another of your silly little fantasys. Really?
Yep. Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's? Not by
those spewing that love ****.

So you admit that there were lynchings in the 60's and there was still a lot
of hate. Using your logic we don't have any hate now because there are those
"spewing that love ****."

How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's?
Never been into stupid stuff like that.

And yet you claim that my stating there was hate in the 60's was "Just
another of your silly little fantasys."

Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that. Or havent got a clue
about what was being discussed.

You seem to be the one unable to follow the topic at hand.

Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color.
Most of them don't. Sure they do, just read their literature on
how much they love themselves. Pathetic.

Another thing you and they have in common.

Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. What
exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war??
All. Nope, it aint a holy war for starters. Tell that
to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who are killing
the Sunnies That aint a holy war.

Let's see, they are killing each other because of difference in religion but
you don't call that a holy war. Just how do you define a holy war?

or others who believe they have to kill the infidels. There are ****
all of those too.

I give up what does that even mean?

The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people
for a 'holy war' for control of the oil and the money it brings.
Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil.
Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist
want control of Iraq. No we arent.

Try to stay on topic. Not editing so much might help, although I doubt it
because you are losing the debate. The point you are responding to is the
fact that terrorist need money and oil is a good way to get it. You tried to
change the topic to terrorist from countries w/o oil.

But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist who get
money from oil or poppies. Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists
where there is no oil or poppies.

Ok, first you need to check to see if its time to take another dose of your
meds because you seem to be completely losing your ability to focus here.
Next carefully re-read what I wrote. The statement above has nothing to do
with the terrorist being where the oil and poppies are only they are getting
money from other terrorist who get their money from oil and poppies. Where
do you think binny boy got his money to run his little holy war? From
selling magazines door to door? Nope from his family's oil business.

The more money they have the faster they can force their religion
on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death.
It aint about money. Everything is about money. Just another
mindlessly silly fantasy.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Without money nothing happens in this world. Just another mindlessly
silly fantasy.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

They are told that their religion is the only correct religion
Another pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point. And it is true. Study their own words.

and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world.
Another pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Can't do that w/o money. Another pig ignorant lie.

Ok, tell me how to spread a religion around the world w/o money. I'd love to
know so that I can start spreading mine at no cost.

As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to
keep them following your religion then you are following a false
religion. There is no such animal as a 'true' religion. Sure
there is, even in the human view of the world. Another pig ignorant
lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

A true religion is one that allows people to make their own decisions
of how to live but shows how that life should be lived. Another
pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

A true follower of Christ does just that. Another pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

There are others who do, I disagree with them but once they have heard
the truth as I see is they must make their own decision on how to
live. They ignore your mindless **** because they have noticed that
you don't have a clue.

You seem to be the only one here who can't support his arguments.

If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what you
can do to prevent it. And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun
don't shine.

I don't care, I have done my part. The rest is up to you and God. Just the
same as if I tell you not to touch that wire because the electric fence is
on. If you touch it after that its your problem not mine.

But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the
police power of the state, to change. You have always been, and
always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Me in specific or me as a Christian in general?

IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's the
only one who knows what right in the world. You'll burn child.
That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans said
very unambiguously indeed that you cant do that sort of thing. Just
another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that fool
who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told him to do.

I do think you should talk to the docs about adjusting your meds. Tell them
you can't keep focused and tend to repeat yourself, having problems
controlling your anger and have are having some really bad self image issues
and feel the need to try to make others feel small to make yourself feel
bigger. Personally I'd suggest you mention adding Seroquel or if you are on
it already upping the dose.