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

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. It
also seems when a driver sees a bike or walker they keep an eye on them
until the car is clear. A motorcycle, if it is seen at all, seems to just
become part of the background.


Not so. The better you ride or move over the closer they feel they can come
and the faster they can pass you without sliding over into the left lane.
Have you been reading at all on this ng? : ) It is called buzzing.
Drivers with race car ambitions. Speed kills.
It is the being predictable dilemma that drivers take advantage of with
wreckless abandon with everyone. I must confess it is hard to turn things
your way. I find the only thing I can do is avoid traffic whenever I can.
Parks in Surrey let me do just that because they cover acres and acres with
bike trails running cross town.
Maybe we should target motorcyclists with a cycle to work campaign.
They probably suffer all the negative aspects of cycling but at higher
speed. Also, the criminal aspect of it even more.

How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up
by the romans didnt say anything like that. Your ignorance is
showing, where do you think it comes from? Never ever could
bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. That fool never ever
said that there are just those two rules. Really, Yep.
what other rules did he say there were? Even you cant actually be
THAT stupid.

IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them. Thank you for
helping proving my point.

Try reading the Bible yourself. Been there, done that,

And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out. Because
they ain't in there.

likely before you were even born thanks.

I don't think you are anywhere THAT old.

You will find out. Been there, done that, likely before you were
even born thanks.

Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.

One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the
people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the
dust off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them
at that point. Or that either. Nearly a direct quote
from the 'Christian manual'. Bare faced lie. That fool said a
hell of a lot more than that on that matter. Again you are
showing your ignorance. Never ever could bull**** its way out of
a wet paper bag.

IOW, you are wrong but aren't man enough to admit it.

We, Christians, are told to spread the word but if the people who hear
the word turn a deaf ear we are to leave them. Pig ignorant lie.
Have fun explaining what that fool did with the money changers.

What in the world does the money changers in the temple have to do with
spreading his msg? PLEASE see your doctors SOON. You are slipping much
faster than I first thought. Do you have a visiting nurse who could make
drive you to the clinic? If you don't have enough money to pay for your meds
contact your local church and they will be more than willing to help you
out.

I know it won't do any good because you have shown yourself to be a
closed minded bigot Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet
paper bag.

More repeating and proving my statements.

but read Matthew chapter 10 verses 11-14. Irrelevant to the other
stuff that fool DID that is nothing like that.

Now you can't even form coherent thoughts. Please explain what that is
supposed to mean?

FYI, a religion does not need to believe in an all powerful god. Many
of them 'worship' a man or idea. That aint a religion,
fool. You are the fool if you can believe that. Never ever
could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Which translates to, can't support my side of the debate must run away, run
away.

What's the difference in praying to a tree or some man claiming to be a
profit or saying he has the way to perfection? An idea aint a
religion, fool.

Just another word for the same thing. Do you believe in the big bang?

Remember the nuts who thought the space ship was following the comet? Are
you saying they were not a religion? Irrelevant to whether an idea
is a religion, fool.

Watch him run away. You'd think my arguments were killer white ribbits. Did
you soil your armor as well?

oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think We will
never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill
him. Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. Simple
We'll see... Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect
Neither is bin laden.

Yes he is. Do a little research on his teaching on Wahhabism. He's like a
Jim Jones, if you are too young to remember that name try David Korish.
People follow HIM first, then his teachings.

who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs.
Neither does bin laden.

See above.

He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs
So did bin laden.

Nope. If that was true now that he's hiding in a cave his power would fail.

to keep the people in fear. So did bin laden.

What people are following him due to fear?

By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't
going to make a political come back. Just as true of bin laden.

Nope, killing him would 'lift him to a higher plane'.

If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember,
Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates,
many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed.
Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced.
Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys.

Running away again I see. Be a man and stand up for what you believe. Ooops
sorry you can't because it falls like a house of cards when faced with
facts.

They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. Pity
about Saddam.

Yes it was. He should still be fighting Iran with the US providing support
to both sides. I tried to persuade those in power at the time of the beauty
of this but they were like you, closed mined bigots, and would hear NOTHING
that involved any kind of support to Iran.

Thank about all the good would have come from it. We would have provided
jobs for US workers making weapons, had cheap oil coming from Iran AND Iraq
and all the Islamic nut cases would have been there killing each other and
not bothering us.

Oh well, no use crying about spilled milk.

to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases.
Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. did that. Nope.

Yep.

If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes
martyr and hero for his cause. Have fun explaining what
happened to Saddam. See above See above.

See above.

His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will
just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking
him. We'll see... We have been seeing have we not?
Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent.

Have you been getting msg from him that the rest of us haven't?

Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways.

How? You don't make hits like we have been making w/o some VERY good intel.
And you don't get intel like that from low level peons.

Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill
his subordinates? It aint that way. Sure it is. No it
aint.

Yes, it is sticking out my tongue yhann (hey, acting childish can be fun.
is that why you do it?)

How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? ****
all.

OOO, another of your famous come backs. Now are you going to pout?

We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. Pity
that isnt obtained that way.

I can tell you have a vast knowledge in the field of intelligence. I bet you
had a secret decoder ring as a kid and today you have a "special" hat made
of aluminum foil that either allows you hear things others can or protects
your brain.

Ever wonder how someone who is such a smart person he can not be
found even with a multimillion dollar reward on his head can't
get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to
rally his troops? Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone
guessing. Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes
with speeches. Sure they do. You clearly don't know any of
them.

No and its too bad. I could use the money I could get by turning them in.

Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics. You clearly
don't know any of them.

Repeating yourself again.

With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade
from the fight. You clearly don't know any of them.

Do I hear the sounds of someone running away?

The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes.

And what got them going BEFORE that happened?

In spades with Afghanistan.

And what got them going BEFORE that happened?



He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 yes he did, we just
weren't listening. No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches.

So you admit that those tapes we have been told are him have be produced by
the FBI. You have now admitted that your are an intelligence AND that the
tapes of binny boy's speeches are not him because he does not make speeches.

Either he makes speeches and we hear them or he doesn't and the tapes are
fake. Which is it?

I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the
tapes we are hearing. Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory.
But you do have to wonder don't you? Nope, not when he has gone
out of his way to rub the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead
yet.

No one outside the intel services knows if he's dead or alive. If I were a
betting man I'd give better than even odds binny boy is being eaten by worms
in some cave right now.

Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips You don't
know that is true anymore.

Even the public records show this is true. Millions upon millions are being
paid to him for 'protection' from his attacks.

but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? Because thats
the best way to ensure that he cant be found.

bull, how much harder is it to pass along a video tape than an audio tape?
How much more effect would it be to see a vid of him listening to the BBC
world broadcast than some hard to hear tape of what we are told is him?

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen"
wrote:

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/

The answer, then, is no, the major Lutheran Churches do not recognize
the primacy of the Pope. The Missouri Synod specifically rejects
apostolic succession. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does
not AFAIK recognize it (coming from the MS).

Apostolic succession as recognized by the Lutheran churches does NOT
in any way recognize the primacy of the Pope - rather, it is a claim
that the sources of the church go back in succession to Peter. That
does not in anyway make the current Pope his avatar. So, no, apostolic
succession does not equal papal primacy.

The small church that you indicated does show deference to the Roman
Catholic church and the Pope. It can't hold some of the listed dogma
and doctrine and hold belief in the primacy of the Pope without
reservation. And while it is evidently HQ'd and started in Missouri, I
rather doubt much connection to the Missouri Synod. If they came from
there, they would have had to reconstitute apostolic succession.

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

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message

: It would probably be easy to
get stretch limo up
: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH.

I don't know about THAT. You might be able to *design* one that does so,
but you'd probably have to sacrifice a lot of things that are desirable
in a stretch limo. Perhaps engine power, perhaps interior space (to
allow for improved aerodynamics) ... just pulling things off the top of
my head.

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.

No. You're neglecting inertia. A moving object tends to keep moving, and
if it's heavy it's harder to stop than if it's light.

If you have your lime at 65mph
and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
and stop.

Yes.

The more mass in the limo the faster it
stops.

No. Let's ignore aerodynamic drag for a moment and pretend that the only
force slowing the car down is rolling resistance. The rolling resistance
of a car tire on asphalt is about 3% of the car's weight. Thus, the
deceleration force on a 1000kg car is 300N, and the deceleration force
on a 2000kg car is 600N. By Newton's second law, the first car
decelerates at a rate of 300N / 1000kg = 0.3 m/s^2, and the second
decelerates at a rate of 600N / 2000kg = 0.3 m/s^2. In other words, both
cars slow at the same rate.

Rolling resistance does increase with velocity, but on two identical
vehicles it will increase by the same amount for each, so the result
will be the same -- both vehicles will slow at the same rate.

Now it *is* true that the more weight you put on a tire, the larger its
contact patch with the ground. This *might* increase the coefficient of
rolling resistance, but only very slightly if at all (the material the
tire is made from and the surface it's rolling on have far greater
influence on rolling resistance). Let's say it's 3.1% for the heavier
car instead of 3% -- almost certainly an overestimate -- which would
produce a force of 620N. Over the course of a mile, that would require
32,000J of extra energy compared to the lighter car to maintain constant
speed.

Let's say the lighter car gets 30 mpg and both cars transfer energy from
the gasoline to the road at 25% efficiency. There are 120 million joules
in a gallon of unleaded gasoline, so 40 million joules are burnt each
mile. The extra 32,000J the heavier car requires each mile correspond to
128,000J/mile of extra gasoline. Therefore, the extra weight degrades
the car's mileage to 29.9 mpg. The difference of 0.1 mpg may as well be
zero considering that it's an overestimate to begin with, and that other
factors such as driving habits and regular vehicle maintenance (or lack
thereof) make a far greater difference in mileage than that.

Now if you factor in aerodynamic drag, both vehicles -- being identical
aside from weight -- will face the same drag force. They will expend the
same amount of energy overcoming it to maintain a constant speed.
However, if you let your foot off the gas and coast to a stop, you'll
find the heavier car coasts farther. I refer you back to Netwon's second
law to understand why.

no spam wrote:
Top posting to save time.

I bottom-post and snip to save everybody's time.

How have you lived this long with expectations this high? Being a
motorcycle rider I expect the opposite, 100% of the car drivers are out
there to kill me. That type of thinking has saved many times.

I also assume I'm invisible, which for all practical purposes I am.
Amazing how many drivers get away with the "Officer, I just didn't see
him when I made my left turn in front of him when he had the right of
way..." explanation.

Day-glo is your friend. It makes it more difficult for them to claim
blindness.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

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.

Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there (several
times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure that after in one
year a trooper had been rear ended and a motorcyclist KILLED at that
intersection something would be done. I was on that same road last year and
there was a change. . .they repainted the lines.

Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

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.

You will note I said EXTRA ROOM. On a 4 lane road most cars will move to
the far left (passing) lane if they can when they see a bike on the
shoulder. Most cars seem to just clear the line when passing me on the
motorcycle.

That's because they didn't hand harvest nor have to try to plan on how
much
corn to plant to harvest enough to feed ever how many chickens, hogs,
ducks,
etc.

Hell, they didn't do it for the garden in the back, either. And, yes,
it was handharvested, whatever that has to do with anything. Corn
yield is a ridicuolous thing to count based on seeds planted - maybe

Because when you are hand harvesting to feed the critters which will keep
you from going hungry you want to make sure you get each and every ear.
That means you check each stalk even when you know that the odds of finding
a second ear is very small.


especially for a back acre garden. BTW, you do know that the corn
generally used to feed the livestock has very little to do with the
corn generally grown as food for humans?

Yes. IIRC, there are three basic types. Corn for livestock, corn for
direct consumption (on cob, canned, etc) and corn for indirect consumption
(meal, oil, etc)

We grew field corn (mostly for livestock) and sweet corn (mostly for humans)
we did share some Ever had parched field corn? Good stuff.



Maybe we just didn't know how to do things in Kansas, but we did grow
a fair amount of corn before soybeans took over.

Cotton was king for us. Corn was grown for our use. I do know that we'd
been very happy to get more than one ear per stalk (tried saving seeds from
those to replant but not much luck) because that would have meant less land
in corn and more in cotton and therefore more money in the bank.

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
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...

Well there's another use for corn. Grind it up, add a little sugar, water
and a few other things. Do something in the barn that you don't tell many
folks about then apply results to said 'who'. Not fool proof but can
improve your odds a tad.