Do bicycles and cars mix?

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:P0TCb.539971$Tr4.1473699@attbi_s03...
In article , DTJ wrote:

There are few Chicago cops who would do anything, even though the
aforementioned asshole liberal has outlawed all self protection
devices in Chicago.

At best, the citizen will lose his firearm. I still remember a story
that was eclipsed by a school shooting elsewhere in the country. It
was of a 78 year old man who could barely walk. Some thug broke into
his home intent on theft and harming him. He pulled out what the news
reported as an antique revolver, my guess is that ment from the first
half of the 20th century. Anyway, he killed the intruder. Charges
were not likely to be pressed according to the report. But he did
lose his gun and was booked if I remember right.


In NC is is very clear that if you are in your house and defending
yourself, nothing is going to happen to you. However, one man shot a thief
in the back while he was running away from his house in Durham a few years
ago. A teacher had told the student he was going to get shot if he kept up
his breaking and entering just the day before. The shooter went on trial,
but the jury hung and they did not retry the homeowner. It was bad form to
shoot someone in the back. I understand that if he had been shot coming
towards you and you thought that you were in danger, that would have been
another story.

In this part of the world, you need to assume every house has a gun + a
pistol or both or many of the both.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:55:09 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


In this part of the world, you need to assume every house has a gun + a
pistol or both or many of the both.

George, maybe you should assume it is bad form to break into someone's
home, whether they are going to shoot you or not.

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:55:09 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


In this part of the world, you need to assume every house has a gun + a
pistol or both or many of the both.

George, maybe you should assume it is bad form to break into someone's
home, whether they are going to shoot you or not.

While murder rates go up the further South you go in the USA, burglary
rates seem to go down.

Peter wrote:

A large meal provides about 1500-2000 kJ (350-500 kcal).

Your definition of a 'large meal' apparently differs from mine. A single
Burger King Whopper hamburger has more kcals than that and I wouldn't
consider it to be a large meal by itself.


That's exactly why you shouldn't eat at a junk food place. A lot of fat,
which is the food stuff with the highest energy content per weight. Get
vegetables and fruit instead.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:

Peter wrote:


A large meal provides about 1500-2000 kJ (350-500 kcal).

Your definition of a 'large meal' apparently differs from mine. A single
Burger King Whopper hamburger has more kcals than that and I wouldn't
consider it to be a large meal by itself.



That's exactly why you shouldn't eat at a junk food place. A lot of fat,
which is the food stuff with the highest energy content per weight. Get
vegetables and fruit instead.

I do - had a snack of four large oranges (~400 kcals) yesterday evening. I
didn't consider that to be a "large meal" either. As a fairly tall man who
exercises regularly, I need about 3000 kcals/day. Using the average of
your figures above would mean that I'd need to be eating 7 "large meals"
per day. Not realistic, so I don't consider 425 kcals to constitute a
large meal.

"George Conklin" wrote in message link.net...

=v= You really have no clue what you're talking about. The
organizers of the Sierra Club's campaign against sprawl are
excellent people, one of whom I know personally. That means
nothing to you, of course, so I'll their work speak for itself:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/


They are elitists who are do not want the next generation to have what
they already have. We have population concentration in the USA, not sprawl.
They have it backwards.

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid? The eastern seaboard
is built to capacity in many areas, the midwest and most fertile
valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people) and
the West is growing in places with barely enough water to sustain it.
Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los
Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very
definition of sprawl, you fool!

=v= There has been a concerted effort by the anti-immigration
crowd to get the Club membership to support their goals. When
put on the ballot, the membership has voted it down. They made
an effort to climb onto the coattails of the popular campaign
against sprawl and were rebuffed there, too.
_Jym_

Just barely was it voted down, because it would tip the hands of the
others, who support zero population growth anyway.

Zero population growth is an excellent idea, long overdue. People who
oppose it don't understand that land and resources are limited
(usually a religious viewpoint). There are 290 million people in the
U.S. at the moment and it's not doing our quality of life any good,
unless you're in the construction business or some other
pyramid-scheme industry. Growth-addiction is something to be cured,
not satiated.

A big appeal of America was once its wide open spaces, but you'd
rather bury them in suburbs and asphalt under the pretense of creating
"more wealth" or "more jobs" which would be unnecessary without more
people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
om...
"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

=v= You really have no clue what you're talking about. The
organizers of the Sierra Club's campaign against sprawl are
excellent people, one of whom I know personally. That means
nothing to you, of course, so I'll their work speak for itself:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/


They are elitists who are do not want the next generation to have
what
they already have. We have population concentration in the USA, not
sprawl.
They have it backwards.

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?


No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme
population concentration.

In article ,
(Enough Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

=v= You really have no clue what you're talking about. The
organizers of the Sierra Club's campaign against sprawl are
excellent people, one of whom I know personally. That means
nothing to you, of course, so I'll their work speak for itself:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/


They are elitists who are do not want the next generation to have what
they already have. We have population concentration in the USA, not
sprawl.
They have it backwards.

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?

There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming like
chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for
telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague
generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is
anonymous posting


The eastern seaboard is built to capacity in many areas,

You, of course, mean places like NYC the epitome of anti-sprawl. So we
find out, finally, that you aren't against "sprawl" but against any
human footprint regardless of urban form.

the midwest and most fertile
valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people)

Well, the Central Valley of California might disagree given their
massive urbanization and as people continue to vote with their feet and
abandon huge swaths of the midwest you might reconsider.

and
the West is growing in places with barely enough water to sustain it.

NYC doesn't have enough water to sustain itself either.

Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los
Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very
definition of sprawl, you fool!

Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization. Los Angeles, for
instance, is the densest metro area in the US. Now you are advocating
against denser urbanism and in the cases od LV and Phx against using
marginal open land for urbanization. First you bitch about valuable
farmland being lost and then you bitch about useless desert being lost.
You are not anti-sprawl, you are anti-human. Lucky for the rest of us
you are not a hypocrite and we all expect you to lead by example below.


=v= There has been a concerted effort by the anti-immigration
crowd to get the Club membership to support their goals. When
put on the ballot, the membership has voted it down. They made
an effort to climb onto the coattails of the popular campaign
against sprawl and were rebuffed there, too.
_Jym_

Just barely was it voted down, because it would tip the hands of the
others, who support zero population growth anyway.

Zero population growth is an excellent idea, long overdue.

You first. Lead by example, prove your sincerity.

People who
oppose it don't understand that land and resources are limited
(usually a religious viewpoint).

The zealot preaches that everyone else is blind. LoL.

There are 290 million people in the
U.S. at the moment and it's not doing our quality of life any good,
unless you're in the construction business or some other
pyramid-scheme industry. Growth-addiction is something to be cured,
not satiated.

A big appeal of America was once its wide open spaces, but you'd
rather bury them in suburbs and asphalt under the pretense of creating
"more wealth" or "more jobs" which would be unnecessary without more
people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness.

No, Clue Deficit Disorder is the true danger.


E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

The usual FAct free "is not, is so/is NOT, is SO" claims.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Enough Already" wrote in message
om...
"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

=v= You really have no clue what you're talking about. The
organizers of the Sierra Club's campaign against sprawl are
excellent people, one of whom I know personally. That means
nothing to you, of course, so I'll their work speak for itself:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/


They are elitists who are do not want the next generation to have
what
they already have. We have population concentration in the USA, not
sprawl.
They have it backwards.

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?


No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme
population concentration.

An entirely meaningless observations and specious when talking about Urban
Sprawl.

"Robert Coté" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization. Los Angeles, for
instance, is the densest metro area in the US. Now you are advocating
against denser urbanism and in the cases od LV and Phx against using
marginal open land for urbanization. First you bitch about valuable
farmland being lost and then you bitch about useless desert being lost.
You are not anti-sprawl, you are anti-human. Lucky for the rest of us
you are not a hypocrite and we all expect you to lead by example below.


In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.