"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 17

02-04-2007, 04:10 PM

On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> > So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
> > causing Armageddon!
>
> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
> (SUV) to carry them all over the place.

I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we
know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at
work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs...

HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED

One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning
the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into
temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek...
Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a
brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the
Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god...

And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad
that He declared war against the Devil...

02-04-2007, 04:21 PM

Wayne Pein wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
>> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb.
>> No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to
>> pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably
>> already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most
>> bicyclists stay off such roads.
>
> If such a road is said to be unfriendly, it is to motorists who must
> wait. Waiting is not dangerous. Being incompetent and moving into the
> adjacent lane when there is not room is. However, this is not a typical
> mechanism of collision.

Possibly because bicyclists sensibly avoid such roads. If I had to use
Atlantic Blvd. during rush hour I'd use the sidewalk. Nobody walks in
SoCal anyway!

> A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane.

Really? Consider the effect of a car whose outside tire-edge is 2 feet
from the curb (in effect, driving in what might be considered the
parking lane). Then consider what happens when the car bodywork extends
even closer to the curb.

> A
> bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane. The roads
> are full of slow vehicles such as stopped busses, motor vehicles
> completely stopped at stop lights, parked delivery vsehicles, front
> loaders, bicycles, etc. Motorists can deal with it.

Indeed, but the roads of which I speak have been widened to carry large
amounts of traffic during rush hour. It is not reasonable for traffic
that normally moves at 45+ mph to slow down to 14 mph (my personal
maximum non-sprint commuting bicycle speed) until the bicyclist decides
to turn off the road.

The lanes are NOT freeway-width, but as narrow as it's possible to be
while allowing use by full-size American cars. Standard delivery trucks
take up more than one such lane and are frequently prohibited during
rush hour.

Use of such roads by bicycles gums up the works, with consequences being
worse for the bicyclist than for the cars. Note: the stupid SHARE THE
ROAD (with a picture of a bicycle) signs are never placed on roads like
this -- at least I've never seen any.

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

02-04-2007, 04:23 PM

On Feb 3, 6:46 pm, "[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

> Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all
> abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here
> is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming.
> First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy
> these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they
> can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we
> are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world
> with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon
> dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of
> eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1
> million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on
> this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government
> has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to
> educate their children properly" or something like that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep, but the hungry lions make history, and they can't bet on vehicles
that feed them with "peanuts" --the bike. They want juicy steak...

'Yes, we need to fight a war, but no, the enemy is not Iraq... The
enemy is oil with 65+ percent of the known oil reserves in the
politically unstable, "Death to America"-chanting Middel East. Imagine
the advances the United States could make to world stability and
developing domestic employment opportunities if it spent the $79+
billion Congress recently approved for Bush's Iraq war on alternative
energy subsidies and investment. Might this be a better way to fight
terrorism, support our troops, and regain world favor?'
-Jay Lustgarten (Source: World Press Review, letters). See this
solution... [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-04-2007, 04:29 PM

William Souden wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>> Interstates aint freeways.
>> They are in the USA.
>
> So how will welfare boy reply to this obvious fact? The paper bag bot?
> The flushing bot? My guess is "bull****", his standard auto response
> when the facts fail him.

Come, come, now. You're confusing his insularity with his reflex answers.

I really have to wonder why he bothers you so much. Surely your
newsreader has killfile capability. Even thunderbird, which allows you
to kill by sender, subject or date, should be sufficient to make him
disappear from your world forever.

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

02-04-2007, 04:40 PM

On Feb 3, 9:29 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> point is, "What ever happened to little economy cars??".
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Europe is full of them. They are too Smart for us...

Mercedes Smart Car Headed for U.S. Market

June 26, 2006
DaimlerChrysler plans to sell its 60-mile-per-gallon two-seater Smart
Car in the U.S. next year.

The little Smart Car is just more than 8 feet long and less than 5
feet wide and is small enough to fit in half of a typical parking
space.

The three-cylinder turbocharged Smart Car can achieve up to 60 mpg,
according to DaimlerChrysler.

..

02-04-2007, 04:42 PM

Mauried wrote:

> There is no mechanism to force China to do anything, short of
> declaring war and invading the country, and I cant see anyone wanting
> to do this.

Just stop buying from them, and they will meet pollution control or
whatever you want. I mean, if you really wanted it.

02-04-2007, 05:34 PM

The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>
>> Interstates aint freeways.
>
> They are in the USA.

Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.

02-04-2007, 05:34 PM

The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>
>> Interstates aint freeways.
>
> They are in the USA.

Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.

02-04-2007, 05:38 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>> Interstates aint freeways.
>> They are in the USA.
>
> Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.
>
>

I-90 is a interstate, and it ain't free.

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-04-2007, 05:38 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
>>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>>>> less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?
>>> Interstates aint freeways.
>> They are in the USA.
>
> Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.
>
>

I-90 is a interstate, and it ain't free.

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]