"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 49

02-08-2007, 09:29 AM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> 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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-08-2007, 09:31 AM

>> 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.

02-08-2007, 09:31 AM

>>>>> 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.

02-08-2007, 09:31 AM

>>>>> 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.

02-08-2007, 09:36 AM

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.

02-08-2007, 09:46 AM

>>>>> 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?

> >

02-08-2007, 10:22 AM

>>>>> 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?

02-08-2007, 10:34 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> 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:
>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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...

02-08-2007, 11:08 AM

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.

02-08-2007, 11:36 AM

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.