Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

....at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
premiums.

DS

 

Same reason there's opposition to same-sex marriage: It makes people feel
icky.

DS

 

Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
lots of money, then get back to us.

DS

 

And yet slavery was ended (at least in the US). And it wasn't ended by redefining
the word slave to mean something else. You keep equating my distaste for the way
some groups want to implement a goal with a distate for the goal. This is not
correct. If you want to grant identical rights to same sex unions and marriage, go
ahead, just don't do it my having some judge decide the legal meaning of the word
"marriage" has magically changed to include same sex unions.

Ed

 

You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
you would have been placed on a waiting list.

 

Your lying again Lloyd, and Richard Nixon has more credibility than you.

 

There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.

I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.

In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.

No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.

This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.

Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.

 

I don't know. Is there a poll available? And when you say they agree with you -
do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is valid
but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies. I
think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight to
your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by any
other group).

Ed

 

You've never provided an objective source for anything in your life Lloyd.
Personally I read every article I can find on a subject that interest me,
and use all the information, From BOTH sides, to come to an informed
conclusion. You simply parrot what you read on left wing sites and call it
science. Your a lier, a fool, and an idiot. I only reply to you because it
is so much fun to remind you of your place at the bottom.

Because they can run to the emergency room every time they get a papercut or
nosebleed. May be popular, but the actual costs are far higher than care in
America is, where people handle minor issues themselves.

England's is even more socialized, but even the

Bungee jumping is popular, doesn't mean I want the Government to require
everyone to do it.

 

Sigh, talk about circular arguments. The traditional legal definition of a
marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Without changing the definition of
the word, same sex couples can't get married in a legal sense. They could be
granted the same rights by passing a law that made same sex unions equivalent to a
traditional marriage. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand. When laws
were enacted to provide rights to married couples, no one conceived that it would
apply to same sex unions. I think it is desirable that same sex couple have those
same rights and responsibilities. I just don't think this should be implemented by
redefining the long established legal meaning of the word "marriage."

Ed

 

"Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some common
group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up"

 

They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
the truth.

 

What's wrong Lloyd, no lame answer? One nice thing about you Lloyd, you make
everyone else greatful they aren't as dumb as you.

 

I'll try to clarify -

I do not have a problem with the idea that same sex couples should be granted
the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
same sex unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where appropriate.
I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If a
law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).

Ed

 

Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

No, that dollar driven isn't by definition a good thing. I'm not
saying that it's a bad thing, but you appear to be saying that it
simply makes it better by being that way. If you really want the
latest in techno gadgets you have to look at the Japanese market, not
the American.

And American companies didn't sell to him at all, right? You don't
seriously believe that, do you?

The US has demonstrated that it's willing to support a friendly
dictator to a democracy that doesn't agree with them many times over,
regardless of the cost to the people involved. Claiming that they
were going to go communist is a good way of justifying the actions,
but that's all it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

or taxes for that purpose should the USA adopt such a system.