Squeaky Ram 1500

From : pv

Q: septicman@peoplepc.com wrote 90% of those who had been wearing their safety belts survived and/or were non-seriously injured. got any credible source to back up your claim that only 10% of traffic deaths were wearing seat belts i agree that its dumb to drive and not wear a belt but its not the governments job to make people do so. insurance companies can enforce it by lowering claims if injuries can be shown to have been increased by the lack of seat belt use in a particular accident. .

Replies:

From : juanalong

budd cochran wrote ya know i made pretty good grades in english back school and more than one of my h.s. english teachers taught class how a phrase can be both literal and a metaphor. are you saying they were wrong in the case you presented yes budd you are wrong and cant make up your mind. first you say the bible is not subject to interpretation and should be taken literally. later you say the term in question cant be taken literally because its a metaphor. make up your mind. when will you read what i write instead of making up interpretations refusing a correction from the person that wrote them no budd. you refuse to be corrected on anything by anyone. youre never wrong are you thats all part of buddism! you contradicted yourself and were corrected. deal with it. i wasnt wrong but your re-writing of what i said is always wrong. whos interpretation should be followed the varied and conflicting interpretations of men or the word as it is written and given to be understood by god trouble is budd other christians also follow the word as it is written yet they dont agree with you. you interpret it different than many others do. whos should you follow the interpretation that you should follow would be your own. you just need to realize it is your interpretation just as others have their own interpretation. yours is not the only one. learn from others as you would also teach. you refuse to reead what i write how can there be discussion example of where a man followed god and not a churchs interpretations when did i ever say to follow a churchs interpretation i only stated that everyone has their own interpretation including you. i do not care for organized religion. which is worse for me to get intepretation and understanding by prayer or to refuse like you to listen when the author explains what he meant nothings wrong with you getting interpretation in whatever means you choose. but it is your interpretation. again i ask you yes or no are others who read the bible and say they follow it yet disagree with you on many religious issues christians or non-christians thats the point you fail to get. your views are no more right or wrong than anyone elses. they are your views. my views once again if you want to bother reading are found in the book of romans mostly in chapter 6. maybe youll read it correctly. budd -- posted via a free usenet account from http//www.tera.com .

From : geekboy

craig c. wrote 3 climatologists especially paleo climatoligists who study long term climate change do not think that the current bit is more than a natural cycle. there are a few that believe this. there are more that believe that we are impacting the climate with greenhouse gases. we know who the bush administration choses to listen to. very few. basically the guy from university of denver followed by a bunch of idiots. yes the global climate thermal cycling is generally accepted fact. however the rate of fluctuation that is occuring now is essentially unprecedented. most of these temperature and atmospheric co2 values going backward in time are taken from direct sampling of ancient ice in antartica. pretty simple stuff. not much room for any debate amoung anyone who approaches the data unbiased. and dont tell me those guys drilling for ice down there are political junkies... .

From : bob

do you believe that one person has more of a right to choose their religion than another person nope but i am required by my beliefs to teach the truth. i take that to mean that you /do/ agree that one person has no more right to choose their religion than another person. i didnt ask you about teaching any truths but i dont think thats what you meant anyway. perhaps you meant that you are required by your beliefs to teach your faith. it may appear to just be insignificant semantics but it makes a very big difference in the meaning. what if one persons religous practices are disrespectful to another persons religous belief who has more of a right then as in yours is direspectful of mine you answered it for yourself. im asking you a question about what you believe. i cant possibly answer that for myself. you have to do it on your own. so please answer the question what if one persons religous practices are disrespectful to another persons religous belief who has more of a right then -- ken .

From : stormin mormon

is there a factory daytime running lights module for 2002 durango lac .