Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:36:36 -0700, jps wrote:

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

Tens of millions of handgun owners, a few thousand suicides. Many
people are math challenged. Are you?

Casady

I have heard this statistic stated a number of different ways, and
neither of these statements would indicate any problems understand math
or statistics.

I have heard that gun owners are much more likely to be successful in
their suicide attempts and that gun owners are more likely than the non
gun owners to commit or attempt suicide. Neither of these "facts"
would dispute that fact that there are many more gun owners who do not
commit or attempt suicide than those who do commit or attempt suicide.

Here is study by the Harvard School of Public Health that would support
both of the statements above. : " They found that in the 15 states
with the highest numbers of household gun owners, the suicide rate was
double that of the 6 states with the lowest numbers of household Suicide
Rates Significantly Higher in States with the Most Gun Owners gun
owners. Population sizes among the states were similar. "

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ly_higher.html

I do know that many people are math and statistically challenged. It
would appear from your statement, that you are one of those who are have
problems understanding math and statistics.



--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:26 pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:55:45 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:
Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.
--Vic
Does it really have to do with taste?
Just depends on how you define taste.
As in, "Not enough Americans have a taste for GM vehicles."
What got to me thinking about this was I saw a Bob Lutz interview
on TV.
Seemed like a reasonable guy.
So I looked him up on Wiki and found this:
"When Lutz became chairman of GM North American development in 2001
one of the first things he stated was that his new 500 hp car was
going to save General Motors. His full compensation in 2008 is
estimated at $6.9 million."
And this:
"He will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason
for his decision was the increasing regulatory climate in Washington
that would force him to design what Federal regulators wanted, rather
than what customers wanted."
That is what I mean by "taste."
Lutz and the others running GM were complete fools.
Gonna save GM with 500 hp car.
Gonna give the customers what they want.
Sorry, close your ears. I have to say this.
LUTZ, YOU TASTELESS ****ING MORON!!
I WOULDN'T HIRE YOU TO CUT BAIT!!
--Vic
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.

Like lobster boats?

Krause sure does seem to have more than his share of penis substitutes.
Even if some of them are imaginary.

On Jun 3, 7:17*am, jim78 wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:26 pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:55:45 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:
Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.
--Vic
Does it really have to do with taste?
Just depends on how you define taste.
As in, "Not enough Americans have a taste for GM vehicles."
What got to me thinking about this was I saw a Bob Lutz interview
on TV.
Seemed like a reasonable guy.
So I looked him up on Wiki and found this:
"When Lutz became chairman of GM North American development in 2001
one of the first things he stated was that his new 500 hp car was
going to save General Motors. His full compensation in 2008 is
estimated at $6.9 million."
And this:
"He will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason
for his decision was the increasing regulatory climate in Washington
that would force him to design what Federal regulators wanted, rather
than what customers wanted."
That is what I mean by "taste."
Lutz and the others running GM were complete fools.
Gonna save GM with 500 hp car.
Gonna give the customers what they want.
Sorry, close your ears. *I have to say this.
LUTZ, YOU TASTELESS ****ING MORON!!
I WOULDN'T HIRE YOU TO CUT BAIT!!
--Vic
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.

Like lobster boats?

Krause sure does seem to have more than his share of penis substitutes.
Even if some of them are imaginary.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffftttt...

On Jun 2, 8:47*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith

wrote:
Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.

It worked for a while but they lost touch and started coasting. *When
you look back at some of the barges they were selling in the 70s it's
a wonder they lasted as long as they did.

When we had the gas lines and the big three started trying to make a
gas saving vehicle, the Honda Civic came into play. Then GM tried with
the Vega, Ford the Pinto, Chrysler with the K car. BUT, out of those
crappy vehicles came the technology and research to make some decent
fuel efficient cars. I can only hope it'll be the same this time
around. During that time, the U.S. was bailing them out, too, just
like now.

On Jun 2, 9:26*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:55:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:04:30 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Mencken famously stated ""No one ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."
GM has proven him wrong.

--Vic
Does it really have to do with taste?

Just depends on how you define taste.
As in, "Not enough Americans have a taste for GM vehicles."
What got to me thinking about this was I saw a Bob Lutz interview
on TV.
Seemed like a reasonable guy.
So I looked him up on Wiki and found this:
"When Lutz became chairman of GM North American development in 2001
one of the first things he stated was that his new 500 hp car was
going to save General Motors. His full compensation in 2008 is
estimated at $6.9 million."

And this:
"He will retire from GM at the end of 2009. Lutz said that one reason
for his decision was the increasing regulatory climate in Washington
that would force him to design what Federal regulators wanted, rather
than what customers wanted."

That is what I mean by "taste."
Lutz and the others running GM were complete fools.
Gonna save GM with 500 hp car.
Gonna give the customers what they want.
Sorry, close your ears. *I have to say this.
LUTZ, YOU TASTELESS ****ING MORON!!
I WOULDN'T HIRE YOU TO CUT BAIT!!

--Vic

It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then sell your 4 runner and get a Prius.

On Jun 2, 11:26*pm, GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -

Penis substitutes? *Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?

AND the fireboat welcome!

On Jun 3, 6:42*am, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:26:28 -0400, HK wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.

And the other 19 out of 20 that have reasonable equipment?

Casady

It's the same old, same old. If Harry doesn't own it, it isn't worth
owning, just ask him. That's one jealous fat narcissist!

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:49:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:18:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -

Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?

He said the same thing about people who owned handguns.

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

Two points:
1. I was not discussing you or even talking to you, I was discussing
the person who stated those who owned handguns were using them due to
them having a very small penis. You might have said, it, but I never
heard you say it, Harry said it everyday, till the day he purchased a
handgun.
2. I don't own a handgun, never have. I have no problem if handguns
have increased regulations or completely banned. I really don't have a
problem if we leave the law the way it is. I completely agree that in
most cases handguns are used against the handgun owner (by a criminal
who takes the gun away from them), or they use the gun to kill
themselves. Based upon Harry's behavior, and I would think the odds are
he will eventually use his handgun to harm himself, or he will go postal
at the local mall, but I don't think banning guns will result in
criminals or mentally unstable individuals turning in their handguns.
It will just make selling them very profitable for organized crime.

Lefties aren't the ones who go postal. We realize we can't control
everything arounds us, unlike righties.

Good for you that you're not among the paranoid nuts, at least on this
subject.

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:52:13 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:36:36 -0700, jps wrote:

I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?

Tens of millions of handgun owners, a few thousand suicides. Many
people are math challenged. Are you?

Casady

I don't care how many are owned. It's how they're used.

A large percentage of use is against the owner or immediate family.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:49:44 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:18:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

GC Boater wrote:
It's been time for decades to wean american males off their overpowered
penis substitutes in cars and boats.- Hide quoted text -

Penis substitutes? Would that explain the Hatteras and the Zimerman-
like lobster boat?

He said the same thing about people who owned handguns.
I said that people who owned handguns were more likely to take their
own lives. Do you fit that description?
Two points:
1. I was not discussing you or even talking to you, I was discussing
the person who stated those who owned handguns were using them due to
them having a very small penis. You might have said, it, but I never
heard you say it, Harry said it everyday, till the day he purchased a
handgun.
2. I don't own a handgun, never have. I have no problem if handguns
have increased regulations or completely banned. I really don't have a
problem if we leave the law the way it is. I completely agree that in
most cases handguns are used against the handgun owner (by a criminal
who takes the gun away from them), or they use the gun to kill
themselves. Based upon Harry's behavior, and I would think the odds are
he will eventually use his handgun to harm himself, or he will go postal
at the local mall, but I don't think banning guns will result in
criminals or mentally unstable individuals turning in their handguns.
It will just make selling them very profitable for organized crime.

Lefties aren't the ones who go postal. We realize we can't control
everything arounds us, unlike righties.

Good for you that you're not among the paranoid nuts, at least on this
subject.


I'm so honored to be the object of desire of rec.boats' ****heads like
Reggie, Loogie, floridajim, et cetera.