Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No, that's not why...
>
>> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
>creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
>him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
>vote which he'd not convinced. > >
>
>> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
>stupid. <
>
>Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
>Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
>matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not. That's
the fact, dumbass.

>
>> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
>happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
>that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
>so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
>results of the
>general election came in all the liberal ****ups that voted for Nader
>realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
>entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
>seriously now. >
>
>Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
>they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
>for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
>cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
>remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
>and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
>taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
>that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it.
>
>Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
>environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly

Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.


>- like
>you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
>destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
>Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
>(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
>are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
>most damage.
>
>How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
>balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
>things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
>ramifications.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.

Those don't contribute directly to my cost to an employer, Social Security Taxes
do. When my employer is figuring the total cost of keeping me around, he doesn't
just include my salary, he also includes those pesky SS taxes. And self employed
people (like farmers) have to pay both sides of the tax. The way it set up was
always a scam to prevent people from realizing they were paying 15% to Social
Security. I am not even opposed to SS, and I don't even mind paying the tax, I do
hate the tricks employed by the government to make it seem as if it is a bargain
(it isn't, unless you were born before 1940).

> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
> you could get up over 100%!

I am hardly a "right-winger" but then sometimes it seems anybody to the right of
Mao is a right-winger to you. I don't doubt the need for taxes. I don't mind the
government paying for lots of necessary services. I do mind the hidden taxes. I do
mind the multiple layers of bureaucracy (for instance why do we need local, state,
and federal departments of education?). I do worry that people who don't have my
best interest at heart have hijacked the tax code and are using it as a social
engineering tool. I do mind that a very large percentage of the money that I send
to the various government entities is wasted. I think if more people understood
exactly how much money they paid in direct, indirect, and hidden taxes they might
demand a little more accountability from the governments that take the money and
spend it. Lots of lower income people think they don't have to worry about taxes
since their income taxes are low or non-existent. However, in reality they are
paying a lot of taxes in the form of sales taxes, tolls, gas taxes, hidden taxes
buried in the cost of things they buy, real estate taxes hidden in rent, etc.,
etc., etc.

Regards,

Ed White

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

(snip)

> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed

His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.

Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html

Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.

> > because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> > Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> > which he'd not convinced.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.

This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.

As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":

http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html

BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm

>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.

Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.

If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.

BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.

>beelzebubba

LOL!

>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

(snip)

> > Given the crap the Democrats
> > are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush this time for sure.
>
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way...

No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>
> >> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> >> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> >> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> >> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> >> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> >> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> >> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> >> to protect it.
> >
> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.

That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
> happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
> that
> "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
> I'm
> free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
> the
> general election came in all the liberal ****ups that voted for Nader
> realized
> they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
>
> Ted
>

It's true that had Nader dropped out that Gore may have won. However, you
can't ignore the fact that the most significant impact of Nader running was
getting people out to vote that wouldn't otherwise have voted. The Greens
may be leftists, but they don't love the Democrats.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
> >creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who
sent
> >him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the
Green
> >vote which he'd not convinced. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>

Bush did too! Of course, I'm talking about electoral votes.... the only
ones that mean anything constitutionally.

You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact.

"Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
> >creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who
sent
> >him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the
Green
> >vote which he'd not convinced. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
What
> >happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
> >that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for
Gore
> >so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
> >results of the
> >general election came in all the liberal ****ups that voted for Nader
> >realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
> >entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
> >seriously now. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!

The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.


> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?

Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??

Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...

[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]

No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
> to name-calling. <
>
> Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with you
> is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.

Since you spout the GOP party line, you are a right-winger. Q.E.D.

But thanks for proving my point.
--
Jonesy

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.

Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening (or native Americans
before Columbus). Nature would be perfectly happy to let all of Southern
California burn once in a while. This would effectively remove all the dead
trees and brush.

Ed

"Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
have burned off long before humans showed up.

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> > >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
> >
> > Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long
time.
>
> Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening (or native Americans
> before Columbus). Nature would be perfectly happy to let all of Southern
> California burn once in a while. This would effectively remove all the
dead
> trees and brush.
>
> Ed
>

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.

Wrong on two counts.

1) Nature often uses cataclysm, like big fires.
2) Big fires are encouraged when the critters (humans) aren't allowed
to consume the deadwood and are going about puting out alot of the fires.

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government.
Especially
> > just starting out - even an engineer. <
> >
> > You are an idiot!
>
> The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
> they always look foolish in debates.
>
What a strange comment! It's the strategy of the LEFT to attach "names" to
conservatives.... "right-winger", "rascist", "greedy", "hate filled". If
you don't like name calling, go have a talk with Lloyd and try to talk some
sense into him. When he loses on points of argument, he always resorts to
name calling. And that includes calling someone a "right-winger".

Conservatives don't look foolish in debates. Poor debaters of any stripe
do. Conservative ideas have dones very well in the competition of ideas and
they do very well in debates. I'll tell you whose ideas don't do well in
detabes; Green party. They go so far outside of the values of most
Americans that it's easy to see why they only garner 2% support.

In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
>> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
>> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
>> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
>> > speak of more robust.
>>
>> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
>> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
>> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
>> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
>> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
>> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
>> that's just my opinon.

> Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
> and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
> anti-abortion laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.

I didn't mention those because they don't need the standard of living
to be lowered in the USA to achieve. The control of the left, puting
people on the dole, controling the schools, etc does require that people
be economically unable to do anything but turn to the government.

But yes, there are forces in the republican party that seek control too,
but they are dominated and held in check by those seeking money.

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
> think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
> there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
> who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
> subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.

> So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
> get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
> products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
> Nirviana.

My goal is a society of where people have lost this need to control
others. Unachievable, but the goal none the less.

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321

>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>or something to dismiss it all.

> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?

You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?

Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?

And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?

>>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.

> Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?

Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>The Ancient One wrote:
>>>
>>>>...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>>
>>been,.
>>
>>>>(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>>>>they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>>
>>>Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>>>mass/matter.
>>>
>>
>>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>>
>>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>>into Iraq,
>
>
> Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>
>
>
>>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>>
>
>
> So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
> morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>
>
>>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>>around
>>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>>first
>>set of facts.
>>
>>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>>believe
>>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>>view,
>>I have never once seen him do so.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>


hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
for christ's sake.

Joe wrote:
>
> "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
> have burned off long before humans showed up.

Yeah - well, see what happens if lightening strikes in the deserts of
California. BTW - when I was in San Diego last week, there were reports
on the news that a sheriff's helicopter in the air spotted the start of
one of the fires and radio'd for a water-dumping chopper that was
already in the air. It was 5 minutes past the curfew for the
helicopters to be allowed to fly, so they did not let the helicopter go
and dump water on the (at that moment) small fire. Only in California!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article <duSpb.77564$275.206280@attbi_s53>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.

Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.