Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>>genders
>>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>
>>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with
its
>>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>>Ed
>
>The government discriminates all the time:
>Affirmative action.

You probably thought segregation wasn't discrimination though.

>Seperate bathrooms.

Which laws mandate that?

>Voting age.

You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?

>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jerry McG" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>>
>> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
>> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
>> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
>> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
>> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>>
>> DS
>
>I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
>care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and

Sorry, that's not "exposure." Read what people living in Canada and Britain
say. Not anecdotes.


>took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
>there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
>forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
>she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system.

Yeah, sure.


> EMS met her
>at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
>appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
>"in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
>She claimed she'd never received better care, that in the UK she'd have
>likely ruptured before they got around to treating her, which might have
>been days later. The only way to get health care "on demand" there would be
>to have either deep pockets, or as most folks do, private health insurance.
>
>I could go on, but before you think having the Govt. run health care would
>be better than what we have, think again. Yeah, our system sucks, but not as
>much as the others suck!

Both countries are democracies; they must like their health care systems.

>
>
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
> then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
> situation from a consumer's point of view.

No, they analyzed health care from the CR Editorial Staff's point of view. This is
not the same as any particular consumer's point of view, or even the average
consumer's point of view. I read CR, but I definitely don't agree that they
represent my point of view.

Ed

 
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
>
> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> DS
>


Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.

My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
than the old, cheap technologies.

The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
wait at the kids ER!!!

Dan

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
change
> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
quo.
> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay
for
> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
driven
> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
> >energy.
>
> Enron was dollar driven as well.
>

Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
corruption.

> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism
in
> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
the
> >war on "moral" grounds?).
>
> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> --

Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
old.

The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
not been contained.


> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

I have not advocated having the government interfere with what consenting adults
do in the privacy of their own home. However the government continually regulates
what people can do in and out of their own homes, so I don't see where this
particular argument is going anywhere. A government that can't make any rules to
regulate behavior is not a government at all. It is anarchy.

Ed


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.

It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment? Or do you define a
scientist as someone who agrees with you?

Ed

 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly what are the great benefits of a traditional marriage that are
>> > so important to same sex couples?
>>
>> All the same responsibilities and rights that are granted to married
>> heterosexual couples.
>
>Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?
>
>> > insulting millions of people who deeply believe that a marriage is a man
>> > / woman union?
>>
>> There, that wasn't so hard, was it? You finally admit that you're opposed
>> because same-sex unions make you feel bad.
>
>I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
>million of people are against redefining marriage to include same sex
>unions.

In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
slavery.


>There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
>apparently could care less about their reasons.
>
>> I don't happen to believe that you feeling bad, icky, insulted or whatever
>> should hold legal sway over equal rights.
>
>I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
>words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
>single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
>marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
>me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
>because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
>name calling to try and get your way.
>
>If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same sex unions
>equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
>tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
>doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
>of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.
>
>Ed
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jenn Wasdyke <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
>> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
>>
>> 3> It is not a marriage.
>>
>> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
>> 2> to opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
>> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
>> 2> couples."
>>
>> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
>> > dog, does that make it a dog?
>>
>> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
>> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
>> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
>> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
>> relationship.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
>> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
>> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
>>
>> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
>> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
>> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
>>
>> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
>> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
>>
>> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
>> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
>> union between members of the same race."
>>
>> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
>> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
>>
>> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
>> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
>> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
>
>Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
>somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
>circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
>
>If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
>proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
definition
>stands.
>
>Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
on
>the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
>under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.

Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
probably not in session now...


>Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
>without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
>needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
>consitution, what good is it?
>
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> discrimination?

Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
discrimination? For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman.
Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to a
different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.

Ed

 
Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
>>>>here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
>>>>better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>>>>exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
>>>>system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
>>>>most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>>
>>>I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
>>>care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
>>>took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
>>>there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
>>>forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
>>>she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
>>>at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
>>>appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
>>>"in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>>
>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>individuals.
>>
>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
>
>
> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone patients are
> tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of their misery..... Yes
> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many new
> innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at all.
>


Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. A
lot of American companies carry out their research in Canada because of
the great value they get for their buck (not just exchange rate, but
quality of work carried out). Since we don't have too many "Designer
Clinics" you are right, we don't develop needless, high-cost surgical
practises that are funded by the very richest individuals, but our
advancement of transplant technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been
significant (for a country with 1/10th the population of the Excited
States). Admittedly, the government healthcare system will not pay for
un-proven, touchy-feely "treatments" advanced by some shaman from
Mexico! If it is proven in a properly-designed, double-blind study to
be effective, it is normally added to the "covered" list.

Dan

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
> of the same race too.

Daniel Stern has already made this argument. I can imagine it would be easy to
find laws that tried to prohibit such unions, but I doubt they did it by trying to
define the word marriage as you are suggesting. I know that in NC, a law was
passed specifically validating interracial marriages in order correct the harm
done my an old law that declared such marriages invalid. If a similar law was
passed validating same sex unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess
I'd be satisfied if not delighted. I still don't understand the need to call a
same sex union a marriage. And I am opposed to trying to implement this through
the judiciary by redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has
been understood for many years.

Ed

 

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.

Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
phones. For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.

I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
system. People here are different. There are competing models for
healthcare here. For us to hand it over to the government for a single
monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
like in Europe. But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
technology in wireless. I think phone features is another issue. I believe
that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
my point about the difference between European and US markets.


> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>


 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> When I used "we", I meant those of us who are in the field of science.
>
>It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?

Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.


>Or do you define a
>scientist as someone who agrees with you?
>
>Ed
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
>> discrimination?
>
>Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
>discrimination?

No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
those rights, that is.


>For whatever reason, marriage was accorded certain legal rights
>and responsibilities. When these rights were assigned to institution of
>marriage it was generally understood to mean a union between a man and a
woman.
>Trying to extend these rights (as dubious as they may be) to another group by
>redefining the word is not the right way to handle the extention of rights to
a
>different group. I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand.
>
>Ed
>
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
> of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
> it.

Slavery wasn't changed, it was abolished. They didn't change slavery by redefining
the word "slave" to be equivalent to the word "citizen." Amendments to the
constitution were made, laws were passed. The injustice was corrected (or at least
partially corrected). If you want to grant the same rights to same sex unions as
are granted to traditional man / woman marriages, go ahead, I'll support you. Just
don't try to redefine the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to achieve the
desirable goal .

Ed


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "OrygunGuy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal
of
> >the
> >> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
> >and
> >> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and
is
> >> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays.
It
> >> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
> >climate
> >> >change.
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics
of
> >the
> >> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at
the
> >> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are
due
> >more
> >> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
> >> >
> >> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
> >> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
> >> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate
variability,
> >as
> >> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
> >> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
> >> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in
meteorites.
> >> >
> >> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth
over
> >> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
> >> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
> >> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
> >> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> >> >
> >> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem
to
> >be
> >> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
> >dioxide
> >> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
> >forces
> >> >which are beyond our control.
> >>
> >> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
> >
> >No, we don't.
>
> Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

No, you meant "you and whoever agrees with you, ignoring the thousands in
the field of science who disagree with you "

>
> >
> > It doesn't matter that
> >> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing
that
> >> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
> >cause
> >> of your fever today.
> >
> >
> >Still using the same feeble arguments I see.
>
> Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the
SATs.

You've posted the same anology a dozen times, it proves your point no better
now than it did the first time you used it. Bet you don't even know what the
initials SAT stand for.




 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.

If the goal is provide civil unions with the same benefits as traditional
marriages, then pass laws to provide equivalent benefits. There are many
companies that provide the insurance benefits to domestic partners and others
that don't provide insurance benefits to the wife/husband of married employees.
Wills can be written and contracts drawn up to handle most of the things you are
complaining about. Fixing the injustice does not require a redefinition of the
legal meaning of a "marriage."

Ed

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.

I think you are wrong on this point. If it was possible to accurately measure
"liberalness," I believe CR would fall to the liberal side of the average opinion.
There is nothing wrong with this. I just don't think it is reasonable to assert
that CR doesn't have opinions that the average American would consider liberal.
"Woman's Outlook" is a magazine published by an advocate group. I doubt if you
would claim they were neither liberal or conservative.

Ed


 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:

> I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same sex
> unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> if not delighted.

Then this:

> I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> understood for many years.

These two statements seem contradictory.

DS

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top