{BS} Al Gore gets a car loan
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: KINDLY ADD CANCER CURE TO CONSPIRACIES 101
Next: Groaning Noise from front end starting at 10MPH....
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 28 Sep 2009 23:44 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:24:28 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>> Al Gore got government money to go offshore to build a car. He got a >>> "loan". He got a car loan. >> >> >> No, he did not get a loan. The wording of the subject line would be >> interpreted by any educated person to mean that Gore himself got a loan >> to purchase a car. That did not happen, and your interpretation is a >> demonstration of your desperate need to win something. Anything. >> >> Why are you so desperate? >> >> > It was not my interpretation, Nor anybody but Joe's. Since the first sentance of the post was in the header, he was unable to join it to the rest of the message, and thought that Al Gore actually got himself a car loan. I'm going to have to put the whole message in the header so the poor boy doesn't get confused. It seems he can't add the first sentance if it's in the header to come up with the complete post. My bad. I keep assuming all people in this group have brains.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Sep 2009 00:13 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:46:38 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> But I keep forgetting you have trouble stringing more than one thought >> at a time. >> >> Everyone else got it. Poor Joey. >> >> OK, guys, from now on, try to put the WHOLE message in the header so Joe >> can follow along, and not get hopelessy *lost* like he did here. >> >> See, Joe, I am trying to help you overcome your deficiencies. >> >> >> > > Your problem right now is the same one which prevents you from being able > to describe the bias in a news article. I have absolutely no trouble describing bias in a news article. Of course, I have to actually describe it, don't I? But the sad thing is, I shouldn't have to.
From: Hachiroku on 29 Sep 2009 08:46 On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:53:16 +0000, Tegger wrote: > Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in news:Xns9C946362CDFABtegger@ > 208.90.168.18: > >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in >> news:r43wm.445253 $Ta5.383991(a)newsfe15.iad: >> >>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.09.28.17.39.42.796000(a)e86.GTS... >>>> $500M >>>> >>>> For a hybrid. >>>> To be built in Finland. >>>> That will probably not be sold in the US. >>>> >>>> Way to go, Al! Push your agenda all over the world, using *OUR* >>>> money! >>> >>> >>> >>> Source. Now. >>> >>> >>> >> >> The Wall Street Journal, for one. >> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html> >> >> >> > > Except that it looks like the "Karma" WILL be sold in the US: "The > four-door Karma, powered by a lithium-ion battery, will be able to run > solely on electric power for 50 miles, and will achieve an average fuel > economy of 100 mpg over the span of a year, the company says. Production > is scheduled to start in December, with about 15,000 vehicles a year > expected to hit the U.S. market starting next June." Probably not the car everyone is showing. They are showing a two door sports car. The model to be sold in the US is a 4 door sedan. > > If Gore's $529 million is amortized over a typical 4-year model cycle, > that means each car (assuming production of 15K per year) actually costs > about $98,000, not $89,000.
From: Jeff Strickland on 29 Sep 2009 11:17 "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:f7fwm.11069$kC.5743(a)newsfe11.iad... >> >> It was not my interpretation, > > > You typed it in your previous message, therefore you support that > interpretation. > You ignored 2/3s of what I wrote. Why are you so desperate?
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 29 Sep 2009 11:24
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h9t8er$odt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > news:f7fwm.11069$kC.5743(a)newsfe11.iad... >>> >>> It was not my interpretation, >> >> >> You typed it in your previous message, therefore you support that >> interpretation. >> > > You ignored 2/3s of what I wrote. That 2/3 was intended to distract observers from your mistake. It did not succeed. |