Butter, again

[Dave Hinz]

That's why everybody knew they should turn their AC and heater on once a month
during their off-seasons. The insanity of making the AC fight the heater on a
105-degree day seems enormous.

Well, having the coolant go through the heater core is one thing, but
are you saying that the air they were cooling with the A/C then ran
through the hot heater core? If that's the case, yes, that's stupid.
I'd be surprised if GM was that stupid, but then again maybe not.

This is SoCal. To get rid of the fog we open the windows. At least I do.

Well, GM's market isn't limited to SoCal.

They probably all do it. If it weren't for crap like that we'd be FREE of
dependence on middle-eastern oil.

I think you're overestimating the cost, if any, of a system which may or
may not work the way you think it does.

 

[Dave Hinz]

you know, it makes me mad though... if I want the defroster to only
blow air (hot or cold) I want to be able to do so.
My 2003(?) saturn vue automatically puts on the compressor when the
defrost is going. My old saturn (1994?) did not.

grrrr. I'm tempted to rewire the blasted thing.

Why? It makes the defroster defrost better. I suppose if it bothers
you that much, you could pull the A/C's fuse for the winter.

That and rather than putting circuitry to beep at you when your lights
are on and the car is off... just put the lights on an ignition based
relay dag nabbit! (or perhaps a delay off timer)

Yeah, that's always been a stupid use of technology. Just switch 'em
off with the key, FFS, people. Don't put in boxes that go "bing".

 

[Dave Hinz]

no, it doesn't "defrost" better. it will defog the inside of the
window better, but straight heat will defrost. (I don't *think* it's
hotter with the AC on... although the engine doing more work might
heat it up faster.

OK, defog then. Point remains.

In any case, sometimes plain air is fine... I don't want to have to
adjust the temp or run my windshield wipers if all i want to do is
blow some air across the window.

I like how my older Saabs did it - you want heat? Turn the heater core
valve knob to heat. You want A/C? Push the A/C button. Want 'em both?
Do both things. Complete control.

more a pain... what i want to be able to do is push the AC button when
i want to condition the air.... like my old car did.

There ya go.

heh, ffs is a new one one me... if it means what the google search
returned.

If your search was: ffs acronym - then, yes.

 

[Dave Hinz]

On 2005-07-21 [email protected] said:

A friend who tracks such things sees an interesting correlation
between the strong marketing of margarine in the late 1940's and the
subsequent rise in cardiovascular disease.

Repeat after me: correlation does not show causation.

I believe a researcher found that butyric acid was a good thing in
human nutrition - major source is butter.

Could be, but two things happening together doesn't mean one causes the
other.

 

[[email protected]]

Newsgroups: misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.energy.homepower

your health.
Well, I've got to die from something; it might as well be food that
I like.
Well, it might not make me live longer, but it would certainly seem
like it. Me, I'll keep eating butter and all the other stuff I
feel like, and given that my total cholesterol is in the 150's,
apparently I'm not hurting as a result of enjoying it.
Oh, I drink whole milk too. Just so you know. Nothing better than
nearly-ice-cold whole milk.
Dave Hinz

A friend who tracks such things sees an interesting correlation
between the strong marketing of margarine in the late 1940's and the
subsequent rise in cardiovascular disease.

I believe a researcher found that butyric acid was a good thing in
human nutrition - major source is butter.

Tom Willmon

Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - Registered

 

[Rod Speed]

A friend who tracks such things sees an interesting correlation
between the strong marketing of margarine in the late 1940's
and the subsequent rise in cardiovascular disease.

Too mindlessly superficial, plenty of other things increased at that time too

I believe a researcher found that butyric
acid was a good thing in human nutrition

Separate issue entirely to the downsides with butter.

What has been well established over many years now
is that the societys that use olive oil instead of butter do
tend to do a lot better on cardiovascular disease etc.

 

[Dave Hinz]

[email protected] wrote:

Too mindlessly superficial, plenty of other things increased at that time too
Right.


Separate issue entirely to the downsides with butter.

What has been well established over many years now
is that the societys that use olive oil instead of butter do
tend to do a lot better on cardiovascular disease etc.

Funny, above you seem to understand correlation vs. causation, and here
you seem to be supporting your point with just that.

 

[Rod Speed]

Funny, above you seem to understand correlation vs. causation,
and here you seem to be supporting your point with just that.

Its much more complicated than your mindlessly silly waffle on that.

Using your mindlessly silly line, we dont know that
smoking causes any health problems. Pity we do anyway.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Its much more complicated than your mindlessly silly waffle on that.

Yes, it's more complicated than your meaningless statement above as
well. Societies which use olive oil instead of butter tend to be, for
instance, mediteranean, yes? As such, do you not agree that there is a
different genetic makeup of those individuals as compared to, say,
Germans?

Choosing olive oil rather than butter as _the_ cause of different rates
of cardiovascular disease is just as meaningless as the guy mentioning
"since 1940, ..."

Using your mindlessly silly line, we dont know that
smoking causes any health problems. Pity we do anyway.

False logic. We _do_ know the causation of smoking vs. various
diseases. We know that Japanese people eat a lot of fish, and we know
that Japanese people have dark hair. Only a fool would state that dark
hair makes them eat fish, though. Stating this truth does in no way
change the fact that smoking causes cancer, criminals cause crime, and
other things where causation _has_ been established.

Nice try though...

 

[The Real Bev]

Well, having the coolant go through the heater core is one thing, but
are you saying that the air they were cooling with the A/C then ran
through the hot heater core? If that's the case, yes, that's stupid.
I'd be surprised if GM was that stupid, but then again maybe not.

As I recall, when you turned on the AC you first got a blast of warm air,
which gradually cooled down. You couldn't just turn on the fan -- if you
tried to do that, you would get warmer-than-ambient air. The details are hazy
(the thing self-destructed at least 15 years ago), but I remember reading in
the manual that warm and cold air would be mixed together in proportion to the
setting you wanted. I envision both the AC and heater fan working, and little
doors opening varying amounts to let in the proper amounts of air.

Well, GM's market isn't limited to SoCal.

Hey, if they have to make special smog-control versions for California, why
not make the defroster differently too? I've never had a defroster that made
the situation better, unfortunately. Turning it on (last was a Sentra) always
resulted in MORE fog.

I think you're overestimating the cost, if any, of a system which may or
may not work the way you think it does.

Hah. Not only would we be free of middle-eastern oil, our children would no
longer be afflicted with acne and nobody would get divorced. School fees
would be a lot lower too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yes, it's more complicated than your meaningless statement above as well.

Pathetic, realy.

Societies which use olive oil instead of butter
tend to be, for instance, mediteranean, yes?

As such, do you not agree that there is a different genetic
makeup of those individuals as compared to, say, Germans?

There is bugger all in that in fact. Essentially because those who
currently inhabit the meditteranean are surprisingly diverse genetically.

Not all that surprising actually given the history.

Choosing olive oil rather than butter as _the_ cause
of different rates of cardiovascular disease is just
as meaningless as the guy mentioning "since 1940, ..."
Wrong.

False logic.
Nope.

We _do_ know the causation of smoking vs. various diseases.

We didnt initially when it was obvious that
smoking had severe health downsides.

We know that Japanese people eat a lot of fish, and we
know that Japanese people have dark hair. Only a fool
would state that dark hair makes them eat fish, though.

Yes, but it doesnt take much to work out
the downsides with the Jap diet too.

Stating this truth does in no way change the fact that smoking causes cancer,
criminals cause crime, and other things where causation _has_ been
established.

Nice try though...

Pathetic excuse for bullshit, in your case.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Hey, if they have to make special smog-control versions for California, why
not make the defroster differently too?

Changing the engine management computer is a _lot_ more trivial than
changing the internal ducting of the dash and heat exchanger, no?

Hah. Not only would we be free of middle-eastern oil, our children would no
longer be afflicted with acne and nobody would get divorced. School fees
would be a lot lower too.

Can you throw world hunger in there?

 

[Dave Hinz]

Pathetic, realy.

Non-sequiter noted. You first acknowledged that the rhetorical tactic
is ineffective, and then you used it. All in the same message. I
called you on it, and now you resort to one-line insults rather than
substantive responses. Says it all, really.

There is bugger all in that in fact. Essentially because those who
currently inhabit the meditteranean are surprisingly diverse genetically.

It's an _example_ of one of the tens of thousands of things you haven't
considered different between the populations, which could account for
the difference in heart disease rates. Olive oil is only one
environmental/dietary difference; there are countless others.

Not all that surprising actually given the history.

Nor is it relevant. Do try to keep up.

Wrong.

Based on what, exactly? See if you can, you know, back up whatever
you're saying, rather than just give a one-word non-answer.

Nope.

See above.

We didnt initially when it was obvious that
smoking had severe health downsides.

words together coherent not sentence making

Yes, but it doesnt take much to work out
the downsides with the Jap diet too.

It's an example of a dietary difference, and a physical difference,
which happen in the same group of people.

Pathetic excuse for bullshit, in your case.

I notice that, in this entire message, you've had nothing of substance
to say; it's just namecalling from you. Says all that needs to be said
about your, er, "points".

 

[Rod Speed]

It's an _example_ of one of the tens of thousands of things
you haven't considered different between the populations,
which could account for the difference in heart disease rates.

You can make the same claim about the effect of smoking.

We managed to work out that smoking has real health downsides anyway.

Olive oil is only one environmental/dietary
difference; there are countless others.

Not all that many in fact.

It's an example of a dietary difference, and a physical
difference, which happen in the same group of people.

Wrong again.

<reams of its puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Dave Hinz]

You can make the same claim about the effect of smoking.

So you're claiming that smoking hasn't been scientifically shown to
cause disease? Do you have any evidence to back up your incorrect
assertion?

We managed to work out that smoking has real health downsides anyway.

Yes, that's called science. Unlike your "people in Italy eat olive oil,
and have less heart disease". Unless, of cource, you can provide a cite
to a peer-reviewed study showing that causation _has_ been established?

Not all that many in fact.

Such as? This is the part where you're supposed to, you know, provide
facts instead of namecalling, but instead, you write:

<reams of its puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

See what I mean?

Wrong again.

You're telling me what my point is? Sorry, you're barely qualified to
speak for _yourself_, let alone for me.

 

[Rod Speed]

So you're claiming that smoking hasn't been scientifically shown to cause
disease?

Nope, I am saying that the correlations were quite adequate to establish
that smoking has real health downsides. The causation came later.

Do you have any evidence to back up your incorrect assertion?

Pity it aint even my assertion.

<reams of its puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Dave Hinz]

<reams of its puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

This troll seems to be stuck.
<plonk>

 

[TonyB]

Some pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist claiming to be

Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

This troll seems to be stuck.
<plonk>

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic line.

Obviously not.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Some pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist claiming to be



Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic line.

Gee, a sock-puppet, or a sychphant? Does it really matter?

Obviously not.

You do know that <plonk> is a word with a specific meaning, right?
I notice that you also don't have anything of substance to contribute.

 

[TonyB]

<reams of its puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

whoops, nothing left, wota surprise.