PC vs Mac car analogies

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.

So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?

This is my baby:
The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
grimace.

Nit pick away! ;-p

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
0
Reply me41 (1097) 3/20/2005 5:10:51 PM

See related articles to this posting


On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
wrote:

>Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
>get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
>analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>
>So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
>vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>
>This is my baby:
>The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
>obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
>'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
>importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
>Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
>to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
>stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
>whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
>grimace.
>
>Nit pick away! ;-p

Since when where Lotus's made in China? :)

0
Reply Anon 3/20/2005 6:57:59 PM

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
>get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
>analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>
>So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
>vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>
>This is my baby:
>The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
>obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
>'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
>importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
>Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
>to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
>stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
>whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
>grimace.
>
>Nit pick away! ;-p

The latest from Consumer Reports:
"Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
among the least reliable overall."

So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
one does have some basis in fact.





-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/20/2005 7:06:12 PM

If you compare the PowerMac to a high end PC, you will find the PowerMac to
be cheaper - not sure what the deal is when turning it into a car
analogy....


The PC is like a mid-1970's Corvette or Chevy Nova- really hobbled by the
regulations (Windows XP in the case of the PC) but without the regulations
(better OS - either a fixed up one, or something like a more refined Linux)
would be a decent high performing car.  But everyone has one, because it is
what they see everyone else driving on the road - and most people want to go
to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice so don't even bother
putting a decent engine (Processor) in it.

The Mac looks like a Lotus, but behaves like an Honda/Acura - very reliable,
usually reasonably quick, and the low end is kinda pricey compared to your
Detroit iron, but shows a lot of value especially when moving to the high
end of the line.  Bought by enthusiasts - emulated by a lot of American car
companies - and denigrated to those really attached to the old Detroit
Iron...

:-)

Given how stable the Mac OS has proven as compared to XP -

On 3/20/05 12:10 PM, in article 1gtqfar.12yg7hl18x7l5mN%me4@privacy.net,
"Wayne Stuart" <me4@privacy.net> wrote:

> Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
> get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> 
> So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
> vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> 
> This is my baby:
> The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
> obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
> 'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
> importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
> Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
> to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
> stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
> whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
> grimace.
> 
> Nit pick away! ;-p

0
Reply bromo_NONE (73) 3/20/2005 7:31:00 PM

On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
> among the least reliable overall."
> 
> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
> one does have some basis in fact.

The Mac is amongst the most reliable (as in needing repair) computers one
can purchase, actually.  SO I don't think that this would be quite right.
Also the OS is a lot more stable and predictable.

I think the Mac would be more like a Japanese car with some styling - but
only available in right hand drive! :-)

0
Reply bromo_NONE (73) 3/20/2005 7:50:07 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions'
we
> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >
> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite
PC
> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >
> >This is my baby:
> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.
Most
> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the
more
> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
More
> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
little
> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it
comes
> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
face,
> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
> >grimace.
> >
> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>
> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
> among the least reliable overall."
>
> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
> one does have some basis in fact.
>

You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
American SUVs -- huge, noisy, about as stylish as a bus, and constantly
wasting resources. The commercial tells you that it can handle any
terrain, but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots of
storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
applications. Also, you live with the constant threat of rolling over
during simple manuevers, kind of like getting spyware just for visitng
a website.

(I suppose the exception here would be a Linux PC, which would be more
like any ordinary car that some hobbyist has put considerable effort
into improving. As cool as it might be, the non-mechanical folks
probably won't have anything like it for awhile.)

0
Reply newaccountsignupathotmail (58) 3/20/2005 8:44:36 PM

Wayne Stuart wrote:
> Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions'
we
> get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>

Time for a repost of:

Traeger's Law on Advocacy: "1. Any form of advocacy will lead to an
analogy (e.g. computer advocacy and car analogies). These analogies
will
usually suck. 2. There will be at least one reply a) claiming the
opposite, b) offering a 'better' analogy, c) trying to further the
analogy to all elements in the field, or d) taking the analogy into
minute details. The resulting analogy will usually suck even more."


Examples:

1.
- Macs are like Mercedes, PCs like Fords.
- RISC is like a manual transmission...

2.
a) No, MACS are like Yugos... (note: not an exact opposite)
b) Actually, RISC is like a two-stroke...
 - No, a Mac is like a lion, PCs are like fish, because...
c) SUNs... Compaqs... toaster-ovens...
d)  The Mac's multitasking is like the Porsches brake-system...


Godwin's Law can be seen as a special case. 

Lars T.

0
Reply Lars.Traeger (3673) 3/20/2005 8:48:15 PM

In article <BE633987.A850%bromo_NONE@NO.SPAM.AT.ALL>,
 Brent <bromo_NONE@NO.SPAM.AT.ALL> wrote:

> If you compare the PowerMac to a high end PC, you will find the PowerMac to
> be cheaper - not sure what the deal is when turning it into a car
> analogy....
> 
> 
> The PC is like a mid-1970's Corvette or Chevy Nova- really hobbled by the
> regulations (Windows XP in the case of the PC) but without the regulations
> (better OS - either a fixed up one, or something like a more refined Linux)
> would be a decent high performing car.  But everyone has one, because it is
> what they see everyone else driving on the road - and most people want to go
> to get groceries and take the kids to soccer practice so don't even bother
> putting a decent engine (Processor) in it.
> 
> The Mac looks like a Lotus, but behaves like an Honda/Acura - very reliable,
> usually reasonably quick, and the low end is kinda pricey compared to your
> Detroit iron, but shows a lot of value especially when moving to the high
> end of the line.  Bought by enthusiasts - emulated by a lot of American car
> companies - and denigrated to those really attached to the old Detroit
> Iron...
> 
> :-)

brent i like yours the best...

the honda connection is appropriate, lots of older machines still on the 
road, they hold their resell value better than most, quite reilable, 
easy to maintain, easy on the gas (or electricity in this case)

a couple things to add:

they fair better in a "crash". occupant is less likely to get hurt.

they are most likely to be stolen since they and their parts fetch a 
high price

dashboard controls are well placed

they have a strong following, most likely for repeat brand purchase

oxford
0
Reply csma (3268) 3/20/2005 9:25:50 PM

In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >
> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >
> >This is my baby:
> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
> >grimace.
> >
> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> 
> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
> among the least reliable overall."
> 
> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
> one does have some basis in fact.

This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations, and is mostly 
relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been (except 
for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to junk on 
EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955 
Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. The 
ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions; all the 
same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies. People 
expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000 miles with 
no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations very 
quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that happen, 
so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to make them 
work. They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy 
to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable. When the Japanese 
decided to enter this market, they realized that they couldn't afford 
for their cars to be unreliable, but at the same time, couldn't emulate 
the the US practice of making every component super heavy and robust and 
under-stressed either, so they took advantage of advancements in 
materials technology to give them the edge in reliability and low 
frequency of repair. It worked, and the Japanese can make small engined 
cars that last just as long and are just as reliable and 
maintenance-free as The old American clunkers.

The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to help cope 
with their high fuel costs, they want cars which handle well to deal 
with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads. They are 
less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although that's 
changing) and more concerned with overall longevity. Traditionally, 
Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts, but 
that's changing very quickly as well. Fact is, today, one see very few 
older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or less. 
European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need to in 
this regard, and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive 
than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past, the 
European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the cars be 
be high-maintenance, and they were.

I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old (My 
Alfa) and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down 
on me or left me stranded. The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of 
maintenance. Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles 
MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went 220,000 
miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump! I prefer European cars to Japanese 
and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with lots of  
characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that 
Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these things, 
and don't want to see them go away. I accept that these cars require 
more maintenance as the price I pay for the driving characteristics I 
demand, so my expectations are not that the cars can go from the 
showroom to the auto dismantler without ever having the hood (bonnet) 
raised, the way owners of many Japanese and American do. So, like I 
said, these expectations are relative.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/20/2005 9:37:02 PM

In article <1111351695.193010.251190@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 "Lars Tr�ger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote:
> Time for a repost of:
> 
> Traeger's Law on Advocacy: "1. Any form of advocacy will lead to an
> analogy (e.g. computer advocacy and car analogies). These analogies
> will
> usually suck. 2. There will be at least one reply a) claiming the
> opposite, b) offering a 'better' analogy, c) trying to further the
> analogy to all elements in the field, or d) taking the analogy into
> minute details. The resulting analogy will usually suck even more."
....
> 
> Godwin's Law can be seen as a special case. 

So...Hitler is like a car?



-- 
--Tim Smith
0
Reply reply_in_group (13194) 3/20/2005 9:41:04 PM

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:37:02 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
>> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
>> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>> >
>> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
>> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>> >
>> >This is my baby:
>> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
>> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
>> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
>> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
>> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
>> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
>> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
>> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
>> >grimace.
>> >
>> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>> 
>> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
>> among the least reliable overall."
>> 
>> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
>> one does have some basis in fact.
>
>This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations,

No it doesn't. If I can be reasonably sure that everytime I turn the
key that a vehicle will start and drive correctly then its reliable.
If the opposite is the case then its not reliable.
How much I'm will to tolerate unreliability is a seperate category.

> and is mostly 
>relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been (except 
>for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to junk on 
>EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955 
>Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. 

You've not seen at least one of those cars.

>The 
>ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions; all the 
>same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.

As are all cars. They all use the same basic systems and all pretty
much work the same way.

> People 
>expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000 miles with 
>no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations very 
>quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that happen, 
>so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to make them 
>work. They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy 
>to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable. When the Japanese 
>decided to enter this market, they realized that they couldn't afford 
>for their cars to be unreliable, but at the same time, couldn't emulate 
>the the US practice of making every component super heavy and robust and 
>under-stressed either, so they took advantage of advancements in 
>materials technology to give them the edge in reliability and low 
>frequency of repair. It worked, and the Japanese can make small engined 
>cars that last just as long and are just as reliable and 
>maintenance-free as The old American clunkers.

Except for the 70's when Japanese cars were prone to rusting out
early. It wasn't uncommon to see a two year old Japanese car with rust
through. Datsun was so plagued with this that after they fixed the
problem they changed their name to Nissan to distance themselves from
the rustbucket reputation.

>
>The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to help cope 
>with their high fuel costs,

I suppose being totally unreliable and not starting 3/4 of the time
would help keep the ol' fuel bill low! 8) It sorta defeats the purose
of owning a car though.

> they want cars which handle well to deal 
>with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads. 

During the trip to Europe I took some years ago it seemed to me that
there were only two kinds of roads in Europe - modern superhighways
and wagon ruts that, if you were lucky, someone had made a half-assed
attempt to cover with gravel...ten years ago

>They are >less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although that's 
>changing

The only European car I ever owned was a Ford Fiesta. It was cheaply
and crudely made. The front wheels lacked two of the three standard
adjustments. While the lack of sophistication did contribute a certain
ease of basic maintenance it also hampered the car in numerous ways as
well and made it a bigger PITA to work on the big things than it
really needed to be.

>) and more concerned with overall longevity. Traditionally, 
>Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts,

Its hard to drive it to the dealer and trade it in when it won't
start. 8) 
And since you're just going to end up with something else that's
unreliable with newer paint why bother?

> but 
>that's changing very quickly as well. Fact is, today, one see very few 
>older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or less. 
>European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need to in 
>this regard, and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive 
>than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past, the 
>European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the cars be 
>be high-maintenance, and they were.
>
>I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old (My 
>Alfa) and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down 
>on me or left me stranded.

Maybe you should drive them somewhere sometime.

> The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of 
>maintenance. Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles 
>MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went 220,000 
>miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump! I prefer European cars to Japanese 
>and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with lots of  
>characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that 
>Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these things, 
>and don't want to see them go away. I accept that these cars require 
>more maintenance as the price I pay for the driving characteristics I 
>demand, so my expectations are not that the cars can go from the 
>showroom to the auto dismantler without ever having the hood (bonnet) 
>raised, the way owners of many Japanese and American do. So, like I 
>said, these expectations are relative.

Expectations are but reliability is not.



-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/21/2005 5:11:19 AM

On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
<newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions'
>we
>> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
>> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>> >
>> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite
>PC
>> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>> >
>> >This is my baby:
>> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.
>Most
>> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the
>more
>> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
>More
>> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
>little
>> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it
>comes
>> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
>> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
>face,
>> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
>> >grimace.
>> >
>> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>>
>> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
>> among the least reliable overall."
>>
>> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
>> one does have some basis in fact.
>>
>
>You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
>American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
>American SUVs -- huge,

Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most loonietune
envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
smaller than 1970's sedans.

> noisy,

If its noisy then get it a new muffler.

> about as stylish as a bus,

As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
cars?

> and constantly wasting resources.

LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
every week.

> The commercial tells you that it can handle any
>terrain,

What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an SUV
that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.

> but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots of
>storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>applications.

Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
perfectly suited for that.

> Also, you live with the constant threat of rolling over
>during simple manuevers, kind of like getting spyware just for visitng
>a website.

2% of auto accidents involve rollover. Guess what percent of SUV
accidents involve rollover? You're thinking 75-90% right? Well,
Sparky, its 3.2%. Its a non-issue to the informed. The ignorant
however are still wailing 'rollover' as they wander through the
wilderness of 'Falling For Envirowhackos Lies'.

>
>(I suppose the exception here would be a Linux PC, which would be more
>like any ordinary car that some hobbyist has put considerable effort
>into improving. As cool as it might be, the non-mechanical folks
>probably won't have anything like it for awhile.)

-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/21/2005 5:23:04 AM

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:50:07 GMT, Brent <bromo_NONE@NO.SPAM.AT.ALL>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
>> among the least reliable overall."
>> 
>> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
>> one does have some basis in fact.
>
>The Mac is amongst the most reliable (as in needing repair) computers one
>can purchase, actually.  SO I don't think that this would be quite right.
>Also the OS is a lot more stable and predictable.

If you drink all the Kool-Aid what will Oxford have to drink?

>
>I think the Mac would be more like a Japanese car with some styling - but
>only available in right hand drive! :-)

-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/21/2005 5:23:51 AM

In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:

[snip]

> > and constantly wasting resources.
> 
> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> every week.

Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
society's business as long as people do it with their own money.

Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:

1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
   smaller vehicle.
2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
   costs, born by the taxpayer.
3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
   foreign energy sources.
4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and adds 
   extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.

[snip]

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/21/2005 5:40:42 AM

In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
> In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> and constantly wasting resources.
>>
>> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> every week.
>
> Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
> society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
>
> Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
>
> 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance
>    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
>    smaller vehicle.

 required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much damage you
can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision are mostly
based on part costs, and your driving habits.

> 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance
>    costs, born by the taxpayer.

gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.  if
you're worried about people not paying their fair share for maintenance, you
should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay less in gas
taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.

> 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone
>    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on
>    foreign energy sources.

so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should balance
out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand" except
for 7th grade economics classes)

> 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and adds
>    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> [snip]


0
Reply news_test (1245) 3/21/2005 5:57:51 AM

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > and constantly wasting resources.
>> 
>> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> every week.
>
>Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
>society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
>
>Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
>
>1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
>   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
>   smaller vehicle.

Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
most people aren't behind you on that one?

>2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
>   costs, born by the taxpayer.

Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
(which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
everywhere these days) then you are nuts.

>3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
>   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
>   foreign energy sources.

Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
shoot a hippie.

>4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 

Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.

>-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.

The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
going to be scared of every lie told to you.
And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
wasteful.
Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
that would you?
This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
around. I can see why you libs do it so much.



-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/21/2005 6:11:13 AM

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "ed"
<news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
>ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
>> In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
>>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>>> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>>> following wisdom:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> and constantly wasting resources.
>>>
>>> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>>> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>>> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>>> every week.
>>
>> Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
>> society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
>>
>> Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
>>
>> 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance
>>    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
>>    smaller vehicle.
>
> required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much damage you
>can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision are mostly
>based on part costs, and your driving habits.
>
>> 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance
>>    costs, born by the taxpayer.
>
>gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.  if
>you're worried about people not paying their fair share for maintenance, you
>should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay less in gas
>taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
>
>> 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone
>>    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on
>>    foreign energy sources.
>
>so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should balance
>out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand" except
>for 7th grade economics classes)

As ZnU is a communist he doesn't understand that everything is in
scarcity and that cost is how we allocate items in this society.
Witness his statements on gas prices. The only way his ideas could
ever be true is if there was some agreed upon price of gas that was
right and true in everyone's eyes. There isn't. Its constantly going
up and down depending on many factors that don't involve the demand of
the moment.
 Remember a few weeks ago when Iran announced that someone had
attacked their nuclear facilities? Oil immediately shot up
~$5.00/barrel. When the Iranians later announced that it was a not
quite empty drop tank from one of their own military jets that
exploded when it hit the ground oil went back down.
 ZnU probably thinks the Iranians thought someone was dropping an SUV
on them they are such a bogeyman to him.

>
>> 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and adds
>>    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
>> [snip]
>

-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/21/2005 6:50:11 AM

In article <znt%d.20695$Pz7.15009@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
> > In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> following wisdom:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> and constantly wasting resources.
> >>
> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> every week.
> >
> > Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
> > society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >
> > Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >
> > 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance
> >    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
> >    smaller vehicle.
> 
>  required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much damage you
> can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision are mostly
> based on part costs, and your driving habits.

Only partly true. EVERYONE ELSE's collision is based on the damage that 
their car might receive - including damage from SUVs. The more SUVs on 
the road, the higher everyone's collision insurance is.

Not to mention, of course, that uninsured motorist insurance also pays 
for SUV damage.

> 
> > 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance
> >    costs, born by the taxpayer.
> 
> gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.  if
> you're worried about people not paying their fair share for maintenance, you
> should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay less in gas
> taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.

If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance, why are 
there so many bond issues in my state to repair the roads?

> 
> > 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone
> >    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on
> >    foreign energy sources.
> 
> so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should balance
> out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand" except
> for 7th grade economics classes)

Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand doesn't 
apply. Different markets have different amounts of elasticity (fuel 
seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that supply and 
demand doesn't apply.

> 
> > 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and adds
> >    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> > [snip]

No response, I see.

He also left out one of the major ones - international warfare. If our 
country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left the Middle 
Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had been doing that 
for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened, nor would 
we have had 2 gulf wars.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/21/2005 12:03:08 PM

In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> following wisdom:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> 
> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> every week.
> >
> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >
> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >
> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
> >   smaller vehicle.
> 
> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
> most people aren't behind you on that one?

It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
Mayor. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
an accident.

Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.

> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
> 
> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.

If you don't understand the difference between driving a truck because 
you need to move a lot of packages around, and driving a truck because 
it gives you a false illusion of safety and makes you feel big and 
powerful, you've got some issues.

I think you'll notice that anti-SUV sentiments were largely absent when 
they accounted for 2% of the auto market and were only purchased by 
people who actually needed them.

> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
> >   foreign energy sources.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
> shoot a hippie.

ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs, and would probably 
take a decade to start producing at that level. There simply isn't 
enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to meeting demand, no 
matter how many national parks you want to destroy.

> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
> 
> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.

Are you actually denying that smaller cars are, on average, cleaner?

> >-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> 
> The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
> going to be scared of every lie told to you.
> And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
> A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
> wasteful.
> Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
> Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
> that would you?
> This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
> thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
> around. I can see why you libs do it so much.

Are you aware of just how much energy you're using, with an SUV? A 
gallon of gas contains something on the order of 60 KWh of energy. Your 
SUV could use more energy on the way to the store than an air 
conditioner does during an entire day. And it's totally unnecessary. If 
I could replace my air conditioner with a device which did the same 
thing but used half the power, I would. Why won't you do that with your 
car?

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/21/2005 4:42:57 PM

In article <11rs311nk9o2jkknd3g5fajj7pn13760nd@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "ed"
> <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> 
> >In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
> >ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
> >> In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> >>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >>> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >>> following wisdom:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>> and constantly wasting resources.
> >>>
> >>> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >>> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >>> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >>> every week.
> >>
> >> Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
> >> society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >>
> >> Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >>
> >> 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance
> >>    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
> >>    smaller vehicle.
> >
> > required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much damage you
> >can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision are mostly
> >based on part costs, and your driving habits.
> >
> >> 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance
> >>    costs, born by the taxpayer.
> >
> >gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.  if
> >you're worried about people not paying their fair share for maintenance, you
> >should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay less in gas
> >taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> >
> >> 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone
> >>    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on
> >>    foreign energy sources.
> >
> >so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should balance
> >out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand" except
> >for 7th grade economics classes)
> 
> As ZnU is a communist

You're lying again.

> he doesn't understand that everything is in scarcity and that cost is 
> how we allocate items in this society. Witness his statements on gas 
> prices. The only way his ideas could ever be true is if there was 
> some agreed upon price of gas that was right and true in everyone's 
> eyes.

What? I pointed out that the price of gas increases for everyone 
because of large vehicles creating more demand. That's basic supply and 
demand.

> There isn't. Its constantly going
> up and down depending on many factors that don't involve the demand of
> the moment.

You're right. They involve the anticipated supply instead. That's basic 
supply and demand again.

>  Remember a few weeks ago when Iran announced that someone had
> attacked their nuclear facilities? Oil immediately shot up
> ~$5.00/barrel. When the Iranians later announced that it was a not
> quite empty drop tank from one of their own military jets that
> exploded when it hit the ground oil went back down.
>  ZnU probably thinks the Iranians thought someone was dropping an SUV
> on them they are such a bogeyman to him.

You're lying again.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/21/2005 5:02:12 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> {wrote}:
> >
> > Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >
> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance
> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
> >   smaller vehicle.
>
> Why how can this be?

It is basic physics:  hitting someone with a bigger club does more
damage.

The issue has become accentuated with the "me first, and to hell with
the other guy" attitude that is inherent in some (YMMV) SUV purchasers.




> Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact with another
> vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its back, hits
> the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit and that
> they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?

That's Hollywood and Cremora (yes, the non-dairy creamer).

However, since you've already shown that their flip rate is roughly
double the average, you've already conceded the "higher center of
gravity" physics in action.

And if you would have looked an inch deeper at the statistics, you
should have discovered that the probability of death once a flip has
occurred (eg, P(Fatality | Flip)) is higher in SUV's too.  The physics
behind this one relate to the vehicle's greater mass relative to the
strength of the roof structure, plus IIRC a lower statistical tendency
for SUV occupants to wear seat belts, presumably because of their
belief that they were supposed to have been "safer" in that vehicle
class...FWIW, it is human nature to adjust their risk-based behaviour
which can zero out actual technology-based safety gains...read the
research history on Anti-lock brakes from the Insurance Institute on
Highway Safety for an example.


> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle.

Hey, drive what you want...just make sure that you're not lying to
yourself as to why you chose the ride that you did...and to be
responsible for the choices you make.

Overall, this is a classic example is the "more mass is always better"
SUV club.  Unfortunately, the facts are that when we compare the
vehicles on an "Equal Purchase Cost" baseline, SUV's somehow turn out
to be less safe than their automotive counterparts.  Exactly why this
is will probably make small heads spontaneously explode, but in a
nutshell, what's happening is that Safety Engineering is able to
"cheat" (sort of) and provide a tangible difference in crash
performance, but this Engineering expense isn't free, so it has to be
included in the vehicle's price.  This eventually distills down to
differences in the manufacturer's average actual content, and since SUV
profits are generally higher than automobiles, at the same retail price
point, the SUV has less actual content available behind it to be spent
on things such as Safety Engineering.  This essentially why it is
objectively erronious to compare the proverbial "cheap tin can" to
"well built tank" in either direction:  both the 'Yukon Denali vs. Ford
Taurus', as well as 'Kia Sportage vs. Mercedes E Class' are objectively
invalid comparisons.

[snip]

> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath
>
> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.

The USA-legal Vespa's aren't the spewers that you saw in Rome 20 years
ago.  In any event, knowing that we have an ULEV motor alone isn't
enough:  we need to factor in its mpg to determine is pollution per
mile driven, and a ULEV low-mpg SUV will pollute more per mile than a
"mere" LEV high-mpg automobile (or motorcycle/moterscooter).  But don't
worry about simple facts getting in the way of your political rhetoric
:-)


> This is fun being an arrogant ass...

Its more fun when it is done with actual, objective facts.


-hh

0
Reply recscuba_google (4962) 3/21/2005 5:03:33 PM

In article <pris31h9c2rjffilj1l42ibthkr78gdiif@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:37:02 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions' we
> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >
> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite PC
> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >> >
> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.  Most
> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the more
> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.  More
> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the little
> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it comes
> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your face,
> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
> >> >grimace.
> >> >
> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >> 
> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >> 
> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >
> >This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations,
> 
> No it doesn't. If I can be reasonably sure that everytime I turn the
> key that a vehicle will start and drive correctly then its reliable.
> If the opposite is the case then its not reliable.
> How much I'm will to tolerate unreliability is a seperate category.

Nobody gives a shit what you consider "reliability", I was referring to 
what the industry refers to as "reliability" and it has two components: 
"dependability" (which is what you seem to be most interested in) and 
"frequency of repair". The first part is a given. The second part 
depends, largely, upon expectations.

> > and is mostly 
> >relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been (except 
> >for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to junk on 
> >EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955 
> >Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. 
> 
> You've not seen at least one of those cars.

I've seen and worked on all of them. They have almost identical 
suspensions (cart sprung live rear axels, dual 'A'-arm front suspensions 
with coil springs and cylindrical shock absorbers) identical hydraulic 
drum brake systems, coil and breaker ignition, worm and sector steering, 
The cars are little changed, chassis wise for more than 30 years.

> >The 
> >ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions; all the 
> >same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.
> 
> As are all cars. They all use the same basic systems and all pretty
> much work the same way.

Not any more.

> > People 
> >expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000 miles with 
> >no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations very 
> >quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that happen, 
> >so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to make them 
> >work. They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy 
> >to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable. When the Japanese 
> >decided to enter this market, they realized that they couldn't afford 
> >for their cars to be unreliable, but at the same time, couldn't emulate 
> >the the US practice of making every component super heavy and robust and 
> >under-stressed either, so they took advantage of advancements in 
> >materials technology to give them the edge in reliability and low 
> >frequency of repair. It worked, and the Japanese can make small engined 
> >cars that last just as long and are just as reliable and 
> >maintenance-free as The old American clunkers.
> 
> Except for the 70's when Japanese cars were prone to rusting out
> early. It wasn't uncommon to see a two year old Japanese car with rust
> through. Datsun was so plagued with this that after they fixed the
> problem they changed their name to Nissan to distance themselves from
> the rustbucket reputation.

Perhaps, but living in California, this was a problem that I never saw 
or heard about. I owned one of the first Honda Civics, and found it to 
be a wholly reliable and trouble-free automobile for the entire six 
years that I owned it.

> >The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to help cope 
> >with their high fuel costs,
> 
> I suppose being totally unreliable and not starting 3/4 of the time
> would help keep the ol' fuel bill low! 8) It sorta defeats the purose
> of owning a car though.

Sorry, I don't know of any modern European car that falls into that 
category and they don't make East German Trabants any more.

> > they want cars which handle well to deal 
> >with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads. 
> 
> During the trip to Europe I took some years ago it seemed to me that
> there were only two kinds of roads in Europe - modern superhighways
> and wagon ruts that, if you were lucky, someone had made a half-assed
> attempt to cover with gravel...ten years ago

I think you will find that things have changed. Most European roads are 
very good. Certainly they're better maintained than California's 
highways. 

> >They are >less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although 
> >that's 
> >changing
> 
> The only European car I ever owned was a Ford Fiesta. It was cheaply
> and crudely made. The front wheels lacked two of the three standard
> adjustments. While the lack of sophistication did contribute a certain
> ease of basic maintenance it also hampered the car in numerous ways as
> well and made it a bigger PITA to work on the big things than it
> really needed to be.

Anybody who would buy a Fiesta deserves what they get.

> >) and more concerned with overall longevity. Traditionally, 
> >Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts,
> 
> Its hard to drive it to the dealer and trade it in when it won't
> start. 8) 
> And since you're just going to end up with something else that's
> unreliable with newer paint why bother?

Whatever. Is there anything that you aren't an ignorant bigot about? You 
remind me of an old guy I know who saw a Heathkit Projection TV in about 
1969 and still thinks that they're dark, have no contrast, and have 
washed-out color because he's never bothered to revisit the subject.

> > > but 
> >that's changing very quickly as well. Fact is, today, one see very few 
> >older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or less. 
> >European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need to in 
> >this regard, and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive 
> >than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past, the 
> >European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the cars be 
> >be high-maintenance, and they were.

> >I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old (My 
> >Alfa) and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down 
> >on me or left me stranded.
> 
> Maybe you should drive them somewhere sometime.

My VW is less than two years old, clyde, and it has more than 30,000 
miles on it. My previous VW, a 1985 model, had more than 220,000 miles 
on it when I got rid of it. I'd say that I drive it.

> > The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of 
> >maintenance. Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles 
> >MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went 220,000 
> >miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump! I prefer European cars to Japanese 
> >and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with lots of  
> >characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that 
> >Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these things, 
> >and don't want to see them go away. I accept that these cars require 
> >more maintenance as the price I pay for the driving characteristics I 
> >demand, so my expectations are not that the cars can go from the 
> >showroom to the auto dismantler without ever having the hood (bonnet) 
> >raised, the way owners of many Japanese and American do. So, like I 
> >said, these expectations are relative.
> 
> Expectations are but reliability is not.

Depends on what you mean by reliability. Like I said, it has two 
components: dependability and frequency of repair. I suspect that you 
are talking about dependability, and if so, we are definitely on the 
same page, along with everybody else.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/21/2005 6:47:09 PM

In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> 
> >
> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into 'discussions'
> >we
> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good car
> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >
> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your favourite
> >PC
> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >> >
> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle car.
> >Most
> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to the
> >more
> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
> >More
> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
> >little
> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when it
> >comes
> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the twisty
> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
> >face,
> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more of a
> >> >grimace.
> >> >
> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >>
> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >>
> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >>
> >
> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
> >American SUVs -- huge,
> 
> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most loonietune
> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
> smaller than 1970's sedans.
> 
> > noisy,
> 
> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
> 
> > about as stylish as a bus,
> 
> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
> cars?
> 
> > and constantly wasting resources.
> 
> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> every week.
> 
> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> >terrain,
> 
> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an SUV
> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> 
> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots of
> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> >applications.
> 
> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
> perfectly suited for that.
> 
> > Also, you live with the constant threat of rolling over
> >during simple manuevers, kind of like getting spyware just for visitng
> >a website.
> 
> 2% of auto accidents involve rollover. Guess what percent of SUV
> accidents involve rollover? You're thinking 75-90% right? Well,
> Sparky, its 3.2%. Its a non-issue to the informed. The ignorant
> however are still wailing 'rollover' as they wander through the
> wilderness of 'Falling For Envirowhackos Lies'.

Could you show us your source for that? Most sources say that rollover 
is the single biggest cause of SUV-related highway injuries and 
fatalities. 

Christ, I've seen enough of the junkers on their backs - in fact I 
passed an SUV accident on my to San Francisco Friday night. Have to 
admit though, this one was only laying on it's side. These things are 
trucks, not cars, yet I see fools driving them like they were sports 
cars every day. No wonder they flip over with such alarming regularity.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/21/2005 6:53:41 PM

In article <znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> > following wisdom:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > and constantly wasting resources.
> > 
> > LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> > So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> > wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> > every week.
> 
> Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> society's business as long as people do it with their own money.

It's not a right-wing myth, it's an idiot's myth. I'm a right-winger and 
I don't believe that people have the right to waste resources. I don't 
give a shit whose money is involved.

> Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> 
> 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
>    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
>    smaller vehicle.

Correct.


> 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
>    costs, born by the taxpayer.

Agreed


> 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
>    (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
>    foreign energy sources.

Absolutely

> 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and adds 
>    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.

Amen

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/21/2005 6:56:47 PM

In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> following wisdom:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> 
> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> every week.
> >
> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >
> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >
> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
> >   smaller vehicle.
> 
> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
> most people aren't behind you on that one?

The safest vehicles, Mayor, are those which handle and stop well enough 
to AVOID an accident altogether, not one that is SURE to have an 
accident because it's badly designed, but Oh, that's OK because it's 
more "survivable." If that isn't closing the gate after the horses have 
escaped thinking, I don't now what is. Also, you might try reading up on 
your physics. These trucks might be bigger and look safer, but there's a 
disadvantageous relationship between mass and velocity that does not 
favor SUVs in collisions with unyielding objects.

> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
> 
> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.

Except that there are far fewer commercial trucks on the roads than 
there are SUVs, and commercial trucks pay MUCH higher road taxes than do 
SUVs. Now, if you're advocating making people pay a premium for the 
right to drive these junkers on the public highways, I might consider 
that your above argument has some merit. Otherwise, you're talking like 
a man with a paper head - as usual.

> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
> >   foreign energy sources.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
> shoot a hippie.

While you are partially right here about us not having access to our own 
oil because of environmental concerns (perhaps people are over-concerned 
on this front, perhaps not), you are wrong in thinking that the current 
popularity of these 8-10 MPG trucks is not  a waste of resources - 
especially when I see them going down the freeway at 80 mph with one 
person aboard. 

> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
> 
> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.

No internal combustion engine is pollution free, but if you are trying 
to insinuate here that a 150cc single cylinder engine produces as much 
pollution as a 8000 cc V-8 on a 7,000 pound truck, you're even crazier 
than I gave you credit for being - and that's pretty crazy!

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/21/2005 7:14:31 PM

In article <znu-3873AA.11425721032005@individual.net>, ZnU wrote:
> It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles,
> Mayor. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that
> more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in
> an accident.

If I run as fast as I can into a wall, I will take a lot more damage than I
will if I drive a car into that same wall at the same speed, yet the latter
collision involves an order of magnitude more momentum.

My guess is that the safety of various vehicles depends heavily on the
probabilities of various kinds of accidents.  E.g., whether you are more
likely to have a head on collision with another vehicle, or have a
single-car accident.

....
>> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil before
>> SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on foreign oil
>> isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling and pumping
>> our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then shoot a
>> hippie.

The Mayor is wrong here.  The main thing keeping us dependent on foreign oil
is that its price is kept artificially low compared to other fuels.  The
externalities associated with oil are very high, and in effect amount to a
huge government subsidy for oil use.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
Reply reply_in_group (13194) 3/21/2005 7:30:44 PM

In article <EhF%d.440$gI5.380@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <znu-3873AA.11425721032005@individual.net>, ZnU wrote:
> > It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles,
> > Mayor. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that
> > more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in
> > an accident.
> 
> If I run as fast as I can into a wall, I will take a lot more damage than I
> will if I drive a car into that same wall at the same speed, yet the latter
> collision involves an order of magnitude more momentum.

Sure, but most of that has to do with the fact that you're made out of 
meat, and a car is made out of steel. SUVs and normal sized cars are 
both made from the same stuff. Of course, maybe the SUV has a stronger 
structure, but there's no basis for assuming that.

And, actually, some cars can suffer quite a lot of damage in low-speed 
collisions. Even structural damage. This seems to be more common with 
SUV models....

> My guess is that the safety of various vehicles depends heavily on the
> probabilities of various kinds of accidents.  E.g., whether you are more
> likely to have a head on collision with another vehicle, or have a
> single-car accident.

Another very important factor to consider is that you can't just look at 
who walks away from crashes. The best way to walk away from a crash is 
not to have one... which makes an agile vehicle much safer than its 
crash survival rate would suggest.

> >> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil before
> >> SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on foreign oil
> >> isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling and pumping
> >> our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then shoot a
> >> hippie.
> 
> The Mayor is wrong here.  The main thing keeping us dependent on foreign oil
> is that its price is kept artificially low compared to other fuels.  The
> externalities associated with oil are very high, and in effect amount to a
> huge government subsidy for oil use.

Yup. But if costs don't automatically show up in the price through the 
workings of the free market, they doesn't exist as far as the right-wing 
loons are concerned.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/21/2005 8:03:24 PM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <znt%d.20695$Pz7.15009@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> > In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
> > > In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with
the
> > >> following wisdom:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >>> and constantly wasting resources.
> > >>
> > >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what
isn't?
> > >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if
I'm
> > >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a
check
> > >> every week.
> > >
> > > Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
> > > society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> > >
> > > Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> > >
> > > 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto
insurance
> > >    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
> > >    smaller vehicle.
> >
> >  required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much
damage you
> > can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision
are
> > mostly based on part costs, and your driving habits.
>
> Only partly true.

my statement is 100% true.  which part is *not* true?  notice i said
the price is *mostly* based on parts costs and driving habits.

> EVERYONE ELSE's collision is based on the damage that
> their car might receive - including damage from SUVs. The more SUVs
on
> the road, the higher everyone's collision insurance is.
>
> Not to mention, of course, that uninsured motorist insurance also
pays
> for SUV damage.
>
> > > 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher
maintenance
> > >    costs, born by the taxpayer.
> >
> > gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.
if
> > you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
maintenance,
> > you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay
less
> > in gas taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel
inefficient
> > vehicles.
>
> If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance, why are
> there so many bond issues in my state to repair the roads?

i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more than
covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states pool gas tax
revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from gas is diverted
elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or funding needs to be raised
elsewhere.

> > > 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for
everyone
> > >    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US
reliance on
> > >    foreign energy sources.
> >
> > so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should
balance
> > out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand"
except
> > for 7th grade economics classes)
>
> Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand doesn't
> apply.  Different markets have different amounts of elasticity (fuel
> seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that supply
and
> demand doesn't apply.

nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe- i said
it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".

> > > 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and
adds
> > >    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> > > [snip]
>
> No response, I see.

you see correctly.  are you implying you always respond to every point
on every post you respond to?  should i argue just to argue?

but since you're pointing out non-responses, you had one particular
non-response i was very curious about: why didn't you respond to my
offer to fix up your daughter's dell (at my cost, including shipping)
and donate it to charity (since you stated you weren't going to get it
fixed)?
http://tinyurl.com/43tle

are you that petty, or is there really no such dell?

> He also left out one of the major ones - international warfare. If
our
> country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left the Middle

> Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had been doing
that
> for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened, nor
would 
> we have had 2 gulf wars.

fine, let's go drilling in alaska.

0
Reply news74 (3350) 3/21/2005 8:52:39 PM

In article <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <znt%d.20695$Pz7.15009@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In news:znu-D769AC.00404221032005@individual.net,
> > > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> typed:
> > > > In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> > > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > > >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with
> the
> > > >> following wisdom:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > >>> and constantly wasting resources.
> > > >>
> > > >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what
> isn't?
> > > >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if
> I'm
> > > >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a
> check
> > > >> every week.
> > > >
> > > > Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't
> > > > society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> > > >
> > > > Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto
> insurance
> > > >    rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a
> > > >    smaller vehicle.
> > >
> > >  required auto insurance rates (liability) is based on how much
> damage you
> > > can do (i.e. what you'll be *liable* for), and comp and collision
> are
> > > mostly based on part costs, and your driving habits.
> >
> > Only partly true.
> 
> my statement is 100% true.  which part is *not* true?  notice i said
> the price is *mostly* based on parts costs and driving habits.
> 
> > EVERYONE ELSE's collision is based on the damage that
> > their car might receive - including damage from SUVs. The more SUVs
> on
> > the road, the higher everyone's collision insurance is.
> >
> > Not to mention, of course, that uninsured motorist insurance also
> pays
> > for SUV damage.
> >
> > > > 2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher
> maintenance
> > > >    costs, born by the taxpayer.
> > >
> > > gas tax revenue more than covers the costs of roadway maintenance.
> if
> > > you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
> maintenance,
> > > you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient vehicles- they pay
> less
> > > in gas taxes for given wear and tear on the roads than fuel
> inefficient
> > > vehicles.
> >
> > If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance, why are
> > there so many bond issues in my state to repair the roads?
> 
> i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more than
> covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states pool gas tax
> revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from gas is diverted
> elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or funding needs to be raised
> elsewhere.

And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively for 
road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.

> 
> > > > 3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for
> everyone
> > > >    else (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US
> reliance on
> > > >    foreign energy sources.
> > >
> > > so the increased prices should decrease demand, and things should
> balance
> > > out.  =D  (i.e. things ain't as simple as "basic supply and demand"
> except
> > > for 7th grade economics classes)
> >
> > Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand doesn't
> > apply.  Different markets have different amounts of elasticity (fuel
> > seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that supply
> and
> > demand doesn't apply.
> 
> nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe- i said
> it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".

What part of it doesn't fall under supply and demand?

> 
> > > > 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath -- and
> adds
> > > >    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> > > > [snip]
> >
> > No response, I see.
> 
> you see correctly.  are you implying you always respond to every point
> on every post you respond to?  should i argue just to argue?
> 
> but since you're pointing out non-responses, you had one particular
> non-response i was very curious about: why didn't you respond to my
> offer to fix up your daughter's dell (at my cost, including shipping)
> and donate it to charity (since you stated you weren't going to get it
> fixed)?
> http://tinyurl.com/43tle
> 
> are you that petty, or is there really no such dell?

What a silly conclusion. Is 'ed' another name for 'Edwin'?

As I've already explained, I'm selling it on eBay.

> 
> > He also left out one of the major ones - international warfare. If
> our
> > country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left the Middle
> 
> > Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had been doing
> that
> > for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened, nor
> would 
> > we have had 2 gulf wars.
> 
> fine, let's go drilling in alaska.

That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly insufficient 
by itself.

I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where 
thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/21/2005 9:56:50 PM

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:23:51 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:50:07 GMT, Brent <bromo_NONE@NO.SPAM.AT.ALL>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
>>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>>> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>>> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>>> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to be
>>> among the least reliable overall."
>>> 
>>> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an American
>>> one does have some basis in fact.
>>
>>The Mac is amongst the most reliable (as in needing repair) computers one
>>can purchase, actually.  SO I don't think that this would be quite right.
>>Also the OS is a lot more stable and predictable.
> 
> If you drink all the Kool-Aid what will Oxford have to drink?
Jealousy doesn't suit you. Why can't you simply be happy with your
purchase, even having recognized it's limits? You chose to take the cheap
path, and now you get to suffer the repercussions.

Pull your head out of the sand and stop being a moron if you can help it.

> 
>>
>>I think the Mac would be more like a Japanese car with some styling - but
>>only available in right hand drive! :-)

0
Reply theletterk1 (120) 3/21/2005 10:04:41 PM

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <1111351695.193010.251190@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Lars Tr=E4ger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> wrote:
> > Time for a repost of:
> >
> > Traeger's Law on Advocacy: "1. Any form of advocacy will lead to an
> > analogy (e.g. computer advocacy and car analogies). These analogies
> > will
> > usually suck. 2. There will be at least one reply a) claiming the
> > opposite, b) offering a 'better' analogy, c) trying to further the
> > analogy to all elements in the field, or d) taking the analogy into
> > minute details. The resulting analogy will usually suck even more."
> ...
> >
> > Godwin's Law can be seen as a special case.
>=20
> So...Hitler is like a car?

No, Hitler's car is like a PC.

Lars T.

0
Reply Lars.Traeger (3673) 3/21/2005 10:24:28 PM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > > if you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
> > > > maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient
> > > > vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and tear
> > > > on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> > >
> > > If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance, why
are
> > > there so many bond issues in my state to repair the roads?
> >
> > i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
than
> > covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states pool gas tax
> > revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from gas is diverted
> > elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or funding needs to be
raised
> > elsewhere.
>
> And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively for

> road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.

i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not check?  a
quick research trip on google shows that you are absolutely full of
crap:
1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than just
road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html (i couldn't find
numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M /year in
*state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.  that's
not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most of
back.

<snip>
> > > Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand
doesn't
> > > apply.  Different markets have different amounts of elasticity
(fuel
> > > seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that
supply
> > and
> > > demand doesn't apply.
> >
> > nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe- i
said
> > it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".
>
> What part of it doesn't fall under supply and demand?

it's the "basic" part that i take issue with.  it doesn't do well in
explaining speculation in the market (a big reason why oil prices are
currently so high), nor does it do well in a market where the supply is
manipulated to drive the demand- in basic supply and demand, supply and
demand are independently determined.

> > > > > 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath --
and
> > > > > adds extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> > > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > No response, I see.
> >
> > you see correctly.  are you implying you always respond to every
point
> > on every post you respond to?  should i argue just to argue?
> >
> > but since you're pointing out non-responses, you had one particular
> > non-response i was very curious about: why didn't you respond to my
> > offer to fix up your daughter's dell (at my cost, including
shipping)
> > and donate it to charity (since you stated you weren't going to get
it
> > fixed)?
> > http://tinyurl.com/43tle
> >
> > are you that petty, or is there really no such dell?
>
> What a silly conclusion. Is 'ed' another name for 'Edwin'?
>
> As I've already explained, I'm selling it on eBay.

sorry, i don't make it a point to read all your posts.  i assume you're
going to be honest about the laptop and honestly state the condition of
the laptop to the best of your knowledge- adware infested and a shoddy
charging system- please post a link or email me when you do sell it on
ebay; given the condition of it, it should go for pretty cheap and i
might still bid on it to fix up and donate to a nice local charity.

> > > He also left out one of the major ones - international warfare.
If
> > > our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
the
> > > Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
been
> > > doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
happened,
> > > nor would we have had 2 gulf wars.
> >
> > fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
>
> That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
insufficient
> by itself.

it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
alternatives come online.

> I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> thousands of kids are killed or maimed.

i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the main
reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a totally
different kind of kook).

0
Reply news74 (3350) 3/21/2005 11:24:53 PM

In article <1111447493.846454.55580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > if you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
> > > > > maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient
> > > > > vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and tear
> > > > > on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance, why
> are
> > > > there so many bond issues in my state to repair the roads?
> > >
> > > i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
> than
> > > covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states pool gas tax
> > > revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from gas is diverted
> > > elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or funding needs to be
> raised
> > > elsewhere.
> >
> > And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively for
> 
> > road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.
> 
> i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not check?  a
> quick research trip on google shows that you are absolutely full of
> crap:
> 1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than just
> road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
> www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf

And all of that money is dedicated to transportation infrastructure.

But it's not enough.

> 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html (i couldn't find
> numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M /year in
> *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
> state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.  that's
> not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most of
> back.

So?

> 
> <snip>
> > > > Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand
> doesn't
> > > > apply.  Different markets have different amounts of elasticity
> (fuel
> > > > seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that
> supply
> > > and
> > > > demand doesn't apply.
> > >
> > > nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe- i
> said
> > > it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".
> >
> > What part of it doesn't fall under supply and demand?
> 
> it's the "basic" part that i take issue with.  it doesn't do well in
> explaining speculation in the market (a big reason why oil prices are
> currently so high), nor does it do well in a market where the supply is
> manipulated to drive the demand- in basic supply and demand, supply and
> demand are independently determined.

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.

In almost any market, supply and demand are linked. As the demand 
increases, the price increases - which leads to greater supply.

> 
> > > > > > 4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath --
> and
> > > > > > adds extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > No response, I see.
> > >
> > > you see correctly.  are you implying you always respond to every
> point
> > > on every post you respond to?  should i argue just to argue?
> > >
> > > but since you're pointing out non-responses, you had one particular
> > > non-response i was very curious about: why didn't you respond to my
> > > offer to fix up your daughter's dell (at my cost, including
> shipping)
> > > and donate it to charity (since you stated you weren't going to get
> it
> > > fixed)?
> > > http://tinyurl.com/43tle
> > >
> > > are you that petty, or is there really no such dell?
> >
> > What a silly conclusion. Is 'ed' another name for 'Edwin'?
> >
> > As I've already explained, I'm selling it on eBay.
> 
> sorry, i don't make it a point to read all your posts.  i assume you're
> going to be honest about the laptop and honestly state the condition of
> the laptop to the best of your knowledge- adware infested and a shoddy
> charging system- please post a link or email me when you do sell it on
> ebay; given the condition of it, it should go for pretty cheap and i
> might still bid on it to fix up and donate to a nice local charity.

I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I don't 
reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.

As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging system 
or report it. Unlike you, I'm honest.

> 
> > > > He also left out one of the major ones - international warfare.
> If
> > > > our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
> the
> > > > Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
> been
> > > > doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
> happened,
> > > > nor would we have had 2 gulf wars.
> > >
> > > fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
> >
> > That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
> insufficient
> > by itself.
> 
> it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
> alternatives come online.

Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most. AND it 
wouldn't come on line immediately.

> 
> > I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> > thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
> 
> i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the main
> reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a totally
> different kind of kook).

Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?

OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could let 
the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it. Clearly, 
we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic 
interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/22/2005 1:28:48 AM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <1111447493.846454.55580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > In article
<1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > if you're worried about people not paying their fair share
for
> > > > > > maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel
effiecient
> > > > > > vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and
tear
> > > > > > on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> > > > >
> > > > > If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance,
> > > > > why are there so many bond issues in my state to repair
> > > > > the roads?
> > > >
> > > > i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
> > > > than *covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states
> > > > pool gas tax revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from

> > > > gas is diverted elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or
> > > > funding needs to be raised elsewhere.
> > >
> > > And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively
for
> > > road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.
> >
> > i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not
check?  a
> > quick research trip on google shows that you are absolutely full of
> > crap:
> > 1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than
just
> > road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
> > www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
>
> And all of that money is dedicated to transportation infrastructure.
>
> But it's not enough.

as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes are
being diverted else where.

> > 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
> > http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html (i couldn't find
> > numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M /year
in
> > *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
> > state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
that's
> > not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most
of
> > back.
>
> So?

so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas tax
goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need more money"
very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for the DOT, and
collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of which is state
taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in collected gas
taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas taxes that are NOT
being used for road maintance.

> > <snip>
> > > > > Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand
> > > > > doesn't apply.  Different markets have different amounts of
> > > > > elasticity (fuel seems to be relatively inelastic), but that
> > > > > doesn't mean that supply and demand doesn't apply.
> > > >
> > > > nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe-
i
> > > > said it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".
> > >
> > > What part of it doesn't fall under supply and demand?
> >
> > it's the "basic" part that i take issue with.  it doesn't do well
in
> > explaining speculation in the market (a big reason why oil prices
are
> > currently so high), nor does it do well in a market where the
supply is
> > manipulated to drive the demand- in basic supply and demand, supply
and
> > demand are independently determined.
>
> You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.

sure i could- i could be as wrong as you!  you really don't seem to
understand this stuff very well!

> In almost any market, supply and demand are linked. As the demand
> increases, the price increases - which leads to greater supply.

um, that's obviously not what i meant by supply and demand being
independantly determined; that refers to the supply being independant
of demand, and not having supply manipulated to set a given price point
for a given demand (the current situation with opec).  when supply and
demand are independant, it leads to the situation you describe above;
when one is manipulated, it does not.

<snip>
> > > As I've already explained, I'm selling it on eBay.
> >
> > sorry, i don't make it a point to read all your posts.  i assume
you're
> > going to be honest about the laptop and honestly state the
condition of
> > the laptop to the best of your knowledge- adware infested and a
shoddy
> > charging system- please post a link or email me when you do sell it
on
> > ebay; given the condition of it, it should go for pretty cheap and
i
> > might still bid on it to fix up and donate to a nice local charity.
>
> I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I don't
> reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
>
> As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
system
> or report it.

but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...

> Unlike you, I'm honest.

and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?
and since you are going to throw out unsubstantiated insults, this
would probably be a good time to reveal that it is you joe, that was
stuffing the ballots on the biggest troll in c.s.m.a.  and you're going
to call me dishonest; sheesh.

<snip>
> > > > fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
> > >
> > > That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
> > insufficient
> > > by itself.
> >
> > it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
> > alternatives come online.
>
> Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.

and you base this on what?

> AND it
> wouldn't come on line immediately.

nobody said it would.

> > > I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> > > thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
> >
> > i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
main
> > reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
totally
> > different kind of kook).
>
> Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?

it was certainly implied when you said:
"If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left the
Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had been
doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened,
nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "

that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.

> OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
let
> the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it. Clearly,

> we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
> interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?

we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic interests,
so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.

0
Reply news74 (3350) 3/22/2005 4:16:16 AM

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:42:57 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> >> following wisdom:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
>> >> 
>> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> >> every week.
>> >
>> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
>> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
>> >
>> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
>> >
>> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
>> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
>> >   smaller vehicle.
>> 
>> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
>> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
>> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
>> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
>> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
>> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
>> most people aren't behind you on that one?
>
>It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
>Mayor.

Wrong. Its been an oft told enough old wives tale that many think its
true.
http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf

> Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
>more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
>an accident.

ZnU contradicts himself in 3..2..1..

>Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
>runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
>cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
>around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
>doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.

http://www.audiocomedy.net/political/yugo.shtml

So you're less safe in an SUV but in an average crash the SUV driver's
safety, which earlier you were saying didn't exist, comes at the
expense of the guy who chose to drive a small car? 
Life is full of tradeoffs. If someone wants to trade safety for
whatever it is that he's getting from driving the smaller car that's
his choice. Part of living in a free society is allowing people to
make choices that you don't think make any sense.

>
>> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
>> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
>> 
>> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
>> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
>> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
>> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
>> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.
>
>If you don't understand the difference between driving a truck because 
>you need to move a lot of packages around, and driving a truck because 
>it gives you a false illusion of safety

Is that the false illusion that comes at the expense of the driver of
the car or is it the false illusion that comes from listening to
liberal moonbats? And wouldn't a 'false illusion' be something that
was really there?

> and makes you feel big and powerful, you've got some issues.

LOL! This says a lot more about you than it does me. I don't need a
truck to make me feel big and powerful. It does fairly scream that
you're extremely insecure since you have to go around assigning these
kinds of motivations to people's choices.
How do you know that the person you see driving an SUV to work alone
doesn't use it to pull a boat and take his friends fishing on the
weekends? Or haul a passel of yung'uns to some sporting event after
work? Or do you think everyone should own a whole fleet of cars of
various types and sizes to meet every possible travel situation that
comes up?

>I think you'll notice that anti-SUV sentiments were largely absent when 
>they accounted for 2% of the auto market and were only purchased by 
>people who actually needed them.

The envirowhackos have always been after something. First it was the
big sedans. Well they got rid of them and people turned to SUVs.
Before the envirowhackos noticed the SUVs they were screaming that
participates in diesel exhaust was going to be the death of us all.
Then they noticed that SUVs were popular and went on their screaming
fit about that?
And just who in the hell are you to think you get to decide what
people 'need'? Give me your address, ZnU. I'm going to show up at your
house and do a 'need' audit on you. Let's see if you come anywhere
close to meeting the standard you want to impose on everyone else.
Somehow I'm willing to bet that you've got one helluva lot more stuff
than you 'need'.

>
>> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
>> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
>> >   foreign energy sources.
>> 
>> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
>> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
>> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
>> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
>> shoot a hippie.
>
>ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,

The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil
companies are anticipating a goodly amount. The envirowhackos are
running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
and pretending that its Gospel.  Since the oil companies are the ones
who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.
And it more than ANWR. There are significant oil fields off the
California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico that are being blocked as
well.

> and would probably take a decade to start producing at that level.

So? If we can't do it in a week we shouldn't do it? 
That makes no sense.

> There simply isn't enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to meeting demand, no 
>matter how many national parks you want to destroy.

ANWR isn't a national park. No one is even talking about drilling in a
national park. ANWR is a barren stretch of frozen hell along the
Arctic Ocean. Its only significance at all is that the caribou go
there to fuck what little brains they have out in the spring.
Envirowhackos say that the drilling will destroy the caribou herds. We
have solid evidence that this is false. The enviroliars said the same
thing about the Alaska pipeline and the North Slope oil fields.
Caribou herds in those areas have actually risen and the caribou seem
to love the pipeline because it has to be heated to keep the oil
flowing.

>> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
>> 
>> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.
>
>Are you actually denying that smaller cars are, on average, cleaner?

And SUVs are clean by any reasonable standard. They have the same
pollution controls that other cars have. 
>
>> >-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
>> 
>> The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
>> going to be scared of every lie told to you.
>> And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
>> A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
>> wasteful.
>> Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
>> Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
>> that would you?
>> This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
>> thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
>> around. I can see why you libs do it so much.
>
>Are you aware of just how much energy you're using, with an SUV?

Actually I drive a minivan not an SUV. But as I said earlier, its my
dime, its my decision. We allocate resources by cost in this society.
When gas prices rise past people's pain threshold they'll get the
smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. 

> A gallon of gas contains something on the order of 60 KWh of energy. Your 
>SUV could use more energy on the way to the store than an air 
>conditioner does during an entire day.

Typical liberal - my waste is ok; your waste is EVIIIIL!

Think of how much energy we could save if we outlawed air
conditioners. How much coal would we not have to burn? How much
cleaner would the air be? Why won't you get behind this idea? Its
clear that air conditioning is nothing but a waste. People lived for
centuries  without it. You clearly don't 'need' it...or is it somehow
different when it comes to things you value?

> And it's totally unnecessary. If I could replace my air conditioner with a device which did the same 
>thing but used half the power, I would.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/3737651/102-7514405-0940936
Ask your grandparents how to use one if you can't figure it out.

> Why won't you do that with your car?

I'll buy a smaller car at the point where gas prices reach my pain
threshold. But I currently drive a lot less than I used to (less than
20 miles a day now) so that point is going to be a long time coming.
I figure that gas would have to reach the $4.50/gal area for that
point to come for me.



-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/22/2005 5:20:34 AM

In article <1111464976.132670.209030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <1111447493.846454.55580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > In article
> <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > > if you're worried about people not paying their fair share
> for
> > > > > > > maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel
> effiecient
> > > > > > > vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and
> tear
> > > > > > > on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance,
> > > > > > why are there so many bond issues in my state to repair
> > > > > > the roads?
> > > > >
> > > > > i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
> > > > > than *covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states
> > > > > pool gas tax revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from
> 
> > > > > gas is diverted elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or
> > > > > funding needs to be raised elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively
> for
> > > > road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.
> > >
> > > i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not
> check?  a
> > > quick research trip on google shows that you are absolutely full of
> > > crap:
> > > 1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than
> just
> > > road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
> > > www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
> >
> > And all of that money is dedicated to transportation infrastructure.
> >
> > But it's not enough.
> 
> as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes are
> being diverted else where.

And you've said it wrong. Even your own URL says that the gas tax money 
is going for the DOT. And they still need bond issues as well.

> 
> > > 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
> > > http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html (i couldn't find
> > > numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M /year
> in
> > > *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
> > > state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
> that's
> > > not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most
> of
> > > back.
> >
> > So?
> 
> so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas tax
> goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need more money"
> very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for the DOT, and
> collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of which is state
> taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in collected gas
> taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas taxes that are NOT
> being used for road maintance.

The funny thing is that you actually believe your fictional figures.

1. Your own dot source (above) says that fuel taxes pay only 32% of the 
cost of road maintenance. The rest comes from other sources.

2. The texastransit article specifically says that 60% of the gas tax 
goes for roads and bridges and the rest is for other trasnportation 
infractructure.

Your own sources prove you wrong. Congratulations.

(Hint, not all gas taxes are collected at the state level. That's why 
your mythical numbers are wrong). And i note you didn't even TRY to come 
up with a source for your $279 M, $500 M, $700 M and so on that you're 
making up). 

> 
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand
> > > > > > doesn't apply.  Different markets have different amounts of
> > > > > > elasticity (fuel seems to be relatively inelastic), but that
> > > > > > doesn't mean that supply and demand doesn't apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > nobody said supply and demand doesn't apply to oil prices joe-
> i
> > > > > said it's not as simple as "basic supply and demand".
> > > >
> > > > What part of it doesn't fall under supply and demand?
> > >
> > > it's the "basic" part that i take issue with.  it doesn't do well
> in
> > > explaining speculation in the market (a big reason why oil prices
> are
> > > currently so high), nor does it do well in a market where the
> supply is
> > > manipulated to drive the demand- in basic supply and demand, supply
> and
> > > demand are independently determined.
> >
> > You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.
> 
> sure i could- i could be as wrong as you!  you really don't seem to
> understand this stuff very well!

Sorry, you've demonstrated a complete lack of ability to understand 
supply and demand. They can't be independently determined because they 
are interrelated. Higher demand will also have the effect of increasing 
the supply. That is, supply is not a fixed figure.

> 
> > In almost any market, supply and demand are linked. As the demand
> > increases, the price increases - which leads to greater supply.
> 
> um, that's obviously not what i meant by supply and demand being
> independantly determined; that refers to the supply being independant
> of demand, and not having supply manipulated to set a given price point
> for a given demand (the current situation with opec).  when supply and
> demand are independant, it leads to the situation you describe above;
> when one is manipulated, it does not.

IOW, you don't know what you're talking about so you'll babble for a 
while. Nothing you've written there makes even the most basic sense.

> 
> <snip>
> > > > As I've already explained, I'm selling it on eBay.
> > >
> > > sorry, i don't make it a point to read all your posts.  i assume
> you're
> > > going to be honest about the laptop and honestly state the
> condition of
> > > the laptop to the best of your knowledge- adware infested and a
> shoddy
> > > charging system- please post a link or email me when you do sell it
> on
> > > ebay; given the condition of it, it should go for pretty cheap and
> i
> > > might still bid on it to fix up and donate to a nice local charity.
> >
> > I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I don't
> > reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
> >
> > As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
> system
> > or report it.
> 
> but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...

Where did I say that?

> 
> > Unlike you, I'm honest.
> 
> and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?

About the fictional numbers you made up above, for example.

> 
> <snip>
> > > > > fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
> > > >
> > > > That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
> > > insufficient
> > > > by itself.
> > >
> > > it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
> > > alternatives come online.
> >
> > Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.
> 
> and you base this on what?

Facts - which you seem to want to do without.

> 
> > AND it
> > wouldn't come on line immediately.
> 
> nobody said it would.

Other than you - who claimed that it would make a huge dent in our 
dependency until we had something else.

> 
> > > > I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> > > > thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
> > >
> > > i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
> main
> > > reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
> totally
> > > different kind of kook).
> >
> > Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?
> 
> it was certainly implied when you said:
> "If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left the
> Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had been
> doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened,
> nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "

How does that say that it's the main reason?

> 
> that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
> apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.

My point is that it's PART of the reason. What part of that don't you 
understand?

> 
> > OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
> let
> > the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it. Clearly,
> 
> > we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
> > interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
> 
> we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic interests,
> so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.

You're out of your mind if you don't think we have strategic interests 
in the Middle East.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/22/2005 5:34:10 PM

In article <4k7v31hpgnelokbhrs5oto9tiusjd9hsjg@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:42:57 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> >> following wisdom:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> >> 
> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> >> every week.
> >> >
> >> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> >> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >> >
> >> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >> >
> >> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
> >> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
> >> >   smaller vehicle.
> >> 
> >> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
> >> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
> >> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
> >> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
> >> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> >> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
> >> most people aren't behind you on that one?
> >
> >It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
> >Mayor.
> 
> Wrong. Its been an oft told enough old wives tale that many think its
> true.
> http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf
> 
> > Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
> >more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
> >an accident.
> 
> ZnU contradicts himself in 3..2..1..
> 
> >Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
> >runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
> >cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
> >around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
> >doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.
> 
> http://www.audiocomedy.net/political/yugo.shtml
> 
> So you're less safe in an SUV but in an average crash the SUV driver's
> safety, which earlier you were saying didn't exist, comes at the
> expense of the guy who chose to drive a small car? 
> Life is full of tradeoffs. If someone wants to trade safety for
> whatever it is that he's getting from driving the smaller car that's
> his choice. Part of living in a free society is allowing people to
> make choices that you don't think make any sense.
> 
> >
> >> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
> >> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
> >> 
> >> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
> >> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
> >> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
> >> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
> >> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.
> >
> >If you don't understand the difference between driving a truck because 
> >you need to move a lot of packages around, and driving a truck because 
> >it gives you a false illusion of safety
> 
> Is that the false illusion that comes at the expense of the driver of
> the car or is it the false illusion that comes from listening to
> liberal moonbats? And wouldn't a 'false illusion' be something that
> was really there?
> 
> > and makes you feel big and powerful, you've got some issues.
> 
> LOL! This says a lot more about you than it does me. I don't need a
> truck to make me feel big and powerful. It does fairly scream that
> you're extremely insecure since you have to go around assigning these
> kinds of motivations to people's choices.
> How do you know that the person you see driving an SUV to work alone
> doesn't use it to pull a boat and take his friends fishing on the
> weekends? Or haul a passel of yung'uns to some sporting event after
> work? Or do you think everyone should own a whole fleet of cars of
> various types and sizes to meet every possible travel situation that
> comes up?
> 
> >I think you'll notice that anti-SUV sentiments were largely absent when 
> >they accounted for 2% of the auto market and were only purchased by 
> >people who actually needed them.
> 
> The envirowhackos have always been after something. First it was the
> big sedans. Well they got rid of them and people turned to SUVs.
> Before the envirowhackos noticed the SUVs they were screaming that
> participates in diesel exhaust was going to be the death of us all.
> Then they noticed that SUVs were popular and went on their screaming
> fit about that?
> And just who in the hell are you to think you get to decide what
> people 'need'? Give me your address, ZnU. I'm going to show up at your
> house and do a 'need' audit on you. Let's see if you come anywhere
> close to meeting the standard you want to impose on everyone else.
> Somehow I'm willing to bet that you've got one helluva lot more stuff
> than you 'need'.

Do you have any idea WHY the SUV was "invented" Mayor? It's American 
corporate cynicism at it's most basic. CAFE and DOT safety rules took 
the profit out of the big clunker American car, so Detroit stopped 
making them. Problem is, it cost almost as much to build a small car as 
it did to make a big one, yet they couldn't charge as much (at the time 
- of course, that's largely changed now) for the small car and profits 
fell. Detroit fished around for something to replace their traditional 
cash-cow big sedans. Realizing that trucks were exempt from CAFE and 
most safety regulations, and also realizing that trucks were basically 
cheap to build, somebody got the bright idea to gussie one up to carry 
people, load it with cheap, but very profitable extras like leather 
interiors, cruise control, carpets etc., and sell them as "cars" to the 
rubes. Since they didn't know exactly what form of truck to use, they 
started with pickup chassis and delivery vans and built people hauler 
versions of both. The pick-up truck based SUV proved to be more 
rube-worthy in the showrooms and that's what dominates. You rubes went 
for these junkers in droves and bought the cynical concept hook, line 
and sinker. The Detroit boys have patting each other on the back, all 
the way to the bank, ever since. Hell, most American car manufacturers 
are almost out of the "car" business, as most of their sales consist of 
SUVs or the so-called mini-van. I don't know about the hinterlands, but 
here on the Left Coast, one almost never sees a new Chevy, or a new 
Lincoln town car any more. About the only American "cars" one sees are 
Mustangs and a smattering of the new Chrysler 300s. Usually, if you are 
behind a newer car, it's either Japanese or German, and the rest are 
Ford Explorers, Lincoln Navigators, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees, 
etc. And most are hauling one person at 9 MPG - and he/she is usually on 
their cellphone and weaving in and out of traffic in these junkers as if 
they were sports cars.  


> 
> >
> >> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
> >> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
> >> >   foreign energy sources.
> >> 
> >> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
> >> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
> >> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
> >> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
> >> shoot a hippie.
> >
> >ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,
> 
> The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil
> companies are anticipating a goodly amount. The envirowhackos are
> running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
> and pretending that its Gospel.  Since the oil companies are the ones
> who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
> a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.
> And it more than ANWR. There are significant oil fields off the
> California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico that are being blocked as
> well.
> 
> > and would probably take a decade to start producing at that level.
> 
> So? If we can't do it in a week we shouldn't do it? 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> > There simply isn't enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to 
> > meeting demand, no 
> >matter how many national parks you want to destroy.
> 
> ANWR isn't a national park. No one is even talking about drilling in a
> national park. ANWR is a barren stretch of frozen hell along the
> Arctic Ocean. Its only significance at all is that the caribou go
> there to fuck what little brains they have out in the spring.
> Envirowhackos say that the drilling will destroy the caribou herds. We
> have solid evidence that this is false. The enviroliars said the same
> thing about the Alaska pipeline and the North Slope oil fields.
> Caribou herds in those areas have actually risen and the caribou seem
> to love the pipeline because it has to be heated to keep the oil
> flowing.
> 
> >> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
> >> 
> >> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.
> >
> >Are you actually denying that smaller cars are, on average, cleaner?
> 
> And SUVs are clean by any reasonable standard. They have the same
> pollution controls that other cars have. 

But the engines are MUCH LARGER to be able to pull their 7000 pounds 
around. Even YOU can't be this stupid, Mayor. And don't tell me that 
these same big engines are in some cars as well, because in the cars, 
they don't have to work as hard, and therefore produce less emissions 
from the same displacement.

> >> >-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> >> 
> >> The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
> >> going to be scared of every lie told to you.
> >> And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
> >> A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
> >> wasteful.
> >> Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
> >> Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
> >> that would you?
> >> This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
> >> thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
> >> around. I can see why you libs do it so much.
> >
> >Are you aware of just how much energy you're using, with an SUV?
> 
> Actually I drive a minivan not an SUV. But as I said earlier, its my
> dime, its my decision.

Do you realize how utterly selfish and socially irresponsible that 
sounds?

> We allocate resources by cost in this society.

That's a fine way to do it too -mostly. But we're not talking about the 
consumption of renewable resources or luxury manufactured goods here, 
were talking about a finite resource, and a critical one at that. There 
is simply no reason (other than one's unalienable right in this society) 
for most people to drive a 7000 pound behemoth that gets 9 miles to a 
gallon of gasoline to work every day while carrying only one person.

But what I find funny is that Liberals are just as gullible and buy just 
as many SUVs around here as do right-wing Christian fundamentalist 
Rednecks. You see these liberal soccer moms driving their SUVs to 
demonstrations protesting the Iraqi War (or anything else Shrub is 
involved in). It's really ironically hilarious to see Birkenstock 
wearing lefties with their wire frame glasses talking on their 
cellphones driving these huge SUVs down the freeway at 80-90 mph with 
Kerry stickers still on their bumpers! Talk about hypocrisy!

> When gas prices rise past people's pain threshold they'll get the
> smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. 

That doesn't seem to be true. It should be, granted, but gas prices here 
in the SF Bay Area are now hovering around $2.60-$2.80 a gallon for the 
high-priced spread, and it hasn't deterred anybody yet. So where is that 
pain threshold? $3.00/gallon. $5.00/gallon? I suspect we'll know soon 
enough. For myself, I spend so much time driving in Europe, that gas 
prices don't bother me any more.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/22/2005 6:30:26 PM

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:30:26 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <4k7v31hpgnelokbhrs5oto9tiusjd9hsjg@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:42:57 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
>> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> 
>> >> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> >> >> following wisdom:
>> >> >
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> >> >> every week.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
>> >> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
>> >> >
>> >> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
>> >> >
>> >> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
>> >> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
>> >> >   smaller vehicle.
>> >> 
>> >> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
>> >> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
>> >> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
>> >> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
>> >> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
>> >> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
>> >> most people aren't behind you on that one?
>> >
>> >It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
>> >Mayor.
>> 
>> Wrong. Its been an oft told enough old wives tale that many think its
>> true.
>> http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf
>> 
>> > Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
>> >more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
>> >an accident.
>> 
>> ZnU contradicts himself in 3..2..1..
>> 
>> >Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
>> >runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
>> >cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
>> >around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
>> >doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.
>> 
>> http://www.audiocomedy.net/political/yugo.shtml
>> 
>> So you're less safe in an SUV but in an average crash the SUV driver's
>> safety, which earlier you were saying didn't exist, comes at the
>> expense of the guy who chose to drive a small car? 
>> Life is full of tradeoffs. If someone wants to trade safety for
>> whatever it is that he's getting from driving the smaller car that's
>> his choice. Part of living in a free society is allowing people to
>> make choices that you don't think make any sense.
>> 
>> >
>> >> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
>> >> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
>> >> 
>> >> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
>> >> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
>> >> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
>> >> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
>> >> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.
>> >
>> >If you don't understand the difference between driving a truck because 
>> >you need to move a lot of packages around, and driving a truck because 
>> >it gives you a false illusion of safety
>> 
>> Is that the false illusion that comes at the expense of the driver of
>> the car or is it the false illusion that comes from listening to
>> liberal moonbats? And wouldn't a 'false illusion' be something that
>> was really there?
>> 
>> > and makes you feel big and powerful, you've got some issues.
>> 
>> LOL! This says a lot more about you than it does me. I don't need a
>> truck to make me feel big and powerful. It does fairly scream that
>> you're extremely insecure since you have to go around assigning these
>> kinds of motivations to people's choices.
>> How do you know that the person you see driving an SUV to work alone
>> doesn't use it to pull a boat and take his friends fishing on the
>> weekends? Or haul a passel of yung'uns to some sporting event after
>> work? Or do you think everyone should own a whole fleet of cars of
>> various types and sizes to meet every possible travel situation that
>> comes up?
>> 
>> >I think you'll notice that anti-SUV sentiments were largely absent when 
>> >they accounted for 2% of the auto market and were only purchased by 
>> >people who actually needed them.
>> 
>> The envirowhackos have always been after something. First it was the
>> big sedans. Well they got rid of them and people turned to SUVs.
>> Before the envirowhackos noticed the SUVs they were screaming that
>> participates in diesel exhaust was going to be the death of us all.
>> Then they noticed that SUVs were popular and went on their screaming
>> fit about that?
>> And just who in the hell are you to think you get to decide what
>> people 'need'? Give me your address, ZnU. I'm going to show up at your
>> house and do a 'need' audit on you. Let's see if you come anywhere
>> close to meeting the standard you want to impose on everyone else.
>> Somehow I'm willing to bet that you've got one helluva lot more stuff
>> than you 'need'.
>
>Do you have any idea WHY the SUV was "invented" Mayor?

Its not going to be your silly conspiracy theory again is it?

> It's American corporate cynicism at it's most basic.

Apparently it is going to your silly conspiracy theory again.

> CAFE and DOT safety rules took the profit out of the big clunker American car,

I never saw one of these klunker cars. Never heard of them either.
Now CAFE did make it untenable to make big cars. The fines would have
put the automakers out of business if they continued to sell what the
people wanted to buy. As usual the liberal nanny state demanded that
people be forced to use something they didn't want.

> so Detroit stopped making them.

You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
money on and then actually think you're a conservative?

> Problem is, it cost almost as much to build a small car as 
>it did to make a big one, yet they couldn't charge as much (at the time 
>- of course, that's largely changed now) for the small car and profits 
>fell. Detroit fished around for something to replace their traditional 
>cash-cow big sedans. Realizing that trucks were exempt from CAFE and 
>most safety regulations, and also realizing that trucks were basically 
>cheap to build, somebody got the bright idea to gussie one up to carry 
>people, load it with cheap, but very profitable extras like leather 
>interiors, cruise control, carpets etc., and sell them as "cars" to the 
>rubes.

Rubes being ordinary people trying to buy something bigger than a Yugo
to haul their families and stuff around in. As opposed to the sheep
who see all the commercials featuring idiots driving like kamikaze
pilots and decide that's the way to be so they go buy a sports car.

> Since they didn't know exactly what form of truck to use, they 
>started with pickup chassis and delivery vans and built people hauler 
>versions of both. The pick-up truck based SUV proved to be more 
>rube-worthy in the showrooms and that's what dominates.

What's it like to be a massive kook who thinks everything he doesn't
like is the result of a conspiracy against humanity?
There were already vehicles in the class that would come to be called
SUVs long before CAFE made them preferential to many people. When the
demand for them picked up Detroit responded by expanding the lineup in
that class and adding features. There was no bogeyman, no puppetmaster
pulling strings. There was just a nanny state that outlawed a class of
vehicles that people preferred so they sought out the next best thing.

> You rubes went 

As opposed to you sheep who took your marching orders from car
commercials.

>for these junkers 

Why are we talking about Alfa Romeos suddenly?

>in droves and bought the cynical concept hook, line 
>and sinker. The Detroit boys have patting each other on the back, all 
>the way to the bank, ever since.

Conspiracy theory kookdom at its finest!

> Hell, most American car manufacturers 
>are almost out of the "car" business, as most of their sales consist of 
>SUVs or the so-called mini-van.

What's 'so-called' about it? Its a van but compared to the tradional
van its much smaller, hence the 'mini' part.
Even at its peak non-car sales were only 1 out of 4 vehicles sold in
the US.

> I don't know about the hinterlands, but 
>here on the Left Coast, one almost never sees a new Chevy, or a new 
>Lincoln town car any more. About the only American "cars" one sees are 
>Mustangs and a smattering of the new Chrysler 300s. Usually, if you are 
>behind a newer car, it's either Japanese or German, and the rest are 
>Ford Explorers, Lincoln Navigators, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees, 
>etc.

We get the whole gamut here. I actually saw a Peugot the other day. It
was smokiong like a chimney but it was moving under its own power. I
was amazed.

> And most are hauling one person at 9 MPG

If you're not buying their gas its none of your concern.

> - and he/she is usually on their cellphone

I still see more people reading while driving than I do on cellphones.
And the cellphone thing cuts across all categories.

> and weaving in and out of traffic in these junkers as if 
>they were sports cars.  

And that should be left to the sheep driving a sports car imitating
their favorite car commercial shouldn't it?

>
>> 
>> >
>> >> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone else 
>> >> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
>> >> >   foreign energy sources.
>> >> 
>> >> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
>> >> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
>> >> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
>> >> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
>> >> shoot a hippie.
>> >
>> >ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,
>> 
>> The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil
>> companies are anticipating a goodly amount. The envirowhackos are
>> running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
>> and pretending that its Gospel.  Since the oil companies are the ones
>> who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
>> a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.
>> And it more than ANWR. There are significant oil fields off the
>> California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico that are being blocked as
>> well.
>> 
>> > and would probably take a decade to start producing at that level.
>> 
>> So? If we can't do it in a week we shouldn't do it? 
>> That makes no sense.
>> 
>> > There simply isn't enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to 
>> > meeting demand, no 
>> >matter how many national parks you want to destroy.
>> 
>> ANWR isn't a national park. No one is even talking about drilling in a
>> national park. ANWR is a barren stretch of frozen hell along the
>> Arctic Ocean. Its only significance at all is that the caribou go
>> there to fuck what little brains they have out in the spring.
>> Envirowhackos say that the drilling will destroy the caribou herds. We
>> have solid evidence that this is false. The enviroliars said the same
>> thing about the Alaska pipeline and the North Slope oil fields.
>> Caribou herds in those areas have actually risen and the caribou seem
>> to love the pipeline because it has to be heated to keep the oil
>> flowing.
>> 
>> >> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
>> >> 
>> >> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.
>> >
>> >Are you actually denying that smaller cars are, on average, cleaner?
>> 
>> And SUVs are clean by any reasonable standard. They have the same
>> pollution controls that other cars have. 
>
>But the engines are MUCH LARGER to be able to pull their 7000 pounds 
>around. Even YOU can't be this stupid, Mayor.

Are you seriously going to try and claim that the engines in a modern
SUV are putting out as much as engines in the 70's when all this
enviroextremism started?

> And don't tell me that 
>these same big engines are in some cars as well, because in the cars, 
>they don't have to work as hard, and therefore produce less emissions 
>from the same displacement.

At what point do you deem it reasonable is the key. How you pick your
baseline and how you justify it are what counts. So far you haven't
done either.

>
>> >> >-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
>> >> 
>> >> The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
>> >> going to be scared of every lie told to you.
>> >> And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
>> >> A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
>> >> wasteful.
>> >> Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
>> >> Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
>> >> that would you?
>> >> This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
>> >> thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
>> >> around. I can see why you libs do it so much.
>> >
>> >Are you aware of just how much energy you're using, with an SUV?
>> 
>> Actually I drive a minivan not an SUV. But as I said earlier, its my
>> dime, its my decision.
>
>Do you realize how utterly selfish and socially irresponsible that 
>sounds?

Do you know how communistic and dictatorial it sounds to declare that
you know better than everyone else what's good for them? Za Stalina!,
eh George?

>
>> We allocate resources by cost in this society.
>
>That's a fine way to do it too -mostly. But we're not talking about the 
>consumption of renewable resources or luxury manufactured goods here, 
>were talking about a finite resource, and a critical one at that. There 
>is simply no reason (other than one's unalienable right in this society) 
>for most people to drive a 7000 pound behemoth that gets 9 miles to a 
>gallon of gasoline to work every day while carrying only one person.

And George says, Za Stalina! again. 'Conservative' (yeah, right!)
George Graves advocates a collectivist system for allocating fuel.
You're too smart to be wasting your time in America, George. They need
you in Cuba and North Korea. 

>But what I find funny is that Liberals are just as gullible and buy just 
>as many SUVs around here as do right-wing Christian fundamentalist 
>Rednecks. You see these liberal soccer moms driving their SUVs to 
>demonstrations protesting the Iraqi War (or anything else Shrub is 
>involved in). It's really ironically hilarious to see Birkenstock 
>wearing lefties with their wire frame glasses talking on their 
>cellphones driving these huge SUVs down the freeway at 80-90 mph with 
>Kerry stickers still on their bumpers! Talk about hypocrisy!

You libs are all about hypocrisy.
>
>> When gas prices rise past people's pain threshold they'll get the
>> smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. 
>
>That doesn't seem to be true. It should be, granted, but gas prices here 
>in the SF Bay Area are now hovering around $2.60-$2.80 a gallon for the 
>high-priced spread, and it hasn't deterred anybody yet. So where is that 
>pain threshold? $3.00/gallon. $5.00/gallon? I suspect we'll know soon 
>enough. For myself, I spend so much time driving in Europe, that gas 
>prices don't bother me any more.

It'll happen when it happens.



-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/22/2005 7:10:59 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
>
> >
> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
'discussions'
> >we
> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good
car
> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >
> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
favourite
> >PC
> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >> >
> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle
car.
> >Most
> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to
the
> >more
> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
> >More
> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
> >little
> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when
it
> >comes
> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the
twisty
> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
> >face,
> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more
of a
> >> >grimace.
> >> >
> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >>
> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
be
> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >>
> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
American
> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >>
> >
> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
> >American SUVs -- huge,
>
> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
loonietune
> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
> smaller than 1970's sedans.

Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow roads
(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.
>
> > noisy,
>
> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
>
> > about as stylish as a bus,
>
> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
> cars?

Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
>
> > and constantly wasting resources.
>
> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> every week.

One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as waste.
>
> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> >terrain,
>
> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
SUV
> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.

You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
Grand Cherokee.
>
> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
of
> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> >applications.

And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
less space, in general.
>
> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
> perfectly suited for that.

Takes up way too much space. Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree that
SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who do
need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in an
urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
[snip]

--
Dave Fritzinger

0
Reply dfritzin (3022) 3/22/2005 7:25:25 PM

In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:

> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> > following wisdom:

<snip>
> > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
> SUV
> > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> 
> You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
> Grand Cherokee.
> >
> > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
> of
> > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> > >applications.
> 
> And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
> less space, in general.

In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
government's fuel economy and safety laws.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/22/2005 7:52:27 PM

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:52:27 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> > following wisdom:
>
><snip>
>> > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
>> SUV
>> > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
>> > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
>> > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
>> 
>> You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
>> Grand Cherokee.
>> >
>> > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>> > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
>> of
>> > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>> > >applications.
>> 
>> And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
>> less space, in general.
>
>In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
>does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
>vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
>government's fuel economy and safety laws.

Which makes the car companies amazingly prescient as what came to be
called SUVs date back to the 1940's.
I wonder if my local car dealer can give me next week's lotto numbers?





-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/22/2005 7:59:12 PM

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:59:12 GMT, Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:52:27 GMT, George Graves
><gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>> > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>>> > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>>> > following wisdom:
>>
>><snip>
>>> > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
>>> SUV
>>> > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
>>> > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
>>> > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
>>> 
>>> You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
>>> Grand Cherokee.
>>> >
>>> > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>>> > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
>>> of
>>> > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>>> > >applications.
>>> 
>>> And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
>>> less space, in general.
>>
>>In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
>>does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
>>vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
>>government's fuel economy and safety laws.
>
>Which makes the car companies amazingly prescient as what came to be
>called SUVs date back to the 1940's.

D'oh! I was wrong. They date back to the 1920's. 

>I wonder if my local car dealer can give me next week's lotto numbers?

-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/22/2005 8:03:01 PM

On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:

>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>>
>> >
>> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
>> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
>'discussions'
>> >we
>> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good
>car
>> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>> >> >
>> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
>favourite
>> >PC
>> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>> >> >
>> >> >This is my baby:
>> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle
>car.
>> >Most
>> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to
>the
>> >more
>> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
>> >More
>> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
>> >little
>> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when
>it
>> >comes
>> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the
>twisty
>> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
>> >face,
>> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more
>of a
>> >> >grimace.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>> >>
>> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
>be
>> >> among the least reliable overall."
>> >>
>> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
>American
>> >> one does have some basis in fact.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
>> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
>> >American SUVs -- huge,
>>
>> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
>loonietune
>> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
>> smaller than 1970's sedans.
>
>Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow roads
>(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.

Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't see any
reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of universal
ideal that we should implement here.

>>
>> > noisy,
>>
>> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
>>
>> > about as stylish as a bus,
>>
>> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
>> cars?
>
>Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
>>
>> > and constantly wasting resources.
>>
>> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> every week.
>
>One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as waste.

By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid than
the the Hummer's owner's?

>>
>> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
>> >terrain,
>>
>> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
>SUV
>> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
>> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
>> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
>
>You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
>Grand Cherokee.

All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from one type
of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway across
the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to be
realistic.
I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.

>>
>> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
>of
>> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>> >applications.
>
>And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
>less space, in general.

Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which might
not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes in
handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff you
find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on when
making a vehicle purchase.
>>
>> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
>> perfectly suited for that.
>
>Takes up way too much space.

Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more valid than
those of the SUV's owner's? 
And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that meets
their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of various
sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with one
occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to the brim
and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.

> Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
>where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree that
>SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who do
>need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in an
>urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
>[snip]

I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you mean its
hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a problem
here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in downtown
Indianapolis.
If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen people
attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini Cooper.




-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/22/2005 8:26:57 PM

In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:30:26 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <4k7v31hpgnelokbhrs5oto9tiusjd9hsjg@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:42:57 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> >> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> >> >> following wisdom:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> >> >> every week.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> >> >> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
> >> >> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
> >> >> >   smaller vehicle.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
> >> >> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
> >> >> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
> >> >> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
> >> >> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> >> >> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
> >> >> most people aren't behind you on that one?
> >> >
> >> >It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
> >> >Mayor.
> >> 
> >> Wrong. Its been an oft told enough old wives tale that many think its
> >> true.
> >> http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf
> >> 
> >> > Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
> >> >more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
> >> >an accident.
> >> 
> >> ZnU contradicts himself in 3..2..1..
> >> 
> >> >Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
> >> >runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
> >> >cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
> >> >around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
> >> >doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.
> >> 
> >> http://www.audiocomedy.net/political/yugo.shtml
> >> 
> >> So you're less safe in an SUV but in an average crash the SUV driver's
> >> safety, which earlier you were saying didn't exist, comes at the
> >> expense of the guy who chose to drive a small car? 
> >> Life is full of tradeoffs. If someone wants to trade safety for
> >> whatever it is that he's getting from driving the smaller car that's
> >> his choice. Part of living in a free society is allowing people to
> >> make choices that you don't think make any sense.
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >> >2) Puts more wear and tear on roads, leading to higher maintenance 
> >> >> >   costs, born by the taxpayer.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Everything going over them causes wear and tear on the roads. If you
> >> >> really think that the difference between a car and an SUV is greater
> >> >> than the difference between a car and your average UPS/FedEx truck
> >> >> (which you don't seem to be upset about even though they seem to be
> >> >> everywhere these days) then you are nuts.
> >> >
> >> >If you don't understand the difference between driving a truck because 
> >> >you need to move a lot of packages around, and driving a truck because 
> >> >it gives you a false illusion of safety
> >> 
> >> Is that the false illusion that comes at the expense of the driver of
> >> the car or is it the false illusion that comes from listening to
> >> liberal moonbats? And wouldn't a 'false illusion' be something that
> >> was really there?
> >> 
> >> > and makes you feel big and powerful, you've got some issues.
> >> 
> >> LOL! This says a lot more about you than it does me. I don't need a
> >> truck to make me feel big and powerful. It does fairly scream that
> >> you're extremely insecure since you have to go around assigning these
> >> kinds of motivations to people's choices.
> >> How do you know that the person you see driving an SUV to work alone
> >> doesn't use it to pull a boat and take his friends fishing on the
> >> weekends? Or haul a passel of yung'uns to some sporting event after
> >> work? Or do you think everyone should own a whole fleet of cars of
> >> various types and sizes to meet every possible travel situation that
> >> comes up?
> >> 
> >> >I think you'll notice that anti-SUV sentiments were largely absent when 
> >> >they accounted for 2% of the auto market and were only purchased by 
> >> >people who actually needed them.
> >> 
> >> The envirowhackos have always been after something. First it was the
> >> big sedans. Well they got rid of them and people turned to SUVs.
> >> Before the envirowhackos noticed the SUVs they were screaming that
> >> participates in diesel exhaust was going to be the death of us all.
> >> Then they noticed that SUVs were popular and went on their screaming
> >> fit about that?
> >> And just who in the hell are you to think you get to decide what
> >> people 'need'? Give me your address, ZnU. I'm going to show up at your
> >> house and do a 'need' audit on you. Let's see if you come anywhere
> >> close to meeting the standard you want to impose on everyone else.
> >> Somehow I'm willing to bet that you've got one helluva lot more stuff
> >> than you 'need'.
> >
> >Do you have any idea WHY the SUV was "invented" Mayor?
> 
> Its not going to be your silly conspiracy theory again is it?
> 
> > It's American corporate cynicism at it's most basic.
> 
> Apparently it is going to your silly conspiracy theory again.
> 
> > CAFE and DOT safety rules took the profit out of the big clunker American 
> > car,
> 
> I never saw one of these klunker cars. Never heard of them either.
> Now CAFE did make it untenable to make big cars.

Big cars = clunkers. 

> The fines would have
> put the automakers out of business if they continued to sell what the
> people wanted to buy. As usual the liberal nanny state demanded that
> people be forced to use something they didn't want.
> 
> > so Detroit stopped making them.
> 
> You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> money on and then actually think you're a conservative?

I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big, 
unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to 
try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
this one for that attitude.

> > Problem is, it cost almost as much to build a small car as 
> >it did to make a big one, yet they couldn't charge as much (at the time 
> >- of course, that's largely changed now) for the small car and profits 
> >fell. Detroit fished around for something to replace their traditional 
> >cash-cow big sedans. Realizing that trucks were exempt from CAFE and 
> >most safety regulations, and also realizing that trucks were basically 
> >cheap to build, somebody got the bright idea to gussie one up to carry 
> >people, load it with cheap, but very profitable extras like leather 
> >interiors, cruise control, carpets etc., and sell them as "cars" to the 
> >rubes.
> 
> Rubes being ordinary people trying to buy something bigger than a Yugo
> to haul their families and stuff around in. As opposed to the sheep
> who see all the commercials featuring idiots driving like kamikaze
> pilots and decide that's the way to be so they go buy a sports car.

Most people I see driving like kamikaze pilots are driving trucks - and 
that includes SUVs. I was passed Saturday on the freeway by some idiot 
in a big Dodge Ram pickup truck on wheels so tall that one would need a 
ladder to get into (OK, I'm exaggerating. but you get the point), 
weaving in and out of traffic, passing people on the right at 90 MPH + 
with the damn truck slewing violently from side to side. He almost 
clipped me as went around me. Of course, to the Mayor, this is OK 
because the guy was driving Dee-Troit iron instead of some pansy 
European or Japanese sports car.

> > Since they didn't know exactly what form of truck to use, they 
> >started with pickup chassis and delivery vans and built people hauler 
> >versions of both. The pick-up truck based SUV proved to be more 
> >rube-worthy in the showrooms and that's what dominates.
> 
> What's it like to be a massive kook who thinks everything he doesn't
> like is the result of a conspiracy against humanity?

I don't know mayor. You tell me how it is to think that anything you 
don't like (such as sports cars and motorcycles) should be outlawed?

> There were already vehicles in the class that would come to be called
> SUVs long before CAFE made them preferential to many people.

Sure, and they were mostly purchased by people who needed them (lived in 
rural areas where it snowed, or where there weren't decent roads, etc.)


> When the demand for them picked up Detroit responded by expanding the lineup in
> that class and adding features.

Bullshit. They invented a new class of cash cow and then told the sheep 
that they wanted, nay, NEEDED one. As usual, the sheep responded 
accordingly.

> There was no bogeyman, no puppetmaster
> pulling strings. There was just a nanny state that outlawed a class of
> vehicles that people preferred so they sought out the next best thing.

> > You rubes went 
> 
> As opposed to you sheep who took your marching orders from car
> commercials.

That's exactly what created the artificial demand for SUVs

> >for these junkers 
> 
> Why are we talking about Alfa Romeos suddenly?
> 
> >in droves and bought the cynical concept hook, line 
> >and sinker. The Detroit boys have patting each other on the back, all 
> >the way to the bank, ever since.
> 
> Conspiracy theory kookdom at its finest!

Conspiracy? Boy are you naive. The US auto manufacturers have always 
been in cahoots. The only place where they actually compete is on the 
showroom floor (and maybe the racetrack). Why do you think that 
improvements in US cars were always done together by all of the Big 
Three at once? Brits, mostly had disc brakes on cars since the early 
fifties, but you couldn't even get them on US cars until the mid to late 
60's and then they magically appeared on all makes all at the same time. 
It's the reason why US cars from the big three have always been 
basically the same under the skin, with nobody upsetting the status quo.  
Hell, Tucker tried to make a quantum leap in car design and the Big 
Three squashed him like a bug!  Conspiracy.....

> > Hell, most American car manufacturers 
> >are almost out of the "car" business, as most of their sales consist of 
> >SUVs or the so-called mini-van.
> 
> What's 'so-called' about it? Its a van but compared to the tradional
> van its much smaller, hence the 'mini' part.
> Even at its peak non-car sales were only 1 out of 4 vehicles sold in
> the US.

> > I don't know about the hinterlands, but 
> >here on the Left Coast, one almost never sees a new Chevy, or a new 
> >Lincoln town car any more. About the only American "cars" one sees are 
> >Mustangs and a smattering of the new Chrysler 300s. Usually, if you are 
> >behind a newer car, it's either Japanese or German, and the rest are 
> >Ford Explorers, Lincoln Navigators, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees, 
> >etc.
> 
> We get the whole gamut here. I actually saw a Peugot the other day. It
> was smokiong like a chimney but it was moving under its own power. I
> was amazed.

Well, the old-style Diesels did smoke like chimneys, and it would have 
to be an old-style Diesel because Peugeots haven't been sold in the USA 
in more than a decade. Modern JDT chomiostoic (SP?) Diesel engines don't 
smoke. Of course, we don't get to buy them here in the USA because they 
require something we don't have: low sulfur Diesel fuel. 
> 
> > And most are hauling one person at 9 MPG
> 
> If you're not buying their gas its none of your concern.
> 
> > - and he/she is usually on their cellphone
> 
> I still see more people reading while driving than I do on cellphones.
> And the cellphone thing cuts across all categories.

> > and weaving in and out of traffic in these junkers as if 
> >they were sports cars.  
> 
> And that should be left to the sheep driving a sports car imitating
> their favorite car commercial shouldn't it?

Car commercials show SUVs doing that.

> >> >> >3) Creates more demand for oil, driving up gas prices for everyone 
> >> >> >else 
> >> >> >   (that's basic supply and demand) and increasing US reliance on 
> >> >> >   foreign energy sources.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
> >> >> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
> >> >> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
> >> >> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
> >> >> shoot a hippie.
> >> >
> >> >ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,
> >> 
> >> The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil
> >> companies are anticipating a goodly amount. The envirowhackos are
> >> running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
> >> and pretending that its Gospel.  Since the oil companies are the ones
> >> who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
> >> a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.
> >> And it more than ANWR. There are significant oil fields off the
> >> California coast and in the Gulf of Mexico that are being blocked as
> >> well.
> >> 
> >> > and would probably take a decade to start producing at that level.
> >> 
> >> So? If we can't do it in a week we shouldn't do it? 
> >> That makes no sense.
> >> 
> >> > There simply isn't enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to 
> >> > meeting demand, no 
> >> >matter how many national parks you want to destroy.
> >> 
> >> ANWR isn't a national park. No one is even talking about drilling in a
> >> national park. ANWR is a barren stretch of frozen hell along the
> >> Arctic Ocean. Its only significance at all is that the caribou go
> >> there to fuck what little brains they have out in the spring.
> >> Envirowhackos say that the drilling will destroy the caribou herds. We
> >> have solid evidence that this is false. The enviroliars said the same
> >> thing about the Alaska pipeline and the North Slope oil fields.
> >> Caribou herds in those areas have actually risen and the caribou seem
> >> to love the pipeline because it has to be heated to keep the oil
> >> flowing.
> >> 
> >> >> >4) Dumps extra crap into the air everyone has to breath 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Like the Vespa you want everyone to drive is pollution free.
> >> >
> >> >Are you actually denying that smaller cars are, on average, cleaner?
> >> 
> >> And SUVs are clean by any reasonable standard. They have the same
> >> pollution controls that other cars have. 
> >
> >But the engines are MUCH LARGER to be able to pull their 7000 pounds 
> >around. Even YOU can't be this stupid, Mayor.
> 
> Are you seriously going to try and claim that the engines in a modern
> SUV are putting out as much as engines in the 70's when all this
> enviroextremism started?

NO, but that's not going to stop you from trying to put words in my 
mouth, Clyde. Look, living in the sticks like you do, I can see why you 
might think that this is all just so much enviroextremism (and I'll 
admit that some of it IS just political hay-making), but when I first 
came to California, I remember summer days when the air was so polluted 
that you could stand 100 yards from an intersection and not be able to 
see the cross traffic clearly enough to make out the brands of cars that 
were passing. I haven't seen smog like that in 20 years in spite of the 
fact that there are probably 10X the cars in this area now as there were 
then. Pollution controls WORK. I'm a living witness to the fact. I'd 
hate to see what this area would look like without them and as bad as 
this area would be, LA would be worse. hell people would be dropping 
like flies down there.

> 
> > And don't tell me that 
> >these same big engines are in some cars as well, because in the cars, 
> >they don't have to work as hard, and therefore produce less emissions 
> >from the same displacement.
> 
> At what point do you deem it reasonable is the key. How you pick your
> baseline and how you justify it are what counts. So far you haven't
> done either.

What is reasonable is what is necessary to get the job done. Modern JDT 
Diesel technology would go a long way toward these goals, but as I said, 
we don't have the necessary "sweet" Diesel fuel to make them work here 
in the USA. Modern 2 and 2.5 liter 4-cylinder gasoline engines are clean 
and low emissions and in small, light cars provide more than adequate 
performance. We just don't need big SUVs. 90%+ of the people who buy 
them just buy them because everybody else has one. I know a family of 
four: man, wife, teenage daughter, older daughter. ALL FOUR of them own 
a huge SUV. The guy has a big Navigator, the wife has a big V-8 
Cherokee, the older daughter owns a Hummer, and the teenage daughter a 
Jimmy Denali. None of them ever carry anything, or anybody but 
themselves or EVER go off-road. Now are going to tell me that they own 
these junkers for any other reason than that they are popular?

> >> >> >-- and adds    extra CO2 to an atmosphere which doesn't need it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The ol' global warming bogeyman again, eh? I can't help you if you're
> >> >> going to be scared of every lie told to you.
> >> >> And don't run your A/C this summer. People lived in New York before
> >> >> A/C was invented so obviously you don't need it and running it is
> >> >> wasteful.
> >> >> Oh, and don't turn your thermostat up over 65 degrees in the winter.
> >> >> Any more than that and you'll be wasting fuel. You wouldn't want to do
> >> >> that would you?
> >> >> This is fun being an arrogant ass and pretending that every little
> >> >> thing everyone does is my business and I'm entitled to order them
> >> >> around. I can see why you libs do it so much.
> >> >
> >> >Are you aware of just how much energy you're using, with an SUV?
> >> 
> >> Actually I drive a minivan not an SUV. But as I said earlier, its my
> >> dime, its my decision.
> >
> >Do you realize how utterly selfish and socially irresponsible that 
> >sounds?
> 
> Do you know how communistic and dictatorial it sounds to declare that
> you know better than everyone else what's good for them? Za Stalina!,
> eh George?

When people haven't the good sense to govern themselves, often they have 
to be governed by the needs of society. 

> >> We allocate resources by cost in this society.
> >
> >That's a fine way to do it too -mostly. But we're not talking about the 
> >consumption of renewable resources or luxury manufactured goods here, 
> >were talking about a finite resource, and a critical one at that. There 
> >is simply no reason (other than one's unalienable right in this society) 
> >for most people to drive a 7000 pound behemoth that gets 9 miles to a 
> >gallon of gasoline to work every day while carrying only one person.
> 
> And George says, Za Stalina! again. 'Conservative' (yeah, right!)
> George Graves advocates a collectivist system for allocating fuel.
> You're too smart to be wasting your time in America, George. They need
> you in Cuba and North Korea.

What an idiot you are, Mayor! And a dishonest one at that! I have 
advocated no "collectivist system for allocating fuel" in fact, I've 
advocated no system for allocating fuel at all. I just think that it's 
folly to needlessly waste non-renewable resources. Especially when it 
would be so easy not to. And as for being a Conservative, I am. I'm a 
true Conservative, I'd like to conserve our standard of living, way of 
life, and independence. While you, it seems, are all for mindlessly 
squandering it away on NOTHING just because you feel that it's your 
Constitutional right to do so. 

> >But what I find funny is that Liberals are just as gullible and buy just 
> >as many SUVs around here as do right-wing Christian fundamentalist 
> >Rednecks. You see these liberal soccer moms driving their SUVs to 
> >demonstrations protesting the Iraqi War (or anything else Shrub is 
> >involved in). It's really ironically hilarious to see Birkenstock 
> >wearing lefties with their wire frame glasses talking on their 
> >cellphones driving these huge SUVs down the freeway at 80-90 mph with 
> >Kerry stickers still on their bumpers! Talk about hypocrisy!
> 
> You libs are all about hypocrisy.

Yes, Liberals are all about hypocrisy. And some of you traditional  
Conservatives seem to be all about stupidity. You will support 
corporations that screw you every day for a buck, who will sell your 
future and that of your descendants down the toilet for some gain, real 
or imagined (look at the Enron mess). Where your stupidity comes in is 
your apparent inability to see the difference between mindlessly selfish 
and enlightened self-interest.

> >> When gas prices rise past people's pain threshold they'll get the
> >> smaller more fuel efficient vehicle. 
> >
> >That doesn't seem to be true. It should be, granted, but gas prices here 
> >in the SF Bay Area are now hovering around $2.60-$2.80 a gallon for the 
> >high-priced spread, and it hasn't deterred anybody yet. So where is that 
> >pain threshold? $3.00/gallon. $5.00/gallon? I suspect we'll know soon 
> >enough. For myself, I spend so much time driving in Europe, that gas 
> >prices don't bother me any more.
> 
> It'll happen when it happens.

Why not work toward not having it happen at all? How about applying a 
little foresight for a change? We could reduce the amount of gasoline 
used in this country by half in a decade, if we tried. All we have to do 
is stop buying gas guzzling automobiles and SUVs, force Detroit and 
others to make light, efficient, and good handling, safe cars. We could 
do it by just voting with our pocketbooks instead of mindlessly buying 
everything that the auto industry throws at us. That's the best kind of 
enlightened capitalism. Enacting change with our pocketbooks, not 
waiting until our own stupidity and world events overpower us and force 
us to change - which seems to be what you advocate.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/22/2005 9:13:00 PM

In article 
<gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 

> > 
> > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> 
> I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big, 
> unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to 
> try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
> polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
> wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
> this one for that attitude.

The problem could be solved quite easily.

Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.

Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
costs, medical costs, etc.

No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
SUVs.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/22/2005 9:23:18 PM

In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > 
> > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > 
> > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big, 
> > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to 
> > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
> > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
> > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
> > this one for that attitude.
> 
> The problem could be solved quite easily.
> 
> Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> 
> Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> costs, medical costs, etc.
> 
> No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> SUVs.

I've no problem with that, although I'd prefer to see something 
stimulate the auto makers to build small, light, efficient, and safe 
vehicles in their stead.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/22/2005 11:10:31 PM

In article <n5u0415udu2q9i95h9f2lmss7qj5h1175v@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:52:27 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> > following wisdom:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
> >> SUV
> >> > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> >> > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> >> > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> >> 
> >> You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >> >
> >> > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> >> > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
> >> of
> >> > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> >> > >applications.
> >> 
> >> And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
> >> less space, in general.
> >
> >In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
> >does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
> >vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
> >government's fuel economy and safety laws.
> 
> Which makes the car companies amazingly prescient as what came to be
> called SUVs date back to the 1940's.
> I wonder if my local car dealer can give me next week's lotto numbers?

Are you always this ingenuous? I guess the answer is yes.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/22/2005 11:16:08 PM

In article 
<gmgravesnos-B898B5.15103122032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > > 
> > > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big, 
> > > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> > > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to 
> > > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
> > > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
> > > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
> > > this one for that attitude.
> > 
> > The problem could be solved quite easily.
> > 
> > Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> > passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> > overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> > passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> > 
> > Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> > transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> > costs, medical costs, etc.
> > 
> > No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> > their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> > people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> > SUVs.
> 
> I've no problem with that, although I'd prefer to see something 
> stimulate the auto makers to build small, light, efficient, and safe 
> vehicles in their stead.

Well, if the SUVs were added to the CAFE standards in 2007, the car 
makers would HAVE to make fuel efficient cars - or pay billions in fines.

Not that increasing the CAFE standards even further wouldn't be a good 
idea.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/23/2005 3:20:40 AM

In article <6vu041l7njcssil393ji895s6o3n7gd3ru@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless us
> with the following wisdom:
> 
> >
> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> >> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
> >'discussions'
> >> >we
> >> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good
> >car
> >> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
> >favourite
> >> >PC
> >> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle
> >car.
> >> >Most
> >> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to
> >the
> >> >more
> >> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
> >> >More
> >> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
> >> >little
> >> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when
> >it
> >> >comes
> >> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the
> >twisty
> >> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
> >> >face,
> >> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more
> >of a
> >> >> >grimace.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >> >>
> >> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> >> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> >> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
> >be
> >> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >> >>
> >> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
> >American
> >> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
> >> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
> >> >American SUVs -- huge,
> >>
> >> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
> >loonietune
> >> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
> >> smaller than 1970's sedans.
> >
> >Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow roads
> >(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.
> 
> Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't see any
> reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of universal
> ideal that we should implement here.

And, I never said we should. That said, having driven in Europe (albeit 
20 years ago), and here, it seems European cars are more enjoyable to 
drive. 
> 
> >>
> >> > noisy,
> >>
> >> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
> >>
> >> > about as stylish as a bus,
> >>
> >> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
> >> cars?
> >
> >Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
> >>
> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >>
> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> every week.
> >
> >One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as waste.
> 
> By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid than
> the the Hummer's owner's?

Do you think it makes sense for one person to drive a 3 ton vehicle to 
work every day? Hell, if you have the money to buy a Hummer (they cost 
$50k), you have the money to buy a commuting car as well. When you think 
that the US, with about 5% of the world's population uses about 25% of 
the world's energy, yet do not have higher living standards than they do 
in Europe or Japan, you would have to say that one person driving to 
work in a Hummer (especially in Hawaii) is wasteful. 
> 
> >>
> >> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> >> >terrain,
> >>
> >> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
> >SUV
> >> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> >> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> >> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> >
> >You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
> >Grand Cherokee.
> 
> All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from one type
> of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway across
> the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to be
> realistic.

No, but as I said, it is supposed to convey the message that you can 
drive anywhere in a Hummer (as long as there is a gas station handy, 
that is)
> I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.

I saw a few when the Grand Cherokee was first introduced, a couple of 
months ago. 
> 
> >>
> >> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> >> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
> >of
> >> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> >> >applications.
> >
> >And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
> >less space, in general.
> 
> Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which might
> not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes in
> handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
> difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff you
> find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
> Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on when
> making a vehicle purchase.

You are talking about things I never mentioned. If you live in a rural 
area with severe winters (and, yes, Indiana would qualify), you can make 
a case for buying a SUV. If you tow a boat, you can make a case for 
buying an SUV. If you commute to NYC, the case is more challenging, IMHO.
> >>
> >> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
> >> perfectly suited for that.
> >
> >Takes up way too much space.
> 
> Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more valid than
> those of the SUV's owner's? 

Because I have to drive a small car surrounded by those dinosaurs, for 
one reason. Because gas is getting more expensive, because, in part, of 
our wasteful practices. Etc. 

> And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that meets
> their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of various
> sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with one
> occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to the brim
> and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.

As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably 
afford a small car for commuting purposes. 
> 
> > Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
> >where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree that
> >SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who do
> >need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in an
> >urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
> >[snip]
> 
> I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you mean its
> hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a problem
> here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in downtown
> Indianapolis.
> If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
> disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen people
> attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini Cooper.

I mean small spaces and large vehicles. When I lived in Utah, parking a 
large car was not a problem (we had a Dodge Intrepid at the time, which 
is not small). In Hawaii, and in NYC, parking spaces are much smaller. 
Indeed, you quite often see the Hummers, etc., taking up 1.5 spots.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
Reply dfritzinnospam (614) 3/23/2005 5:05:12 AM

In article 
<gmgravesnos-5AFE1E.11522722032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>  dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> > > following wisdom:
> 
> <snip>
> > > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
> > SUV
> > > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> > > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> > > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> > 
> > You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
> > Grand Cherokee.
> > >
> > > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> > > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
> > of
> > > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> > > >applications.
> > 
> > And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
> > less space, in general.
> 
> In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
> does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
> vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
> government's fuel economy and safety laws.

That is true. I remember a friend who had a Ford Expedition, which had 
less passenger room than our Intrepid, and not much more than our 
current Accord. And, the reasons why the manufacturers are selling the 
SUVs are just as George says. They are also the most profitable vehicles 
the companies make. Crude (truck) suspension, big engine, throw in some 
leather and you have a Cadillac Escalade, which sells for over $50k, and 
probably gives GM $10K profit/sale.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
Reply dfritzinnospam (614) 3/23/2005 5:08:15 AM

In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > 
> > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > 
> > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big, 
> > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to 
> > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
> > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
> > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
> > this one for that attitude.
> 
> The problem could be solved quite easily.
> 
> Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> 
> Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> costs, medical costs, etc.
> 
> No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> SUVs.

One other, simple thing. Get rid of the giant SUV tax write-off that 
Congress passed a couple of years ago. People who own their own business 
can completely write off the cost of a truck (or SUV), if it is big 
enough. Pure and utter insanity.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
Reply dfritzinnospam (614) 3/23/2005 5:18:26 AM

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
<dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <6vu041l7njcssil393ji895s6o3n7gd3ru@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless us
>> with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >
>> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
>> >> following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
>> >> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
>> >'discussions'
>> >> >we
>> >> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a good
>> >car
>> >> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
>> >favourite
>> >> >PC
>> >> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >This is my baby:
>> >> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American muscle
>> >car.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared to
>> >the
>> >> >more
>> >> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle car.
>> >> >More
>> >> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow the
>> >> >little
>> >> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But when
>> >it
>> >> >comes
>> >> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on the
>> >twisty
>> >> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on your
>> >> >face,
>> >> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be more
>> >of a
>> >> >> >grimace.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> >> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
>> >> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
>> >> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
>> >be
>> >> >> among the least reliable overall."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
>> >American
>> >> >> one does have some basis in fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
>> >> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
>> >> >American SUVs -- huge,
>> >>
>> >> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
>> >loonietune
>> >> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs are
>> >> smaller than 1970's sedans.
>> >
>> >Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow roads
>> >(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.
>> 
>> Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't see any
>> reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of universal
>> ideal that we should implement here.
>
>And, I never said we should. That said, having driven in Europe (albeit 
>20 years ago), and here, it seems European cars are more enjoyable to 
>drive. 
>> 
>> >>
>> >> > noisy,
>> >>
>> >> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
>> >>
>> >> > about as stylish as a bus,
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most small
>> >> cars?
>> >
>> >Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
>> >>
>> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
>> >>
>> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
>> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
>> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
>> >> every week.
>> >
>> >One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as waste.
>> 
>> By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid than
>> the the Hummer's owner's?
>
>Do you think it makes sense for one person to drive a 3 ton vehicle to 
>work every day?

I think that its up to each individual to make that choice so long as
he's using his funds to bankroll it and not mine.

> Hell, if you have the money to buy a Hummer (they cost 
>$50k), you have the money to buy a commuting car as well.

Not necessarily. People do all kind of things with their money. Just
because they have an expensive car doesn't mean that they have
anything left over.
When I was in school I worked for a place that delivered items for
stores. It wasn't uncommon for us to take something out to the swanky
side of town and make a delivery to a multimillion dollar house that
had very little furniture, and what was there was usually either old
or cheap. The people had spent all of their money buying a house in
the 'right' neighborhood and getting the BMW and Mercedes to park out
front where everyone could see them. They didn't have anything left to
furnish their house with.

> When you think 
>that the US, with about 5% of the world's population uses about 25% of 
>the world's energy,

Why is this significant? I'm damn proud to be using more energy than
most of the world's people. In case you haven't noticed most of the
world's people live like crap.

> yet do not have higher living standards than they do 
>in Europe or Japan,

Sez you! I've been to Europe. You're not fooling me on that one. I've
known Japanese guys too but never been there. They thought my house
was a freakin' mansion compared to the dinky things they lived in at
home. My house isn't a large one by any means.

> you would have to say that one person driving to work in a Hummer (especially in Hawaii) is wasteful. 

Sorry but that's no basis for declaring anything wasteful. 

>> >>
>> >> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
>> >> >terrain,
>> >>
>> >> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
>> >SUV
>> >> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
>> >> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
>> >> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
>> >
>> >You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
>> >Grand Cherokee.
>> 
>> All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from one type
>> of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway across
>> the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to be
>> realistic.
>
>No, but as I said, it is supposed to convey the message that you can 
>drive anywhere in a Hummer (as long as there is a gas station handy, 
>that is)
>> I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.
>
>I saw a few when the Grand Cherokee was first introduced, a couple of 
>months ago. 
>> 
>> >>
>> >> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>> >> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
>> >of
>> >> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>> >> >applications.
>> >
>> >And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
>> >less space, in general.
>> 
>> Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which might
>> not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes in
>> handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
>> difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff you
>> find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
>> Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on when
>> making a vehicle purchase.
>
>You are talking about things I never mentioned. If you live in a rural 
>area with severe winters (and, yes, Indiana would qualify), you can make 
>a case for buying a SUV. If you tow a boat, you can make a case for 
>buying an SUV. If you commute to NYC, the case is more challenging, IMHO.
>> >>
>> >> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
>> >> perfectly suited for that.
>> >
>> >Takes up way too much space.
>> 
>> Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more valid than
>> those of the SUV's owner's? 
>
>Because I have to drive a small car surrounded by those dinosaurs, for 
>one reason.

No, you chose to drive a small car. You could have just as easily
bought something larger but you felt that thee was a value in
smallness that you were willing to tradeoff for. SUVs were around when
you bought it so you can't claim to have been taken by surprise.

> Because gas is getting more expensive, because, in part, of 
>our wasteful practices. Etc. 

Gas prices are rising mainly because  increased demand from China and
India are straining current production. SUVs have zip to do with it.

>
>> And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that meets
>> their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of various
>> sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with one
>> occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to the brim
>> and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.
>
>As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably 
>afford a small car for commuting purposes. 

Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
you've got a helluva long commute.
And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.

>> 
>> > Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
>> >where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree that
>> >SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who do
>> >need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in an
>> >urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
>> >[snip]
>> 
>> I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you mean its
>> hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a problem
>> here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in downtown
>> Indianapolis.
>> If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
>> disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen people
>> attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini Cooper.
>
>I mean small spaces and large vehicles. When I lived in Utah, parking a 
>large car was not a problem (we had a Dodge Intrepid at the time, which 
>is not small). In Hawaii, and in NYC, parking spaces are much smaller. 
>Indeed, you quite often see the Hummers, etc., taking up 1.5 spots.

If the spaces aren't big enough for the Hummer what else are they
supposed to do?




-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/23/2005 5:35:52 AM

In article <4k7v31hpgnelokbhrs5oto9tiusjd9hsjg@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:42:57 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <1ios31h0kblr4ju0987jt1r8df6am040b8@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:40:42 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >In article <dtls31h7kkprj14lsoi0ooq0m9u7344g97@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> >> >> following wisdom:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> >> 
> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what isn't?
> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if I'm
> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a check
> >> >> every week.
> >> >
> >> >Ahh, that good old right-wing myth that wasting resources isn't 
> >> >society's business as long as people do it with their own money.
> >> >
> >> >Let's go over this. Your big honking vehicle:
> >> >
> >> >1) Increases life insurance, health in insurance and auto insurance 
> >> >   rates for everyone, because it poses an increased danger vs. a 
> >> >   smaller vehicle.
> >> 
> >> Why how can this be? Everyone 'knows' that at the slightest contact
> >> with another vehicle an SUV jumps nine feet in the air flips on its
> >> back, hits the ground and explodes! Could it be that's all bullshit
> >> and that they really do survive most crashes better than average cars?
> >> And I can't help but notice that your 'solution' to the 'problem' is
> >> to force everyone into the less safe vehicle. Do you have any idea why
> >> most people aren't behind you on that one?
> >
> >It has been very well established that SUVs are the less safe vehicles, 
> >Mayor.
> 
> Wrong. Its been an oft told enough old wives tale that many think its
> true.
> http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf

Wow, Mayor, I can't imagine that "The Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers" would have any interest whatsoever in misleading people 
about the safety of their most profitable vehicles.

> > Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will understand that 
> >more momentum and a higher center of gravity are both very bad things in 
> >an accident.
> 
> ZnU contradicts himself in 3..2..1..
> 
> >Oh, sure, you've probably got better odds of walking away if your SUV 
> >runs over some guy's Japanese compact. But a crash between two small 
> >cars with the steel cage designs that some small car makers are playing 
> >around with is probably safer still -- and the safety of one driver 
> >doesn't come at the expense of the safety of the other.
> 
> http://www.audiocomedy.net/political/yugo.shtml
> 
> So you're less safe in an SUV but in an average crash the SUV driver's
> safety, which earlier you were saying didn't exist, comes at the
> expense of the guy who chose to drive a small car? 

Wow, you're an idiot, Mayor. The fact that you're safer in a crash with 
a smaller vehicle -- at the other guy's expense -- does not demonstrate 
that you're safer overall.

> Life is full of tradeoffs. If someone wants to trade safety for
> whatever it is that he's getting from driving the smaller car that's
> his choice. Part of living in a free society is allowing people to
> make choices that you don't think make any sense.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Given that an SUV is generally *not* safer 
*except* in crashes with smaller cars, the presence of SUVs on the road 
does not increase overall safety. At best it increases the safety of 
some drivers at the expense of others, which does not seem like a 
legitimate interest. At worse it decreases safety for everyone.

[snip]

> >> Here's a newsflash for you, ZnU. We were dependent on foreign oil
> >> before SUVs became popular. The main thing keeping us dependent on
> >> foreign oil isn't SUVs. Its treehugging idiots keeping us for drilling
> >> and pumping our own. If you really want to get us oil independent then
> >> shoot a hippie.
> >
> >ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,
> 
> The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil
> companies are anticipating a goodly amount. The envirowhackos are
> running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
> and pretending that its Gospel.  Since the oil companies are the ones
> who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
> a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.

5% is the optimistic industry estimate.

[snip]

> > A gallon of gas contains something on the order of 60 KWh of energy. Your 
> >SUV could use more energy on the way to the store than an air 
> >conditioner does during an entire day.
> 
> Typical liberal - my waste is ok; your waste is EVIIIIL!
> 
> Think of how much energy we could save if we outlawed air
> conditioners. How much coal would we not have to burn? How much
> cleaner would the air be? Why won't you get behind this idea? Its
> clear that air conditioning is nothing but a waste. People lived for
> centuries  without it. You clearly don't 'need' it...or is it somehow
> different when it comes to things you value?

Can you read? Nobody is asking anyone to quit driving cars (they're a 
bad idea in a lot of places, but probably not around where you're 
located), only to quit driving vehicles twice as big as there's any sane 
reason to make them.

If I were wasting gobs of electricity cooling my apartment down to 32 
degrees all summer, even when I wasn't there, I don't think it would be 
out of line for someone to tell me to cut that out.

[snip]

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/23/2005 7:04:41 AM

In article <Nowhere-24AA23.21204022032005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-B898B5.15103122032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> > > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > > > 
> > > > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of 
> > > > big, 
> > > > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> > > > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted 
> > > > to 
> > > > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less 
> > > > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the 
> > > > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > > > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like 
> > > > this one for that attitude.
> > > 
> > > The problem could be solved quite easily.
> > > 
> > > Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> > > passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> > > overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> > > passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> > > 
> > > Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> > > transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> > > costs, medical costs, etc.
> > > 
> > > No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> > > their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> > > people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> > > SUVs.
> > 
> > I've no problem with that, although I'd prefer to see something 
> > stimulate the auto makers to build small, light, efficient, and safe 
> > vehicles in their stead.
> 
> Well, if the SUVs were added to the CAFE standards in 2007, the car 
> makers would HAVE to make fuel efficient cars - or pay billions in fines.
> 
> Not that increasing the CAFE standards even further wouldn't be a good 
> idea.

Absolutely. But CAFE doesn't address handling, braking and other road 
worthiness considerations such as stability (SUVs are very easy to 
flip).

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/23/2005 7:30:05 AM

In article 
<dfritzinnospam-54B098.19081822032005@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-5AFE1E.11522722032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1111519525.573642.242950@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  dfritzin@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > > > On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> > > > <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the
> > > > following wisdom:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > > > What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for an
> > > SUV
> > > > that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car commercials
> > > > featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which kills
> > > > waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> > > 
> > > You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new Jeep
> > > Grand Cherokee.
> > > >
> > > > > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> > > > >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
> > > of
> > > > >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> > > > >applications.
> > > 
> > > And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you actually get
> > > less space, in general.
> > 
> > In fact, the average SUV has less actual, usable cargo space in it than 
> > does the average station wagon. Its a wholly fabricated class of 
> > vehicles invented for the most cynical of purposes - to circumvent the 
> > government's fuel economy and safety laws.
> 
> That is true. I remember a friend who had a Ford Expedition, which had 
> less passenger room than our Intrepid, and not much more than our 
> current Accord. And, the reasons why the manufacturers are selling the 
> SUVs are just as George says. They are also the most profitable vehicles 
> the companies make. Crude (truck) suspension, big engine, throw in some 
> leather and you have a Cadillac Escalade, which sells for over $50k, and 
> probably gives GM $10K profit/sale.

Precisely. They are cash cows and damn the roadworthiness issues!

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/23/2005 7:32:27 AM

Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>ANWR could provide, at best, 5% of our oil needs,
>
>The truth is no one actually knows how much oil is in ANWR. The oil

True only in a sense.  But the USGS has done studies which can be
used as a guide.  The problem is people grossly misread what is in
the study.  Here is the significant part:

  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

>companies are anticipating a goodly amount.

So does everyone else.  Of course just what a "goodly amount"
is, is open to some debate.  The USGS says 6.4 billion barrels.
(See figure 6.)

>The envirowhackos are
>running around spouting a number that is ridiculously artificially low
>and pretending that its Gospel.

Nobody cares what "environwhackos" say.  Of course if you are
defining everyone who disagrees with you as an environwhacko,
then you are the one spouting ridiculous words...  and I suspect
that is indeed the case, given the rest of what you have to say
about ANWR.  You clearly don't have a clue.

>Since the oil companies are the ones
>who do the research and are willing to put their money on the line its
>a pretty safe bet that they're closer to right.

Actually, the USGS has more information than any individual oil
company, and in fact is more aggressive about claiming there is
oil in ANWR than is any oil company today.

>> There simply isn't enough oil in this country to come anywhere close to meeting demand, no
>>matter how many national parks you want to destroy.
>
>ANWR isn't a national park. No one is even talking about drilling in a
>national park.

It is a national wildlife refuge, with an area designated at
"wilderness".  In the generic sense, that is indeed a national
park.  Just one that is not managed for the tourist trade.

> ANWR is a barren stretch of frozen hell along the
>Arctic Ocean.

It is not barren by any definition except to ignorant people who
don't know any better.  It is literally teaming with wildlife,
including both plants and animals.  It is indeed one of the most
pristine wilderness areas left in the United States.

And yes, I *have* been there.  (It also happens that I am a full
time resident of the North Slope of Alaska too, so when I've been
there I knew exactly what I was looking at too.)

>Its only significance at all is that the caribou go
>there to fuck what little brains they have out in the spring.

Ignorance is bliss.  Caribou do not breed there.

>Envirowhackos say that the drilling will destroy the caribou herds.

Well, I don't recall that I heard such a statement from any
"environwhackos".

I have personally heard biologists with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) say that drilling in ANWR would be a
disaster.  But that is not surprising, since virtually *every*
biologist that has done field work with caribou on the North
Slope over the past 30 years says that.  (There is exactly one,
count him, who says otherwise!)

These guys have been paid with oil money from day one to study
caribou and oil infrastructure to find ways to produce more oil.
They are biased but have a great deal of integrity.  Their
political bosses that run ADF&G are not quite at the same level
of integrity, and the politicians above them have no integrity
at all.  Hence ADF&G tries to downplay what their biologists
say, and the State of Alaska says exactly the opposite.

But make no mistake that it is the *most* knowledgeable people
of all, the field biologists, who say drilling will harm the
caribou.  Here is the last paragraph of the testimony of Ken
Whitten to Congress, stating exactly that, with emphasis added:

    "Considering of the importance of the Porcupine Caribou Herd
    to indigenous people in United States and Canada, and the
    *high* *likelihood* *that* *petroleum* *leasing* *and* *development* *would*
    *cause* *long-term* *harm* to those caribou, 21 arctic caribou
    biologists from the US and Canada signed a letter to former
    President Clinton urging permanent protection of the
    Porcupine Herd calving grounds from development. Over 500
    prominent North American scientists signed a letter to
    President Bush urging protection of the Arctic Refuge
    Coastal Plain to safeguard caribou and other natural
    resource values. Protection of the Coastal Plain has also
    been endorsed by the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society,
    the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Cooper
    Ornithological Union.  Copies of the letters and resolutions
    are attached.  *I* *urge* *Congress* *to* *heed* *the* *advice* *of* *these*
    *eminent* *wildlife* *biologists* *and* *ecologists* *and* *not* *allow*
    *petroleum* *development* *on* *the* *Arctic* *Refuge* *Coastal* *Plain*."

  http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/news/whitten.pdf

Ken Whitten is retired now, but spent about 20 year as the head
of the ADF&G research team studying the Porcupine Caribou Herd.
His statement actually depends more on the research done at
Prudhoe Bay on the Central Arctic Caribou Herd.  That research
was headed up by Ray Cameron.  You will find that literally
*all* references to caribou biology on the North Slope cite
reports by one or both of them.  They are both adamantly against
drilling in ANWR.

>We
>have solid evidence that this is false.

Whitten says the evidence is the exact opposite of what you say.
Since he did the research and wrote the reports, I tend to believe
you must necessarily be wrong.

If you would like to read some of the solid evidence, here is the
main URL,

  http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm

But if you want only the most significant parts, try these:

Section 3 is on the Porcupine Herd (in ANWR):

   http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part1.htm

Section 4 is on the Central Arctic herd (at Prudhoe Bay):

   http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm

Section 5 is about forage quality and quantity

   http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section5.htm

and Section 6 is about predators

   http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section6.htm

The above report is cited like this:

   Griffith, B., D. C. Douglas, N. E. Walsh, D. D. Young,
   T. R. McCabe, D. E. Russell, R. G. White, R. D. Cameron, and
   K. R. Whitten. 2002. The Porcupine caribou herd. Pages 8-37
   in D. C. Douglas, P. E. Reynolds, and E. B. Rhode,
   editors. Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife
   research summaries. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological
   Resources Division, Biological Science Report
   USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.

The names of particular note are Brad Griffith, Ray Cameron and
Ken Whitten.  While the whole list is a Who's Who of caribou
biology, those three are the most significant.

You can skip all of the excruciating detail, and read the conclusions
of the biologists at this URL,

    http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm

Which says:

    "In summary, 4 research-based ecological arguments indicate
    that the Porcupine caribou herd may be particularly
    sensitive to development within the 1002 portion of the
    calving ground:

    Low productivity of the Porcupine caribou herd - The
    Porcupine caribou herd has had the lowest capacity for
    growth among Alaska barren-ground herds ...  the Porcupine
    caribou herd has less capacity to accommodate ... stresses
    than other Alaska ... herds. Any absolute effect of
    development would be expected to have a larger relative
    effect on the Porcupine caribou herd than on the other
    herds. For example, an approximate 4.6% reduction in calf
    survival, all else held equal, would be enough to prevent
    Porcupine caribou herd growth under the best conditions
    observed to date ... A similar reduction in calf survival,
    all else held equal, for other Alaska barren-ground herds,
    however, would not be sufficient to arrest their growth.

    Demonstrated shift of concentrated calving areas of the
    Central Arctic caribou herd away from petroleum development
    infrastructures - ... the Porcupine caribou herd caribou
    will avoid roads and pipelines during calving ... Avoidance
    of petroleum development infrastructure by parturient
    caribou ...  is the most consistently observed behavioral
    response of caribou to development.

    Lack of high-quality alternate calving habitat - ... When
    snow cover reduced access by females to the Arctic Refuge
    coastal plain and 1002 Area for calving, calf survival
    during June was 19% lower than when they could calve on the
    Arctic Refuge coastal plain and 1002 Area.

    Strong link between calf survival and free movement of
    females - ... data predict that June calf survival for the
    Porcupine caribou herd will decline if the calving grounds
    are displaced ... is a function of displacement: 1) reducing
    access to the highest quality habitats for foraging and 2)
    increasing exposure to risk of mortality from predation
    during calving (first 3 weeks of June).

>The enviroliars said the same
>thing about the Alaska pipeline and the North Slope oil fields.

No, in fact they did not.  What they did say was that the original
design for a pipeline was faulty and would be a problem.  There was
a delay from 1969 until 1974 before a pipeline was actually built,
and ADF&G began studies on the North Slope to determine what the
effects might be.

Guess what?  The "enviroliars" were right, and the design of the
pipeline that was actually built incorporates the required changes
to prevent the problems that had been warned about.

>Caribou herds in those areas have actually risen and the caribou seem

They have risen *only* in areas where there is *no* oil
infrastructure near the calving grounds.  Caribou simply do
*not* calve at Prudhoe Bay, Milne Point or Kuparuk today.  They
have all moved.  Of course the point that you have missed, and
the biologists didn't, was that if was a very small herd in a
very large area (the coastal plain at Prudhoe Bay is 150 miles
from the Ocean to the Brooks Range, and that herd is only 30,000
animals at the max).  Compare that to the Porcupine Caribou
Herd, which today calves right where the oil development in ANWR
is supposed to take place...  on a coastal plain only 25 miles
deep, and there are a minimum of 120,000 animals.  There is *no*
alternate calving area that is suitable.  The areas that are
available are occasionally used when the weather does not permit
the caribou to calve where they want, and that typically results
in a 19% reduction in calf survival.  The biologists say that a
5% reduction will have a devastating effect.

>to love the pipeline because it has to be heated to keep the oil
>flowing.

It's an insulated pipeline!  No animals find any part of it
"warm".  Where do you get such poppy-cock ideas?

Perhaps you are "conservative-whacko"?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com
0
Reply floyd (1028) 3/23/2005 12:23:34 PM

In article 
<gmgravesnos-AD1FEA.23300522032005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-24AA23.21204022032005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-B898B5.15103122032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> > >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article 
> > > > <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> > > > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > > > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product 
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > > > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of 
> > > > > big, 
> > > > > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even 
> > > > > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted 
> > > > > to 
> > > > > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and 
> > > > > less 
> > > > > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all 
> > > > > the 
> > > > > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > > > > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions 
> > > > > like 
> > > > > this one for that attitude.
> > > > 
> > > > The problem could be solved quite easily.
> > > > 
> > > > Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> > > > passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> > > > overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> > > > passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> > > > 
> > > > Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> > > > transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> > > > costs, medical costs, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> > > > their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> > > > people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> > > > SUVs.
> > > 
> > > I've no problem with that, although I'd prefer to see something 
> > > stimulate the auto makers to build small, light, efficient, and safe 
> > > vehicles in their stead.
> > 
> > Well, if the SUVs were added to the CAFE standards in 2007, the car 
> > makers would HAVE to make fuel efficient cars - or pay billions in fines.
> > 
> > Not that increasing the CAFE standards even further wouldn't be a good 
> > idea.
> 
> Absolutely. But CAFE doesn't address handling, braking and other road 
> worthiness considerations such as stability (SUVs are very easy to 
> flip).

That's true, but you can't do everything.

If CAFE were increased 20% and SUVs were included, there would be a lot 
more small cars on the road - and the cars you're referring to (good 
handling and breaking but not 300 hp engines) would suddenly be more 
competitive. I suspect you'd see better availability of the cars you 
like, too.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/23/2005 1:02:00 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably
> >afford a small car for commuting purposes.
>
> Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
> would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
> you've got a helluva long commute.
> And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
> bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.

This is an odd place for me to jump in, but anyway...

As far as class envy goes, can't speak for the others here, but in my
case I highly doubt it.  My daily commuter is an A6 Quattro , and my
every other day commuter is a Porsche (both late model vehicles).  I
still have a truck in my driveway (will probably get rid of it this
fall), but I hate driving it.

I had a 'hard on' for trucks when I was younger (about 7yrs ago), but
after driving one for a while I realized I much prefer a car.  It
really has nothing to do with mpg (even though both my Audi and my
Porsche average 21-22mpg city/highway, while the truck will barely hit
12mpg and that's only if I feather the gas), more with how I like to
drive.  I personally like driving down the freeway at 75-80mph in a car
that was designed to do twice that speed, rather than a car that was
barely designed to do 70mph.
I know, we've all see the big SUVs flying down the highway doing 90mph
or what have you, but it doesn't mean that their anywhere near 'safe'
at those speeds.

As for rising fuel prices, it should be interesting to see how thing
shake out.  Right now, it doesn't seem that people mind all that much,
if the speed of the SUVs/trucks on the Freeway is any indication.  It
should also be interesting to see how the sales of said SUVs/Trucks are
affected (if at all).

0
Reply steve.travis (1413) 3/23/2005 1:06:32 PM

In news:Nowhere-6697D3.11333922032005@news1.west.earthlink.net,
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> typed:
> In article <1111464976.132670.209030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> TravelinMan wrote:
>>> In article <1111447493.846454.55580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TravelinMan wrote:
>>>>> In article
>> <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> if you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
>>>>>>>> maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient
>>>>>>>> vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and tear
>>>>>>>> on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance,
>>>>>>> why are there so many bond issues in my state to repair
>>>>>>> the roads?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
>>>>>> than *covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states
>>>>>> pool gas tax revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from
>>
>>>>>> gas is diverted elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or
>>>>>> funding needs to be raised elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively
>>>>> for road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.
>>>>
>>>> i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not
>>>> check?  a quick research trip on google shows that you are
>>>> absolutely full of crap:
>>>> 1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than
>>>> just road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
>>>> www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
>>>
>>> And all of that money is dedicated to transportation infrastructure.
>>>
>>> But it's not enough.
>>
>> as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes are
>> being diverted else where.
>
> And you've said it wrong. Even your own URL says that the gas tax
> money is going for the DOT. And they still need bond issues as well.

no, they don't.  are you retarded or something?  OK DOT has a budget of
$192M.  they raise some $500M more than that.  OBVIOUSLY it's not all going
to DOT.

>>>> 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
>>>> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html (i couldn't find
>>>> numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M
>>>> /year in
>>>> *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
>>>> state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
>> that's
>>>> not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most
>>>> of back.
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas tax
>> goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need more
>> money" very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for
>> the DOT, and collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of
>> which is state taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in
>> collected gas taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas
>> taxes that are NOT being used for road maintance.
>
> The funny thing is that you actually believe your fictional figures.
>
> 1. Your own dot source (above) says that fuel taxes pay only 32% of
> the cost of road maintenance. The rest comes from other sources.

because all the fuel taxes don't go to DOT!

> 2. The texastransit article specifically says that 60% of the gas tax
> goes for roads and bridges and the rest is for other trasnportation
> infractructure.
>
> Your own sources prove you wrong. Congratulations.

no, they don't.

> (Hint, not all gas taxes are collected at the state level. That's why
> your mythical numbers are wrong). And i note you didn't even TRY to
> come up with a source for your $279 M, $500 M, $700 M and so on that
> you're making up).

take a look at the second source.  you can derive those numbers from the
additional revenue they say they'll get from a tax increase.  you can do
algebra, can't you?

<snip>
>>> I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I don't
>>> reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
>>>
>>> As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
>>> system or report it.
>>
>> but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...
>
> Where did I say that?

right here:
http://tinyurl.com/create.php

>>> Unlike you, I'm honest.
>>
>> and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?
>
> About the fictional numbers you made up above, for example.

learn some algebra and come back and see if you still think they're
fictional.

>> <snip>
>>>>>> fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
>>>>>
>>>>> That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
>>>>> insufficient by itself.
>>>>
>>>> it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
>>>> alternatives come online.
>>>
>>> Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.
>>
>> and you base this on what?
>
> Facts - which you seem to want to do without.

and what facts do you imagine those to be?

>>> AND it
>>> wouldn't come on line immediately.
>>
>> nobody said it would.
>
> Other than you - who claimed that it would make a huge dent in our
> dependency until we had something else.

yes, it would, and no, it wouldn't be online immediately.  those statements
are not mutually exclusive.

>>>>> I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
>>>>> thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
>>>>
>>>> i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
>>>> main reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
>>>> totally different kind of kook).
>>>
>>> Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?
>>
>> it was certainly implied when you said:
>> "If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
>> the Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
>> been doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
>> happened, nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "
>
> How does that say that it's the main reason?
>
>> that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
>> apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.
>
> My point is that it's PART of the reason. What part of that don't you
> understand?

get your panties out of a twist joe, and reread my statement there.

>>> OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
>>> let the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it.
>>> Clearly,
>>
>>> we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
>>> interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
>>
>> we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic
>> interests, so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.
>
> You're out of your mind if you don't think we have strategic interests
> in the Middle East.

i didn't say that either, dumbass.  reread what i actually wrote.


0
Reply news_test (1245) 3/23/2005 1:50:10 PM

In article <mue0e.631$zl.11@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:Nowhere-6697D3.11333922032005@news1.west.earthlink.net,
> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> typed:
> > In article <1111464976.132670.209030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> TravelinMan wrote:
> >>> In article <1111447493.846454.55580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> TravelinMan wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >> <1111438359.131030.174640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>  "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>> if you're worried about people not paying their fair share for
> >>>>>>>> maintenance, you should be eyeing those with fuel effiecient
> >>>>>>>> vehicles- they pay less in gas taxes for given wear and tear
> >>>>>>>> on the roads than fuel inefficient vehicles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If fuel taxes pay for all the costs of roadway maintenance,
> >>>>>>> why are there so many bond issues in my state to repair
> >>>>>>> the roads?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> i didn't say it *paid* for roadway maintenance, i said it *more
> >>>>>> than *covers* the costs of roadway maintenance.  many states
> >>>>>> pool gas tax revenue with the general fund; once the taxes from
> >>
> >>>>>> gas is diverted elsewhere, the roads are either neglected or
> >>>>>> funding needs to be raised elsewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And you're still wrong. In my state, the gas tax goes exclusively
> >>>>> for road maintenance - and they STILL need more money.
> >>>>
> >>>> i suppose you expected me to just believe you on that and not
> >>>> check?  a quick research trip on google shows that you are
> >>>> absolutely full of crap:
> >>>> 1- appropriation for OK dot, which is responsible for more than
> >>>> just road maintenance, is $192M for FY2005.
> >>>>
www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf > >>>
> >>> And all of that money is dedicated to transportation infrastructure.
> >>>
> >>> But it's not enough.
> >>
> >> as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes are
> >> being diverted else where.
> >
> > And you've said it wrong. Even your own URL says that the gas tax
> > money is going for the DOT. And they still need bond issues as well.
> 
> no, they don't.  are you retarded or something?  OK DOT has a budget of
> $192M.  they raise some $500M more than that.  OBVIOUSLY it's not all going
> to DOT.

You keep making up figures. Why not document them?

Let's see what your URL says:
www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
Look at page 401. The gas tax only accounts for 32% of their 
expenditures.
It also shows that federal revenues AND bonds pay for most of the 
highway construction.

Nor does it say anywhere that the gas tax raised $692 million - you made 
that up.

Let's look at your second URL:
http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
It also doesn't come up with any numbers like the $692 million figure 
you're throwing around. It merely says that the entire tax increase goes 
for transportation infrastructure.

Ergo, you were wrong.


> 
> >>>> 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
> >>>> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
(i couldn't find
> >>>> numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M
> >>>> /year in
> >>>> *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M for
> >>>> state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
> >> that's
> >>>> not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives most
> >>>> of back.
> >>>
> >>> So?
> >>
> >> so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas tax
> >> goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need more
> >> money" very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for
> >> the DOT, and collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of
> >> which is state taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in
> >> collected gas taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas
> >> taxes that are NOT being used for road maintance.
> >
> > The funny thing is that you actually believe your fictional figures.
> >
> > 1. Your own dot source (above) says that fuel taxes pay only 32% of
> > the cost of road maintenance. The rest comes from other sources.
> 
> because all the fuel taxes don't go to DOT!

A statement you've never yet established. What we do know is that gas 
taxes pay only 32% of DOT's operating expenses and that bonds pay for a 
large part of road construction.


> 
> > 2. The texastransit article specifically says that 60% of the gas tax
> > goes for roads and bridges and the rest is for other trasnportation
> > infractructure.
> >
> > Your own sources prove you wrong. Congratulations.
> 
> no, they don't.

See above.

Note that you STILL haven't provided a single source that says that OK 
collects $692 M in gas taxes. You pulled that number straight out of 
your ass.

> 
> > (Hint, not all gas taxes are collected at the state level. That's why
> > your mythical numbers are wrong). And i note you didn't even TRY to
> > come up with a source for your $279 M, $500 M, $700 M and so on that
> > you're making up).
> 
> take a look at the second source.  you can derive those numbers from the
> additional revenue they say they'll get from a tax increase.  you can do
> algebra, can't you?

Why don't you show us? Your second reference is:
http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html

Since it doesn't say how much additional revenue they're going to raise, 
where did you come up with your silly figure?

Oh, and btw, you still haven't refuted the point that the DOT's budget 
is not the entire amount spent on the roads in OK. 

> 
> <snip>
> >>> I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I don't
> >>> reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
> >>>
> >>> As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
> >>> system or report it.
> >>
> >> but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...
> >
> > Where did I say that?
> 
> right here:
> http://tinyurl.com/create.php

That's a good one. Apparently, you're too stupid to even use tinyurl. 

Or maybe you're saying you can document that argument by making 
something up - like you always do.

> 
> >>> Unlike you, I'm honest.
> >>
> >> and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?
> >
> > About the fictional numbers you made up above, for example.
> 
> learn some algebra and come back and see if you still think they're
> fictional.

There's absolutely nothing in there that would allow you to do that kind 
of algebra. Heck, in a moment of honesty (you were apparently having a 
bad day), you stated "(i couldn't find numbers explicitly stated)" above.

Or maybe you simply couldn't even figure out how to quote the same URL 
again.


> 
> >> <snip>
> >>>>>> fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
> >>>>> insufficient by itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until more
> >>>> alternatives come online.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.
> >>
> >> and you base this on what?
> >
> > Facts - which you seem to want to do without.
> 
> and what facts do you imagine those to be?

The ones that you keep providing that contradict your argument, for 
example.

> 
> >>> AND it
> >>> wouldn't come on line immediately.
> >>
> >> nobody said it would.
> >
> > Other than you - who claimed that it would make a huge dent in our
> > dependency until we had something else.
> 
> yes, it would, and no, it wouldn't be online immediately.  those statements
> are not mutually exclusive.

The HIGHEST estimate is that drilling in Alaska might eventually produce 
enough oil to reduce our imports by 5%. That's hardly a "huge dent".

> 
> >>>>> I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> >>>>> thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
> >>>>
> >>>> i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
> >>>> main reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
> >>>> totally different kind of kook).
> >>>
> >>> Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?
> >>
> >> it was certainly implied when you said:
> >> "If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
> >> the Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
> >> been doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
> >> happened, nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "
> >
> > How does that say that it's the main reason?
> >
> >> that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
> >> apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.
> >
> > My point is that it's PART of the reason. What part of that don't you
> > understand?
> 
> get your panties out of a twist joe, and reread my statement there.

I read your statement and you're still wrong.

Are you under the delusion that the meaning of something changes if you 
let it ferment for a while?

> 
> >>> OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
> >>> let the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it.
> >>> Clearly,
> >>
> >>> we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
> >>> interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
> >>
> >> we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic
> >> interests, so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.
> >
> > You're out of your mind if you don't think we have strategic interests
> > in the Middle East.
> 
> i didn't say that either, dumbass.  reread what i actually wrote.

Look up about 8 lines. You stated "we've clearly gotten involved where 
we don't have strategic interests". You're flipflopping pretty wildly at 
this point.
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/23/2005 3:54:33 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <6vu041l7njcssil393ji895s6o3n7gd3ru@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless
us
> >> with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with
the
> >> >> following wisdom:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne
Stuart)
> >> >> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
> >> >'discussions'
> >> >> >we
> >> >> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a
good
> >> >car
> >> >> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
> >> >favourite
> >> >> >PC
> >> >> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American
muscle
> >> >car.
> >> >> >Most
> >> >> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared
to
> >> >the
> >> >> >more
> >> >> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle
car.
> >> >> >More
> >> >> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow
the
> >> >> >little
> >> >> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But
when
> >> >it
> >> >> >comes
> >> >> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on
the
> >> >twisty
> >> >> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on
your
> >> >> >face,
> >> >> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be
more
> >> >of a
> >> >> >> >grimace.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> >> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability
of U.S.
> >> >> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to
edge
> >> >> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles
continue to
> >> >be
> >> >> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
> >> >American
> >> >> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the
PC to
> >> >> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of
those
> >> >> >American SUVs -- huge,
> >> >>
> >> >> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
> >> >loonietune
> >> >> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs
are
> >> >> smaller than 1970's sedans.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow
roads
> >> >(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.
> >>
> >> Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't see
any
> >> reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of universal
> >> ideal that we should implement here.
> >
> >And, I never said we should. That said, having driven in Europe
(albeit
> >20 years ago), and here, it seems European cars are more enjoyable
to
> >drive.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > noisy,
> >> >>
> >> >> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
> >> >>
> >> >> > about as stylish as a bus,
> >> >>
> >> >> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most
small
> >> >> cars?
> >> >
> >> >Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
> >> >>
> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what
isn't?
> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if
I'm
> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a
check
> >> >> every week.
> >> >
> >> >One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as
waste.
> >>
> >> By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid
than
> >> the the Hummer's owner's?
> >
> >Do you think it makes sense for one person to drive a 3 ton vehicle
to
> >work every day?
>
> I think that its up to each individual to make that choice so long as
> he's using his funds to bankroll it and not mine.

Except that, by driving a huge vehicle, you are taking up valuable (at
least in a crowded space such as Honolulu) road space, causing
increased wear and tear on the roads, and using up valuable natural
(and irreplacable) resources.
>
> > Hell, if you have the money to buy a Hummer (they cost
> >$50k), you have the money to buy a commuting car as well.
>
> Not necessarily. People do all kind of things with their money. Just
> because they have an expensive car doesn't mean that they have
> anything left over.
> When I was in school I worked for a place that delivered items for
> stores. It wasn't uncommon for us to take something out to the swanky
> side of town and make a delivery to a multimillion dollar house that
> had very little furniture, and what was there was usually either old
> or cheap. The people had spent all of their money buying a house in
> the 'right' neighborhood and getting the BMW and Mercedes to park out
> front where everyone could see them. They didn't have anything left
to
> furnish their house with.

Then, as you said, they should be more careful with their money. You
know, personal responsiblity, and all that.
>
> > When you think
> >that the US, with about 5% of the world's population uses about 25%
of
> >the world's energy,
>
> Why is this significant? I'm damn proud to be using more energy than
> most of the world's people. In case you haven't noticed most of the
> world's people live like crap.

Not in Europe. And, face it, we are being extremely wasteful. And, our
propensity to buy huge, wasteful vehicles is part of the problem.
>
> > yet do not have higher living standards than they do
> >in Europe or Japan,
>
> Sez you! I've been to Europe. You're not fooling me on that one. I've
> known Japanese guys too but never been there. They thought my house
> was a freakin' mansion compared to the dinky things they lived in at
> home. My house isn't a large one by any means.

I've been to Europe as well, and lived there for 2 years. The standard
of living I witnessed was just as high as here. Houses are smaller,
yes, but, face it, our houses do tend to be rather too large for our
needs. And, I am just as much to blame as everyone else. When we lived
on the Mainland, my wife and I owned a 2600 sqft townhouse in Virginia,
then a 2600 sq ft. home in Salt Lake City. Both were larger than we
really needed. >
> > you would have to say that one person driving to work in a Hummer
(especially in Hawaii) is wasteful.
>
> Sorry but that's no basis for declaring anything wasteful.

Do you need a 4 wheel drive vehicle in Hawaii, when you are going 14
miles each way to and from work? Our weather is not particularly
severe, and there just aren't many places to drive off-road on O'ahu.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> >> >> >terrain,
> >> >>
> >> >> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for
an
> >> >SUV
> >> >> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car
commercials
> >> >> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which
kills
> >> >> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> >> >
> >> >You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new
Jeep
> >> >Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from one
type
> >> of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway
across
> >> the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to be
> >> realistic.
> >
> >No, but as I said, it is supposed to convey the message that you can

> >drive anywhere in a Hummer (as long as there is a gas station handy,

> >that is)
> >> I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.
> >
> >I saw a few when the Grand Cherokee was first introduced, a couple
of
> >months ago.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
> >> >> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine
and lots
> >> >of
> >> >> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> >> >> >applications.
> >> >
> >> >And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you
actually get
> >> >less space, in general.
> >>
> >> Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which
might
> >> not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes in
> >> handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
> >> difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff you
> >> find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
> >> Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on when
> >> making a vehicle purchase.
> >
> >You are talking about things I never mentioned. If you live in a
rural
> >area with severe winters (and, yes, Indiana would qualify), you can
make
> >a case for buying a SUV. If you tow a boat, you can make a case for
> >buying an SUV. If you commute to NYC, the case is more challenging,
IMHO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
> >> >> perfectly suited for that.
> >> >
> >> >Takes up way too much space.
> >>
> >> Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more valid
than
> >> those of the SUV's owner's?
> >
> >Because I have to drive a small car surrounded by those dinosaurs,
for
> >one reason.
>
> No, you chose to drive a small car. You could have just as easily
> bought something larger but you felt that thee was a value in
> smallness that you were willing to tradeoff for. SUVs were around
when
> you bought it so you can't claim to have been taken by surprise.

Nor was I. I thought SUVs were not a particularly bright idea then, and
I haven't changed my mind. As I said, there are people who need large
trucks/SUVs, but there aren't that many of them.
>
> > Because gas is getting more expensive, because, in part, of
> >our wasteful practices. Etc.
>
> Gas prices are rising mainly because  increased demand from China and
> India are straining current production. SUVs have zip to do with it.

You are having a mental disconnect here, mayor. Anything that increases
demand increases cost in a supply/demand situation. SUVs are a good
part of the reason why we waste so much fuel, which helps keep fuel
prices high.
>
> >
> >> And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that
meets
> >> their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of
various
> >> sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with one
> >> occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to the
brim
> >> and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.
> >
> >As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably
> >afford a small car for commuting purposes.
>
> Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
> would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
> you've got a helluva long commute.
> And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
> bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.

Why class envy? I could have afforded an SUV when I bought my Acura. I
chose not to, because I don't particularly enjoy driving a truck. I got
a chance to drive a small SUV when I last visited family in NJ last
summer. I saw nothing that made me change my mind. I drove a vehicle
that was not nearly as responsive as either the my Acura or Honda, got
worse mileage than either, and did not have significantly more room
(and, may well have had less room) than my Honda.
>
> >>
> >> > Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
> >> >where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree
that
> >> >SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who
do
> >> >need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in
an
> >> >urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
> >> >[snip]
> >>
> >> I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you mean
its
> >> hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a problem
> >> here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in downtown
> >> Indianapolis.
> >> If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
> >> disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen
people
> >> attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini
Cooper.
> >
> >I mean small spaces and large vehicles. When I lived in Utah,
parking a
> >large car was not a problem (we had a Dodge Intrepid at the time,
which
> >is not small). In Hawaii, and in NYC, parking spaces are much
smaller.
> >Indeed, you quite often see the Hummers, etc., taking up 1.5 spots.
>
> If the spaces aren't big enough for the Hummer what else are they
> supposed to do?

Drive a smaller vehicle, rather than inconveniencing everyone else?

0
Reply dfritzin (3022) 3/23/2005 4:40:29 PM

On 23 Mar 2005 08:40:29 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:

>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
>> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <6vu041l7njcssil393ji895s6o3n7gd3ru@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless
>us
>> >> with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
>> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with
>the
>> >> >> following wisdom:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne
>Stuart)
>> >> >> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
>> >> >'discussions'
>> >> >> >we
>> >> >> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves a
>good
>> >> >car
>> >> >> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group your
>> >> >favourite
>> >> >> >PC
>> >> >> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most water?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >This is my baby:
>> >> >> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American
>muscle
>> >> >car.
>> >> >> >Most
>> >> >> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture, compared
>to
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >more
>> >> >> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a muscle
>car.
>> >> >> >More
>> >> >> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will blow
>the
>> >> >> >little
>> >> >> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.  But
>when
>> >> >it
>> >> >> >comes
>> >> >> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on
>the
>> >> >twisty
>> >> >> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin on
>your
>> >> >> >face,
>> >> >> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd be
>more
>> >> >of a
>> >> >> >> >grimace.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
>> >> >> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability
>of U.S.
>> >> >> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to
>edge
>> >> >> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles
>continue to
>> >> >be
>> >> >> >> among the least reliable overall."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
>> >> >American
>> >> >> >> one does have some basis in fact.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the
>PC to
>> >> >> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of
>those
>> >> >> >American SUVs -- huge,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
>> >> >loonietune
>> >> >> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most SUVs
>are
>> >> >> smaller than 1970's sedans.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow
>roads
>> >> >(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive gas.
>> >>
>> >> Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't see
>any
>> >> reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of universal
>> >> ideal that we should implement here.
>> >
>> >And, I never said we should. That said, having driven in Europe
>(albeit
>> >20 years ago), and here, it seems European cars are more enjoyable
>to
>> >drive.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > noisy,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > about as stylish as a bus,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of most
>small
>> >> >> cars?
>> >> >
>> >> >Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and what
>isn't?
>> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding if
>I'm
>> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a
>check
>> >> >> every week.
>> >> >
>> >> >One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as
>waste.
>> >>
>> >> By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid
>than
>> >> the the Hummer's owner's?
>> >
>> >Do you think it makes sense for one person to drive a 3 ton vehicle
>to
>> >work every day?
>>
>> I think that its up to each individual to make that choice so long as
>> he's using his funds to bankroll it and not mine.
>
>Except that, by driving a huge vehicle, you are taking up valuable (at
>least in a crowded space such as Honolulu) road space, causing
>increased wear and tear on the roads, and using up valuable natural
>(and irreplacable) resources.

And a guy driving a smaller vehicle than yours could say the same
about you and your Acura. Where you decide it all gets silly is what's
important. In this country we have this thing called 'freedom'. Its
what keeps busybodies from telling us that we all have to make the
same choices they did.

>>
>> > Hell, if you have the money to buy a Hummer (they cost
>> >$50k), you have the money to buy a commuting car as well.
>>
>> Not necessarily. People do all kind of things with their money. Just
>> because they have an expensive car doesn't mean that they have
>> anything left over.
>> When I was in school I worked for a place that delivered items for
>> stores. It wasn't uncommon for us to take something out to the swanky
>> side of town and make a delivery to a multimillion dollar house that
>> had very little furniture, and what was there was usually either old
>> or cheap. The people had spent all of their money buying a house in
>> the 'right' neighborhood and getting the BMW and Mercedes to park out
>> front where everyone could see them. They didn't have anything left
>to
>> furnish their house with.
>
>Then, as you said, they should be more careful with their money. You
>know, personal responsiblity, and all that.

As I've said many times, its their money; its their choice. If they
value appearance over substance then let them have it.

>>
>> > When you think
>> >that the US, with about 5% of the world's population uses about 25%
>of
>> >the world's energy,
>>
>> Why is this significant? I'm damn proud to be using more energy than
>> most of the world's people. In case you haven't noticed most of the
>> world's people live like crap.
>
>Not in Europe. And, face it, we are being extremely wasteful. And, our
>propensity to buy huge, wasteful vehicles is part of the problem.

Its only a 'problem' if you're someone who thinks anyone who doesn't
make the same decision as you has something wrong with them.

>>
>> > yet do not have higher living standards than they do
>> >in Europe or Japan,
>>
>> Sez you! I've been to Europe. You're not fooling me on that one. I've
>> known Japanese guys too but never been there. They thought my house
>> was a freakin' mansion compared to the dinky things they lived in at
>> home. My house isn't a large one by any means.
>
>I've been to Europe as well, and lived there for 2 years. The standard
>of living I witnessed was just as high as here. Houses are smaller,
>yes, but, face it, our houses do tend to be rather too large for our
>needs.

Smaller houses, fewer homes had such things as air conditioning, in
the area I was in it wasn't unusual to find houses with outside
toilets from the Victorian era, etc. All in all it wasn't anyway I'd
want to live.

> And, I am just as much to blame as everyone else. When we lived
>on the Mainland, my wife and I owned a 2600 sqft townhouse in Virginia,
>then a 2600 sq ft. home in Salt Lake City. Both were larger than we
>really needed. 

2600 sq ft isn't that large of a house.

>> > you would have to say that one person driving to work in a Hummer
>(especially in Hawaii) is wasteful.
>>
>> Sorry but that's no basis for declaring anything wasteful.
>
>Do you need a 4 wheel drive vehicle in Hawaii, when you are going 14
>miles each way to and from work? Our weather is not particularly
>severe, and there just aren't many places to drive off-road on O'ahu.

Here's where you're dropping the ball. Need never had anything to do
with it. It doesn't have anything to with any of our purchases. There
isn't a person in this country who doesn't have 10,000X what they
'need'. And you sound rather silly, surrounded by the overabundnce of
stuff that I'm 100 per cent sure that you have declaring that someone
else shouldn't have something because they don't 'need' it.

>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
>> >> >> >terrain,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial for
>an
>> >> >SUV
>> >> >> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car
>commercials
>> >> >> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which
>kills
>> >> >> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
>> >> >
>> >> >You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new
>Jeep
>> >> >Grand Cherokee.
>> >>
>> >> All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from one
>type
>> >> of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway
>across
>> >> the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to be
>> >> realistic.
>> >
>> >No, but as I said, it is supposed to convey the message that you can
>
>> >drive anywhere in a Hummer (as long as there is a gas station handy,
>
>> >that is)
>> >> I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.
>> >
>> >I saw a few when the Grand Cherokee was first introduced, a couple
>of
>> >months ago.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road performance
>> >> >> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine
>and lots
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
>> >> >> >applications.
>> >> >
>> >> >And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you
>actually get
>> >> >less space, in general.
>> >>
>> >> Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which
>might
>> >> not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes in
>> >> handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
>> >> difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff you
>> >> find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
>> >> Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on when
>> >> making a vehicle purchase.
>> >
>> >You are talking about things I never mentioned. If you live in a
>rural
>> >area with severe winters (and, yes, Indiana would qualify), you can
>make
>> >a case for buying a SUV. If you tow a boat, you can make a case for
>> >buying an SUV. If you commute to NYC, the case is more challenging,
>IMHO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places. They'e
>> >> >> perfectly suited for that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Takes up way too much space.
>> >>
>> >> Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more valid
>than
>> >> those of the SUV's owner's?
>> >
>> >Because I have to drive a small car surrounded by those dinosaurs,
>for
>> >one reason.
>>
>> No, you chose to drive a small car. You could have just as easily
>> bought something larger but you felt that thee was a value in
>> smallness that you were willing to tradeoff for. SUVs were around
>when
>> you bought it so you can't claim to have been taken by surprise.
>
>Nor was I. I thought SUVs were not a particularly bright idea then, and
>I haven't changed my mind.

Then how can you complain now? 

> As I said, there are people who need large
>trucks/SUVs, but there aren't that many of them.

And the man who rides a bike says the same of you and your car. Why
isn't he right?

>>
>> > Because gas is getting more expensive, because, in part, of
>> >our wasteful practices. Etc.
>>
>> Gas prices are rising mainly because  increased demand from China and
>> India are straining current production. SUVs have zip to do with it.
>
>You are having a mental disconnect here, mayor. Anything that increases
>demand increases cost in a supply/demand situation. SUVs are a good
>part of the reason why we waste so much fuel, which helps keep fuel
>prices high.

You're pointing at the teeny part and declaring it to be a bigger
problem than the titanic part.

>>
>> >
>> >> And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that
>meets
>> >> their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of
>various
>> >> sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with one
>> >> occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to the
>brim
>> >> and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.
>> >
>> >As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably
>> >afford a small car for commuting purposes.
>>
>> Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
>> would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
>> you've got a helluva long commute.
>> And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
>> bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.
>
>Why class envy?

Because many SUV critics frequently point out how much money people
who drive SUVs must have as you did with your 'if they can afford a
Hummer..' statement.

> I could have afforded an SUV when I bought my Acura. I
>chose not to, because I don't particularly enjoy driving a truck. I got
>a chance to drive a small SUV when I last visited family in NJ last
>summer. I saw nothing that made me change my mind. I drove a vehicle
>that was not nearly as responsive as either the my Acura or Honda, got
>worse mileage than either, and did not have significantly more room
>(and, may well have had less room) than my Honda.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
>> >> >where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I agree
>that
>> >> >SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people who
>do
>> >> >need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck in
>an
>> >> >urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
>> >> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you mean
>its
>> >> hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a problem
>> >> here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in downtown
>> >> Indianapolis.
>> >> If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
>> >> disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen
>people
>> >> attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini
>Cooper.
>> >
>> >I mean small spaces and large vehicles. When I lived in Utah,
>parking a
>> >large car was not a problem (we had a Dodge Intrepid at the time,
>which
>> >is not small). In Hawaii, and in NYC, parking spaces are much
>smaller.
>> >Indeed, you quite often see the Hummers, etc., taking up 1.5 spots.
>>
>> If the spaces aren't big enough for the Hummer what else are they
>> supposed to do?
>
>Drive a smaller vehicle, rather than inconveniencing everyone else?

It couldn't be that the parking spaces need to be enlarged to reflect
modern realities or anything, could it? When were they laid out? 1930?
Most SUVs, even Hummers, are shorter than a 1970's sedan.




-- 
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen 
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want 
any part of that."

Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
0
Reply ev515o (4926) 3/23/2005 5:36:16 PM

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2005 08:40:29 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to bless us
> with the following wisdom:
>
> >
> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
> >> <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <6vu041l7njcssil393ji895s6o3n7gd3ru@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 22 Mar 2005 11:25:25 -0800, dfritzin@hotmail.com chose to
bless
> >us
> >> >> with the following wisdom:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 Mar 2005 12:44:36 -0800, "3l33td00d"
> >> >> >> <newaccountsignupathotmail@hotmail.com> chose to bless us
with
> >the
> >> >> >> following wisdom:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net
(Wayne
> >Stuart)
> >> >> >> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Have you noticed how car analogies so often creep into
> >> >> >'discussions'
> >> >> >> >we
> >> >> >> >> >get on here?  Yes, of course you have.  Everybody loves
a
> >good
> >> >> >car
> >> >> >> >> >analogy, even when they usually get shot down in flames.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >So how about, just for a laugh, share with the group
your
> >> >> >favourite
> >> >> >> >PC
> >> >> >> >> >vs Mac car analogy, and see which one holds the most
water?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >This is my baby:
> >> >> >> >> >The Mac is a Lotus Elise, and the PC is a big American
> >muscle
> >> >> >car.
> >> >> >> >Most
> >> >> >> >> >obviously, the Lotus looks as pretty as a picture,
compared
> >to
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> >more
> >> >> >> >> >'unsophisticated', albeit 'functional' styling of a
muscle
> >car.
> >> >> >> >More
> >> >> >> >> >importantly, the muscle car's drag strip ability will
blow
> >the
> >> >> >> >little
> >> >> >> >> >Lotus into the weeds, and do so for a lot less money.
But
> >when
> >> >> >it
> >> >> >> >comes
> >> >> >> >> >to throwing these cars around and having a bit of fun on
> >the
> >> >> >twisty
> >> >> >> >> >stuff, the Lotus's sublime handling will put a huge grin
on
> >your
> >> >> >> >face,
> >> >> >> >> >whereas with the muscle car's hovercraft handling, it'd
be
> >more
> >> >> >of a
> >> >> >> >> >grimace.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Nit pick away! ;-p
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The latest from Consumer Reports:
> >> >> >> >> "Our survey also shows that improvement in the
reliability
> >of U.S.
> >> >> >> >> vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue
to
> >edge
> >> >> >> >> closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles
> >continue to
> >> >> >be
> >> >> >> >> among the least reliable overall."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to
an
> >> >> >American
> >> >> >> >> one does have some basis in fact.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing
the
> >PC to
> >> >> >> >American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of
> >those
> >> >> >> >American SUVs -- huge,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Most of them aren't that big. Bigger than the tin cans most
> >> >> >loonietune
> >> >> >> envirowhackos want everyone crammed into to be sure. Most
SUVs
> >are
> >> >> >> smaller than 1970's sedans.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course, European cars are small for a reason, namely narrow
> >roads
> >> >> >(old countries, you know), crowded conditions and expensive
gas.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is fine for them if that's how they want things. I don't
see
> >any
> >> >> reason for us to pretend that situation is some kind of
universal
> >> >> ideal that we should implement here.
> >> >
> >> >And, I never said we should. That said, having driven in Europe
> >(albeit
> >> >20 years ago), and here, it seems European cars are more
enjoyable
> >to
> >> >drive.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > noisy,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If its noisy then get it a new muffler.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > about as stylish as a bus,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As opposed to that 'wonderful' pregnat rollerskate look of
most
> >small
> >> >> >> cars?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Taste, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > and constantly wasting resources.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> LOL! Says who? Who are you to decide what is 'waste' and
what
> >isn't?
> >> >> >> So long as I'm paying for my fuel I'll be the one deciding
if
> >I'm
> >> >> >> wasting any. If you want to decide for me start sending me a
> >check
> >> >> >> every week.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One person in a Hummer, getting 10 mpg would probably count as
> >waste.
> >> >>
> >> >> By what standard? Why is your definition of 'waste' more valid
> >than
> >> >> the the Hummer's owner's?
> >> >
> >> >Do you think it makes sense for one person to drive a 3 ton
vehicle
> >to
> >> >work every day?
> >>
> >> I think that its up to each individual to make that choice so long
as
> >> he's using his funds to bankroll it and not mine.
> >
> >Except that, by driving a huge vehicle, you are taking up valuable
(at
> >least in a crowded space such as Honolulu) road space, causing
> >increased wear and tear on the roads, and using up valuable natural
> >(and irreplacable) resources.
>
> And a guy driving a smaller vehicle than yours could say the same
> about you and your Acura. Where you decide it all gets silly is
what's
> important. In this country we have this thing called 'freedom'. Its
> what keeps busybodies from telling us that we all have to make the
> same choices they did.

Cars don't get too much smaller than my Integra :)

I have never said that people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they
want. It is just that I have a right to an opinion that SUVs are not
particularly practical vehicles for the vast majority of people who own
them at this point. They are a fashion statement.
>
> >>
> >> > Hell, if you have the money to buy a Hummer (they cost
> >> >$50k), you have the money to buy a commuting car as well.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. People do all kind of things with their money.
Just
> >> because they have an expensive car doesn't mean that they have
> >> anything left over.
> >> When I was in school I worked for a place that delivered items for
> >> stores. It wasn't uncommon for us to take something out to the
swanky
> >> side of town and make a delivery to a multimillion dollar house
that
> >> had very little furniture, and what was there was usually either
old
> >> or cheap. The people had spent all of their money buying a house
in
> >> the 'right' neighborhood and getting the BMW and Mercedes to park
out
> >> front where everyone could see them. They didn't have anything
left
> >to
> >> furnish their house with.
> >
> >Then, as you said, they should be more careful with their money. You
> >know, personal responsiblity, and all that.
>
> As I've said many times, its their money; its their choice. If they
> value appearance over substance then let them have it.

You reach a point where it becomes selfishness. A 3 ton vehicle to
carry one person is nearing that point, IMHO. I would also say that a
Ferrari as an every day driver would be approaching that point.
>
> >>
> >> > When you think
> >> >that the US, with about 5% of the world's population uses about
25%
> >of
> >> >the world's energy,
> >>
> >> Why is this significant? I'm damn proud to be using more energy
than
> >> most of the world's people. In case you haven't noticed most of
the
> >> world's people live like crap.
> >
> >Not in Europe. And, face it, we are being extremely wasteful. And,
our
> >propensity to buy huge, wasteful vehicles is part of the problem.
>
> Its only a 'problem' if you're someone who thinks anyone who doesn't
> make the same decision as you has something wrong with them.

No, it is a contribution to the excessive consumption of energy that is
endemic to the US.
>
> >>
> >> > yet do not have higher living standards than they do
> >> >in Europe or Japan,
> >>
> >> Sez you! I've been to Europe. You're not fooling me on that one.
I've
> >> known Japanese guys too but never been there. They thought my
house
> >> was a freakin' mansion compared to the dinky things they lived in
at
> >> home. My house isn't a large one by any means.
> >
> >I've been to Europe as well, and lived there for 2 years. The
standard
> >of living I witnessed was just as high as here. Houses are smaller,
> >yes, but, face it, our houses do tend to be rather too large for our
> >needs.
>
> Smaller houses, fewer homes had such things as air conditioning, in
> the area I was in it wasn't unusual to find houses with outside
> toilets from the Victorian era, etc. All in all it wasn't anyway I'd
> want to live.

As I said, smaller houses are not, to me at least, a problem. Air
conditioning isn't needed in much of Europe (certainly not in England,
where I lived) 95% of the time because the climate tends to be cooler
than in much of the US. Outdoor toilets, on the other hand...
>
> > And, I am just as much to blame as everyone else. When we lived
> >on the Mainland, my wife and I owned a 2600 sqft townhouse in
Virginia,
> >then a 2600 sq ft. home in Salt Lake City. Both were larger than we
> >really needed.
>
> 2600 sq ft isn't that large of a house.

For 2 people it is. We had more space than we knew what to do with, and
had a couple of rooms we never used.
>
> >> > you would have to say that one person driving to work in a
Hummer
> >(especially in Hawaii) is wasteful.
> >>
> >> Sorry but that's no basis for declaring anything wasteful.
> >
> >Do you need a 4 wheel drive vehicle in Hawaii, when you are going 14
> >miles each way to and from work? Our weather is not particularly
> >severe, and there just aren't many places to drive off-road on
O'ahu.
>
> Here's where you're dropping the ball. Need never had anything to do
> with it. It doesn't have anything to with any of our purchases. There
> isn't a person in this country who doesn't have 10,000X what they
> 'need'. And you sound rather silly, surrounded by the overabundnce of
> stuff that I'm 100 per cent sure that you have declaring that someone
> else shouldn't have something because they don't 'need' it.

I agree that need doesn't have much to do with it. Indeed, I don't
*need* the Integra. I could have gotten the cheapest Civic, for
example. However, I believe you can carry consumption too far, and,
again in my opinion, huge SUVs do begin to do that, for many of their
owners.
>
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> >> >> >> >terrain,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What commercial is that? I can't recall the last commercial
for
> >an
> >> >> >SUV
> >> >> >> that featured it going off road. Now I constantly see car
> >commercials
> >> >> >> featuring idiotic, dangerous driving on public streets which
> >kills
> >> >> >> waaaay more people than SUVs ever will.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You've obviously never seen ads for the Hummer or for the new
> >Jeep
> >> >> >Grand Cherokee.
> >> >>
> >> >> All the Hummer ads I've seen show it constantly shifting from
one
> >type
> >> >> of terrain to another and usually end up with driving halfway
> >across
> >> >> the planet in less than 30 seconds. Its clearly not intended to
be
> >> >> realistic.
> >> >
> >> >No, but as I said, it is supposed to convey the message that you
can
> >
> >> >drive anywhere in a Hummer (as long as there is a gas station
handy,
> >
> >> >that is)
> >> >> I don't recall seeing any commercials for the Jeep.
> >> >
> >> >I saw a few when the Grand Cherokee was first introduced, a
couple
> >of
> >> >months ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > but once you buy it you realize that the off-road
performance
> >> >> >> >is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine
> >and lots
> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >storage space, but it's still completely impractical for
many
> >> >> >> >applications.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And, if you compare an SUV to a similar sized minivan, you
> >actually get
> >> >> >less space, in general.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which means what? Most minivans aren't four wheel drive, which
> >might
> >> >> not be a big deal in Hawaii but in most of the country it comes
in
> >> >> handy during the winter months. In some places it can mean the
> >> >> difference between getting to the store or living on the stuff
you
> >> >> find in the back of the fridge until the snowplow comes by.
> >> >> Its just another in the many tradeoffs you have to decide on
when
> >> >> making a vehicle purchase.
> >> >
> >> >You are talking about things I never mentioned. If you live in a
> >rural
> >> >area with severe winters (and, yes, Indiana would qualify), you
can
> >make
> >> >a case for buying a SUV. If you tow a boat, you can make a case
for
> >> >buying an SUV. If you commute to NYC, the case is more
challenging,
> >IMHO.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like what? Its a vehicle. You get in it and go places.
They'e
> >> >> >> perfectly suited for that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Takes up way too much space.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are your standards on the proper amouint of space more
valid
> >than
> >> >> those of the SUV's owner's?
> >> >
> >> >Because I have to drive a small car surrounded by those
dinosaurs,
> >for
> >> >one reason.
> >>
> >> No, you chose to drive a small car. You could have just as easily
> >> bought something larger but you felt that thee was a value in
> >> smallness that you were willing to tradeoff for. SUVs were around
> >when
> >> you bought it so you can't claim to have been taken by surprise.
> >
> >Nor was I. I thought SUVs were not a particularly bright idea then,
and
> >I haven't changed my mind.
>
> Then how can you complain now?

I'm saying SUVs are stupid vehicles for the majority of owners. I have
that right, just as you have the right to disagree with me.
>
> > As I said, there are people who need large
> >trucks/SUVs, but there aren't that many of them.
>
> And the man who rides a bike says the same of you and your car. Why
> isn't he right?

I believe there should be better bike paths as well, particularly in
Honolulu.
>
> >>
> >> > Because gas is getting more expensive, because, in part, of
> >> >our wasteful practices. Etc.
> >>
> >> Gas prices are rising mainly because  increased demand from China
and
> >> India are straining current production. SUVs have zip to do with
it.
> >
> >You are having a mental disconnect here, mayor. Anything that
increases
> >demand increases cost in a supply/demand situation. SUVs are a good
> >part of the reason why we waste so much fuel, which helps keep fuel
> >prices high.
>
> You're pointing at the teeny part and declaring it to be a bigger
> problem than the titanic part.

They are all part of the problem. You are just trying to minimize our
part of the problem of rising energy prices.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> And as I pointed out to ZnU, people tend to buy a vehicle that
> >meets
> >> >> their maximum need instead of keeping a fleet of vehicles of
> >various
> >> >> sizes and types around. Just because you see that Hummer with
one
> >> >> occupant driving to work doesn't mean that it isn't filled to
the
> >brim
> >> >> and towing a load some other time when you don't see it.
> >> >
> >> >As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can
probably
> >> >afford a small car for commuting purposes.
> >>
> >> Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small
car
> >> would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
> >> you've got a helluva long commute.
> >> And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's
a
> >> bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.
> >
> >Why class envy?
>
> Because many SUV critics frequently point out how much money people
> who drive SUVs must have as you did with your 'if they can afford a
> Hummer..' statement.

As I said, I could have afforded an SUV when we bought our Integra, or
when we bought our Accord. We just didn't want one, for many of the
reasons I gave above.
>
> > I could have afforded an SUV when I bought my Acura. I
> >chose not to, because I don't particularly enjoy driving a truck. I
got
> >a chance to drive a small SUV when I last visited family in NJ last
> >summer. I saw nothing that made me change my mind. I drove a vehicle
> >that was not nearly as responsive as either the my Acura or Honda,
got
> >worse mileage than either, and did not have significantly more room
> >(and, may well have had less room) than my Honda.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hard to park. I realize that in Indiana
> >> >> >where you live, there is probably plenty of parking (and, I
agree
> >that
> >> >> >SUVs and large trucks do have a purpose, and there are people
who
> >do
> >> >> >need them). However, trying to park a Hummer or a large truck
in
> >an
> >> >> >urban environment, such as Honolulu is difficult, at best.
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> I gues that depends on what you man by hard to park. If you
mean
> >its
> >> >> hard to find a spot to fit it in then that's not really a
problem
> >> >> here. The parking spaces are wide and plentiful even in
downtown
> >> >> Indianapolis.
> >> >> If you mean that its mechanically hard to park then I've got to
> >> >> disagree and say it depends on the driver's skill. I've seen
> >people
> >> >> attempt to parallel park that I doubt could do it in a Mini
> >Cooper.
> >> >
> >> >I mean small spaces and large vehicles. When I lived in Utah,
> >parking a
> >> >large car was not a problem (we had a Dodge Intrepid at the time,
> >which
> >> >is not small). In Hawaii, and in NYC, parking spaces are much
> >smaller.
> >> >Indeed, you quite often see the Hummers, etc., taking up 1.5
spots.
> >>
> >> If the spaces aren't big enough for the Hummer what else are they
> >> supposed to do?
> >
> >Drive a smaller vehicle, rather than inconveniencing everyone else?
>
> It couldn't be that the parking spaces need to be enlarged to reflect
> modern realities or anything, could it? When were they laid out?
1930?
> Most SUVs, even Hummers, are shorter than a 1970's sedan.

Brilliant idea, Mayor! Of course, you end up inconveniencing far more
people because there are now fewer parking places. Remember, in Hawaii,
we are rather land limited.

Oh, and most were laid out in the '70s and '80s, or later.

0
Reply dfritzin (3022) 3/23/2005 6:27:14 PM

In article <1111583192.329994.266040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:

> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
> > <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> > >As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably
> > >afford a small car for commuting purposes.
> >
> > Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
> > would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
> > you've got a helluva long commute.
> > And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
> > bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.
> 
> This is an odd place for me to jump in, but anyway...
> 
> As far as class envy goes, can't speak for the others here, but in my
> case I highly doubt it.  My daily commuter is an A6 Quattro , and my
> every other day commuter is a Porsche (both late model vehicles).  I
> still have a truck in my driveway (will probably get rid of it this
> fall), but I hate driving it.
> 
> I had a 'hard on' for trucks when I was younger (about 7yrs ago), but
> after driving one for a while I realized I much prefer a car.  It
> really has nothing to do with mpg (even though both my Audi and my
> Porsche average 21-22mpg city/highway, while the truck will barely hit
> 12mpg and that's only if I feather the gas), more with how I like to
> drive.  I personally like driving down the freeway at 75-80mph in a car
> that was designed to do twice that speed, rather than a car that was
> barely designed to do 70mph.
> I know, we've all see the big SUVs flying down the highway doing 90mph
> or what have you, but it doesn't mean that their anywhere near 'safe'
> at those speeds.

That's been one of my points. People buy these trucks and SUVs and then 
drive them as if they were Porsches. No wonder that they're found on 
their backs so much. Everything about a truck is unsafe from the 
standpoint of driving dynamics, Your A6 and your Porsche are both very 
safe from the standpoint of being able to avoid many accidents that 
trucks, SUVs and mini-vans (not to mention many cars) simply couldn't 
avoid. Add to your cars some real driving skill, and your probably safer 
than 90% of the cars on the road. 

Of course, this doesn't address the reason you have these cars: you 
obviously enjoy driving because that's what the cars you have are made 
for - people who really ENJOY driving.

> As for rising fuel prices, it should be interesting to see how thing
> shake out.  Right now, it doesn't seem that people mind all that much,
> if the speed of the SUVs/trucks on the Freeway is any indication.  It
> should also be interesting to see how the sales of said SUVs/Trucks are
> affected (if at all).

I don't think that people really care that much. They bitch about it, 
but they continue to buy and drive these behemoth junkers nonetheless.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/23/2005 6:35:46 PM

In article <Nowhere-6FE8C1.07020023032005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-AD1FEA.23300522032005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <Nowhere-24AA23.21204022032005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <gmgravesnos-B898B5.15103122032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <Nowhere-05839B.15225022032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article 
> > > > > <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> > > > > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You applaud the government for making a popular product 
> > > > > > > essentially
> > > > > > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product 
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > > > > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of 
> > > > > > big, 
> > > > > > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with 
> > > > > > even 
> > > > > > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws 
> > > > > > enacted 
> > > > > > to 
> > > > > > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and 
> > > > > > less 
> > > > > > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all 
> > > > > > the 
> > > > > > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > > > > > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions 
> > > > > > like 
> > > > > > this one for that attitude.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The problem could be solved quite easily.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> > > > > passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> > > > > overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> > > > > passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> > > > > transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> > > > > costs, medical costs, etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> > > > > their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> > > > > people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> > > > > SUVs.
> > > > 
> > > > I've no problem with that, although I'd prefer to see something 
> > > > stimulate the auto makers to build small, light, efficient, and safe 
> > > > vehicles in their stead.
> > > 
> > > Well, if the SUVs were added to the CAFE standards in 2007, the car 
> > > makers would HAVE to make fuel efficient cars - or pay billions in fines.
> > > 
> > > Not that increasing the CAFE standards even further wouldn't be a good 
> > > idea.
> > 
> > Absolutely. But CAFE doesn't address handling, braking and other road 
> > worthiness considerations such as stability (SUVs are very easy to 
> > flip).
> 
> That's true, but you can't do everything.
> 
> If CAFE were increased 20% and SUVs were included, there would be a lot 
> more small cars on the road - and the cars you're referring to (good 
> handling and breaking but not 300 hp engines) would suddenly be more 
> competitive. I suspect you'd see better availability of the cars you 
> like, too.

I have the car "I like", and plan to keep it forever. I am more 
concerned with the average day-to-day cars, the disposable autos that 
people drive to and from work every day. These cars make up the bulk of 
the autos choking our nation's thoroughfares. They need to be more 
efficient, more responsive (and thus, safer) and lighter. They can be 
gasoline powered, Diesel, or a hybrid. I don't see much practical future 
for hydrogen fueled cars, fuel-cell cars, or corn-based alcohol powered 
cars (or drivers ;->), but people are certainly entitled to fool around 
with these technologies if they so desire. 

Kevlar bodied, aluminum and carbon-fiber framed vehicles with room for 
five, weighing less than 2000 lb is where we need to be headed 
regardless of power source. This is the best way to cut our consumption 
of non-renewable natural resources while making vehicles more road AND 
crash-worthy.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/23/2005 7:11:58 PM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <1111583192.329994.266040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:05:12 GMT, David Fritzinger
>>><dfritzinnospam@mac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As I said, if you can afford a Hummer and a boat, you can probably
>>>>afford a small car for commuting purposes.
>>>
>>>Its quite doubtful that buying, maintaining and insuring a small car
>>>would be more cost effective than just driving the Hummer unless
>>>you've got a helluva long commute.
>>>And its statements like this that lead me to conclude that there's a
>>>bit of class envy at the heart of the irrational SUV hatred.
>>
>>This is an odd place for me to jump in, but anyway...
>>
>>As far as class envy goes, can't speak for the others here, but in my
>>case I highly doubt it.  My daily commuter is an A6 Quattro , and my
>>every other day commuter is a Porsche (both late model vehicles).  I
>>still have a truck in my driveway (will probably get rid of it this
>>fall), but I hate driving it.
>>
>>I had a 'hard on' for trucks when I was younger (about 7yrs ago), but
>>after driving one for a while I realized I much prefer a car.  It
>>really has nothing to do with mpg (even though both my Audi and my
>>Porsche average 21-22mpg city/highway, while the truck will barely hit
>>12mpg and that's only if I feather the gas), more with how I like to
>>drive.  I personally like driving down the freeway at 75-80mph in a car
>>that was designed to do twice that speed, rather than a car that was
>>barely designed to do 70mph.
>>I know, we've all see the big SUVs flying down the highway doing 90mph
>>or what have you, but it doesn't mean that their anywhere near 'safe'
>>at those speeds.
> 
> 
> That's been one of my points. People buy these trucks and SUVs and then 
> drive them as if they were Porsches. No wonder that they're found on 
> their backs so much. Everything about a truck is unsafe from the 
> standpoint of driving dynamics, Your A6 and your Porsche are both very 
> safe from the standpoint of being able to avoid many accidents that 
> trucks, SUVs and mini-vans (not to mention many cars) simply couldn't 
> avoid. Add to your cars some real driving skill, and your probably safer 
> than 90% of the cars on the road. 

As to prove my point further, as I was driving home today on the freeway 
doing a casual 78mph (70mph zone), I was passed by a Grand Cherokee who 
had to be doing about 90mph.

> Of course, this doesn't address the reason you have these cars: you 
> obviously enjoy driving because that's what the cars you have are made 
> for - people who really ENJOY driving.

Absolutely.  Both cars are fun to drive (for very different reasons). 
What's kind of sad is how often I find myself driving my Boxster (doing 
about 85) and look in my mirror and see some clown in a pickup or suv 
tailgaiting me.  In some cases I'll just move out of the way and let the 
clown pass (I hate having them behind me and so close, knowing full well 
that I can stop in half the distance that they can).  In other cases, 
and when I'm feeling like a real prick, I'll increase my speed 
gradually.  Gradually enough that they can keep up and not realize that 
we're picking up speed.  I've managed to get a few clowns up to 100mph, 
before it dawns on them, how fast they're going and back off the 
accelerator.  Of course, I'm always looking for a way out, since I know 
they're behind me and there's no way they can stop, I always make sure I 
can move out my existing lane at a moments notice.

>>As for rising fuel prices, it should be interesting to see how thing
>>shake out.  Right now, it doesn't seem that people mind all that much,
>>if the speed of the SUVs/trucks on the Freeway is any indication.  It
>>should also be interesting to see how the sales of said SUVs/Trucks are
>>affected (if at all).
> 
> 
> I don't think that people really care that much. They bitch about it, 
> but they continue to buy and drive these behemoth junkers nonetheless.

I always like watching the news, and watching the guy in the Escalade 
complain about paying too much for fuel.  :)

0
Reply stravis (157) 3/24/2005 12:41:58 AM

In news:Nowhere-10F935.09540223032005@news1.west.earthlink.net,
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> typed:
> In article <mue0e.631$zl.11@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> And all of that money is dedicated to transportation
>>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's not enough.
>>>>
>>>> as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes
>>>> are being diverted else where.
>>>
>>> And you've said it wrong. Even your own URL says that the gas tax
>>> money is going for the DOT. And they still need bond issues as well.
>>
>> no, they don't.  are you retarded or something?  OK DOT has a budget
>> of $192M.  they raise some $500M more than that.  OBVIOUSLY it's not
>> all going to DOT.
>
> You keep making up figures.

no, i don't.  see below.

> Why not document them?
> Let's see what your URL says:
> www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
> Look at page 401. The gas tax only accounts for 32% of their
> expenditures.
> It also shows that federal revenues AND bonds pay for most of the
> highway construction.
>
> Nor does it say anywhere that the gas tax raised $692 million - you
> made that up.

no, i didn't.  see below.

> Let's look at your second URL:
> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
> It also doesn't come up with any numbers like the $692 million figure
> you're throwing around. It merely says that the entire tax increase
> goes
> for transportation infrastructure.
>
> Ergo, you were wrong.

no, i'm not.  let's first get something straight- you're claiming i'm wrong,
although you have no alternative figures you've provided?  did the thought
cross your mind that perhaps i forgot a link?  did you think to do any
research yourself before making accusations you can't support?

>>>>>> 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
>>>>>> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html  (i couldn't find
>>>>>> numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M
>>>>>> /year in
>>>>>> *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M
>>>>>> for state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
>>>> that's
>>>>>> not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> of back.
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas
>>>> tax goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need
>>>> more
>>>> money" very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for
>>>> the DOT, and collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of
>>>> which is state taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in
>>>> collected gas taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas
>>>> taxes that are NOT being used for road maintance.
>>>
>>> The funny thing is that you actually believe your fictional figures.
>>>
>>> 1. Your own dot source (above) says that fuel taxes pay only 32% of
>>> the cost of road maintenance. The rest comes from other sources.
>>
>> because all the fuel taxes don't go to DOT!
>
> A statement you've never yet established.

you've also never established that all the taxes *do* go to DOT.  but i'll
prove you wrong right now; i can't find the exact article i had before, so
these numbers are different, but in the ballpark (and still show that you're
way wrong):
http://www.news-star.com/stories/020605/New_50.shtml
- OK's $0.17/gallon gas tax and $0.14/gallon diesel tax slated to increase
to $0.22/gallon
- increase will raise an extra $150,000,000/year.  taking the more
conservative route and just using the miles from the diesel tax (the
previous article i couldn't find actually broke out the increased revenue
from each, that's why the numbers will be different), the miles driven is
150m/(.22-.14) = 1.875 billion miles.  multiply that back out by the og
$0.14 / mile, and you're at $262.5M, just in state taxes, not counting the
$0.184/gallon you pay for federal taxes.  that alone shows you're talking
out your ass when you say all the gas tax money goes to road maintenance.

> What we do know is that gas
> taxes pay only 32% of DOT's operating expenses and that bonds pay for
> a large part of road construction.

which obviously isn't all the gas taxes.

>>> 2. The texastransit article specifically says that 60% of the gas
>>> tax goes for roads and bridges and the rest is for other
>>> trasnportation infractructure.
>>>
>>> Your own sources prove you wrong. Congratulations.
>>
>> no, they don't.
>
> See above.

yup, see above.

> Note that you STILL haven't provided a single source that says that OK
> collects $692 M in gas taxes. You pulled that number straight out of
> your ass.

nope, i didn't.  even using the way conservative numbers above, it proves
that you pulled the "fact" of all the gas taxes in OK going to maintenance
out your ass.  just admit it.

>>> (Hint, not all gas taxes are collected at the state level. That's
>>> why your mythical numbers are wrong). And i note you didn't even
>>> TRY to
>>> come up with a source for your $279 M, $500 M, $700 M and so on that
>>> you're making up).
>>
>> take a look at the second source.  you can derive those numbers from
>> the additional revenue they say they'll get from a tax increase.
>> you can do algebra, can't you?
>
> Why don't you show us? Your second reference is:
> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
>
> Since it doesn't say how much additional revenue they're going to
> raise, where did you come up with your silly figure?
>
> Oh, and btw, you still haven't refuted the point that the DOT's budget
> is not the entire amount spent on the roads in OK.

no, but state budgets generally are waay larger than local budgets (even
combined) for road work, so unless you can come up with where that extra few
hundred million are going, it's a pretty good guess that not all the gas
taxes are spent on road maintenance as you claim.

>> <snip>
>>>>> I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I
>>>>> don't reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
>>>>> system or report it.
>>>>
>>>> but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...
>>>
>>> Where did I say that?
>>
>> right here:
>> http://tinyurl.com/create.php
>
> That's a good one. Apparently, you're too stupid to even use tinyurl.

joe, do you really want to make insults to someone who's about to prove you
wrong?
 http://tinyurl.com/5mwko

> Or maybe you're saying you can document that argument by making
> something up - like you always do.

hey dumbass, i think you have me confused with someone.

>>>>> Unlike you, I'm honest.
>>>>
>>>> and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?
>>>
>>> About the fictional numbers you made up above, for example.
>>
>> learn some algebra and come back and see if you still think they're
>> fictional.
>
> There's absolutely nothing in there that would allow you to do that
> kind
> of algebra.

see above.

> Heck, in a moment of honesty (you were apparently having a
> bad day), you stated "(i couldn't find numbers explicitly stated)"
> above.

um, yes, they weren't stated, hence the algebra.  easy, eh?

> Or maybe you simply couldn't even figure out how to quote the same URL
> again.

hey, at least i can use google for some research!

>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
>>>>>>> insufficient by itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until
>>>>>> more alternatives come online.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.
>>>>
>>>> and you base this on what?
>>>
>>> Facts - which you seem to want to do without.
>>
>> and what facts do you imagine those to be?
>
> The ones that you keep providing that contradict your argument, for
> example.

how about something specific?  i don't want you to be mentioning something
that only exists in your head...

>>>>> AND it
>>>>> wouldn't come on line immediately.
>>>>
>>>> nobody said it would.
>>>
>>> Other than you - who claimed that it would make a huge dent in our
>>> dependency until we had something else.
>>
>> yes, it would, and no, it wouldn't be online immediately.  those
>> statements are not mutually exclusive.
>
> The HIGHEST estimate is that drilling in Alaska might eventually
> produce enough oil to reduce our imports by 5%. That's hardly a "huge
> dent".

oh yeah?  the HIGHEST estimates say that?  would you like to do some
research first, or would you like to stand by that statement?

>>>>>>> I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
>>>>>>> thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
>>>>>> main reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
>>>>>> totally different kind of kook).
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?
>>>>
>>>> it was certainly implied when you said:
>>>> "If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
>>>> the Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
>>>> been doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
>>>> happened, nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "
>>>
>>> How does that say that it's the main reason?
>>>
>>>> that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
>>>> apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.
>>>
>>> My point is that it's PART of the reason. What part of that don't
>>> you understand?
>>
>> get your panties out of a twist joe, and reread my statement there.
>
> I read your statement and you're still wrong.

which part?  where i said there may have been a misunderstanding?  boy, you
are a bitch, aren't you?  what's your problem- get beat up too many times as
a kid?  wife beat you?  whatever it is, you *really* need to unbunch your
panties.

> Are you under the delusion that the meaning of something changes if
> you  let it ferment for a while?

soooo, you *don't* think there was a misunderstanding?  why don't you try
reading the statement AGAIN.  dumbass.

>>>>> OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
>>>>> let the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it.
>>>>> Clearly,
>>>>
>>>>> we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
>>>>> interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
>>>>
>>>> we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic
>>>> interests, so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.
>>>
>>> You're out of your mind if you don't think we have strategic
>>> interests in the Middle East.
>>
>> i didn't say that either, dumbass.  reread what i actually wrote.
>
> Look up about 8 lines. You stated "we've clearly gotten involved where
> we don't have strategic interests". You're flipflopping pretty wildly
> at this point.

no stupid, i am not flipping.
- you said we're in the middle east because of a strategic interest.
- i said we've clearly gotten involved in places where we *don't* have a
strategic interest, so why draw the line at "strategic interests" as a
bounding condition of where we've been(here's where you went wrong- you for
some reason, assumed i was talking middle ease, although there was nothing
in my statement to suggest i was just talking about the m. east.  think
somalia.)
- you then said i'm out of my mind for thinking we have no strategic
interests in the middle east (never mind i never said any such thin)
- i pointed out i never said such a thing
- you get retarded and say i'm flipflopping

clear now?


0
Reply news_test (1245) 3/24/2005 3:53:33 AM

In article <1Rq0e.929$zl.775@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:Nowhere-10F935.09540223032005@news1.west.earthlink.net,
> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> typed:
> > In article <mue0e.631$zl.11@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news_test@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>>>> And all of that money is dedicated to transportation
> >>>>> infrastructure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But it's not enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> as i said, that's because all the money being raised by gas taxes
> >>>> are being diverted else where.
> >>>
> >>> And you've said it wrong. Even your own URL says that the gas tax
> >>> money is going for the DOT. And they still need bond issues as well.
> >>
> >> no, they don't.  are you retarded or something?  OK DOT has a budget
> >> of $192M.  they raise some $500M more than that.  OBVIOUSLY it's not
> >> all going to DOT.
> >
> > You keep making up figures.
> 
> no, i don't.  see below.
> 
> > Why not document them?
> > Let's see what your URL says:
> > www.osf.state.ok.us/bud05-transportation.pdf
> > Look at page 401. The gas tax only accounts for 32% of their
> > expenditures.
> > It also shows that federal revenues AND bonds pay for most of the
> > highway construction.
> >
> > Nor does it say anywhere that the gas tax raised $692 million - you
> > made that up.
> 
> no, i didn't.  see below.
> 
> > Let's look at your second URL:
> > http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
> > It also doesn't come up with any numbers like the $692 million figure
> > you're throwing around. It merely says that the entire tax increase
> > goes
> > for transportation infrastructure.
> >
> > Ergo, you were wrong.
> 
> no, i'm not.  let's first get something straight- you're claiming i'm wrong,
> although you have no alternative figures you've provided?  did the thought
> cross your mind that perhaps i forgot a link?  did you think to do any
> research yourself before making accusations you can't support?
> 
> >>>>>> 2- backing out 2003 numbers from this article:
> >>>>>> http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html  (i couldn't find
> >>>>>> numbers explicitly stated), shows that OK collects some $279M
> >>>>>> /year in
> >>>>>> *state* gas taxes alone at $0.16/gallon, and an additional $88M
> >>>>>> for state diesel taxes at $0.13/gallon, for a total of $367M/yr.
> >>>> that's
> >>>>>> not including the $0.18/gallon federal tax, which OK receives
> >>>>>> most
> >>>>>> of back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So?
> >>>>
> >>>> so it makes it very obvious that your claim "In my state, the gas
> >>>> tax goes exclusively for road maintenance - and they STILL need
> >>>> more
> >>>> money" very, very, very wrong.  your state has a $197M budget for
> >>>> the DOT, and collects close to $700M in total gas taxes ($367M of
> >>>> which is state taxes; OK gets some 90% back from the fed'l gov't in
> >>>> collected gas taxes).  your state collects close to $500M in gas
> >>>> taxes that are NOT being used for road maintance.
> >>>
> >>> The funny thing is that you actually believe your fictional figures.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Your own dot source (above) says that fuel taxes pay only 32% of
> >>> the cost of road maintenance. The rest comes from other sources.
> >>
> >> because all the fuel taxes don't go to DOT!
> >
> > A statement you've never yet established.
> 
> you've also never established that all the taxes *do* go to DOT.  but i'll
> prove you wrong right now; i can't find the exact article i had before, so

ROTFLMAO. IOW< you made it up.

> these numbers are different, but in the ballpark (and still show that you're
> way wrong):
> http://www.news-star.com/stories/020605/New_50.shtml
> - OK's $0.17/gallon gas tax and $0.14/gallon diesel tax slated to increase
> to $0.22/gallon
> - increase will raise an extra $150,000,000/year.  taking the more
> conservative route and just using the miles from the diesel tax (the
> previous article i couldn't find actually broke out the increased revenue
> from each, that's why the numbers will be different), the miles driven is
> 150m/(.22-.14) = 1.875 billion miles.  multiply that back out by the og
> $0.14 / mile, and you're at $262.5M, just in state taxes, not counting the
> $0.184/gallon you pay for federal taxes.  that alone shows you're talking
> out your ass when you say all the gas tax money goes to road maintenance.

IOW, you're assuming:

1. That all the fuel taxes go to OK State and none to go counties.
2. That the DOT is the only department that has any input into the 
repairs.

Neither of these is correct.


Your own sources (I see that you've deleted them above because they 
proved you wrong) said that all the fuel taxes in OK went for 
transportation infrastructure.

> 
> > What we do know is that gas
> > taxes pay only 32% of DOT's operating expenses and that bonds pay for
> > a large part of road construction.
> 
> which obviously isn't all the gas taxes.

If you're so sure of that, why don't you provide evidence of where else 
the gas taxes are being used? Especially in light of the fact that your 
own sources say that the fuel taxes are used exclusively for 
transportation.

In fact, the gas taxes ARE being used for transportation, it's just that 
the state doesn't get all of them. The counties get a share.

> 
> >>> 2. The texastransit article specifically says that 60% of the gas
> >>> tax goes for roads and bridges and the rest is for other
> >>> trasnportation infractructure.
> >>>
> >>> Your own sources prove you wrong. Congratulations.
> >>
> >> no, they don't.
> >
> > See above.
> 
> yup, see above.
> 
> > Note that you STILL haven't provided a single source that says that OK
> > collects $692 M in gas taxes. You pulled that number straight out of
> > your ass.
> 
> nope, i didn't.  even using the way conservative numbers above, it proves
> that you pulled the "fact" of all the gas taxes in OK going to maintenance
> out your ass.  just admit it.

IOW, you made up the $692 M figure.

And the above figures don't prove your point, either.

> 
> >>> (Hint, not all gas taxes are collected at the state level. That's
> >>> why your mythical numbers are wrong). And i note you didn't even
> >>> TRY to
> >>> come up with a source for your $279 M, $500 M, $700 M and so on that
> >>> you're making up).
> >>
> >> take a look at the second source.  you can derive those numbers from
> >> the additional revenue they say they'll get from a tax increase.
> >> you can do algebra, can't you?
> >
> > Why don't you show us? Your second reference is:
> > http://www.texastransit.org/archives/000584.html
> >
> > Since it doesn't say how much additional revenue they're going to
> > raise, where did you come up with your silly figure?
> >
> > Oh, and btw, you still haven't refuted the point that the DOT's budget
> > is not the entire amount spent on the roads in OK.
> 
> no, but state budgets generally are waay larger than local budgets (even
> combined) for road work, so unless you can come up with where that extra few
> hundred million are going, it's a pretty good guess that not all the gas
> taxes are spent on road maintenance as you claim.
> 
> >> <snip>
> >>>>> I'll do a clean installation of Windows XP first. As long as I
> >>>>> don't reconnect it to the Internet, it won't be infected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for the rest, either I'll find the problem with the charging
> >>>>> system or report it.
> >>>>
> >>>> but you stated you weren't going to have it fixed...
> >>>
> >>> Where did I say that?
> >>
> >> right here:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/create.php
> >
> > That's a good one. Apparently, you're too stupid to even use tinyurl.
> 
> joe, do you really want to make insults to someone who's about to prove you
> wrong?
>  http://tinyurl.com/5mwko

I see you found someone to teach you how to use tinyurl? Good.

Sadly, there's nothing in that quote that says I was going to throw it 
away.

> 
> > Or maybe you're saying you can document that argument by making
> > something up - like you always do.
> 
> hey dumbass, i think you have me confused with someone.

No, you just admitted above that you made up the $692 M figure.

> 
> >>>>> Unlike you, I'm honest.
> >>>>
> >>>> and what, prey tell, do you imagine i've been dishonest about?
> >>>
> >>> About the fictional numbers you made up above, for example.
> >>
> >> learn some algebra and come back and see if you still think they're
> >> fictional.
> >
> > There's absolutely nothing in there that would allow you to do that
> > kind
> > of algebra.
> 
> see above.
> 
> > Heck, in a moment of honesty (you were apparently having a
> > bad day), you stated "(i couldn't find numbers explicitly stated)"
> > above.
> 
> um, yes, they weren't stated, hence the algebra.  easy, eh?
> 
> > Or maybe you simply couldn't even figure out how to quote the same URL
> > again.
> 
> hey, at least i can use google for some research!

Yet the only 'research' you've provided supports MY point, not yours. 
Good going.

> 
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>> fine, let's go drilling in alaska.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That might easily be part of the solution, but is clearly
> >>>>>>> insufficient by itself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it would likely make a *huge* dent in our oil dependancy until
> >>>>>> more alternatives come online.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hardly 'huge'. It would contribute a couple percent - at most.
> >>>>
> >>>> and you base this on what?
> >>>
> >>> Facts - which you seem to want to do without.
> >>
> >> and what facts do you imagine those to be?
> >
> > The ones that you keep providing that contradict your argument, for
> > example.
> 
> how about something specific?  i don't want you to be mentioning something
> that only exists in your head...

I already showed you. And you must agree since you snipped those 
responses and URLs out this time.

> 
> >>>>> AND it
> >>>>> wouldn't come on line immediately.
> >>>>
> >>>> nobody said it would.
> >>>
> >>> Other than you - who claimed that it would make a huge dent in our
> >>> dependency until we had something else.
> >>
> >> yes, it would, and no, it wouldn't be online immediately.  those
> >> statements are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > The HIGHEST estimate is that drilling in Alaska might eventually
> > produce enough oil to reduce our imports by 5%. That's hardly a "huge
> > dent".
> 
> oh yeah?  the HIGHEST estimates say that?  would you like to do some
> research first, or would you like to stand by that statement?

You're the one who claimed that drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge 
would make a huge dent in our oil consumption. Why don't you provide 
some evidence? Some REAL evidence, this time.

> 
> >>>>>>> I'd rather drill in Alaska than fight a war every 10 years where
> >>>>>>> thousands of kids are killed or maimed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> i wouldn't have taken you for one of the kooks that thought the
> >>>>>> main reason we fought the gulf war was over oil (i took you for a
> >>>>>> totally different kind of kook).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where did I ever say that oil was the main reason?
> >>>>
> >>>> it was certainly implied when you said:
> >>>> "If our country were self-sufficient in energy, we could have left
> >>>> the Middle Eastern countries to handle their own affairs. If we had
> >>>> been doing that for 20 years, 9/11 almost certainly would not have
> >>>> happened, nor would we have had 2 gulf wars. "
> >>>
> >>> How does that say that it's the main reason?
> >>>
> >>>> that certainly seems to imply that's what you believe.  if not, i
> >>>> apologize for the misunderstanding, and please restate your point.
> >>>
> >>> My point is that it's PART of the reason. What part of that don't
> >>> you understand?
> >>
> >> get your panties out of a twist joe, and reread my statement there.
> >
> > I read your statement and you're still wrong.
> 
> which part?  where i said there may have been a misunderstanding?  boy, you
> are a bitch, aren't you?  what's your problem- get beat up too many times as
> a kid?  wife beat you?  whatever it is, you *really* need to unbunch your
> panties.

Is that supposed to be an intelligent response? You failed.

> 
> > Are you under the delusion that the meaning of something changes if
> > you  let it ferment for a while?
> 
> soooo, you *don't* think there was a misunderstanding?  why don't you try
> reading the statement AGAIN.  dumbass.
> 
> >>>>> OTOH, if we weren't dependent on the Middle East for oil, we could
> >>>>> let the crazies shoot themselves all day and not worry about it.
> >>>>> Clearly,
> >>>>
> >>>>> we're there because we have a strategic interest. What strategic
> >>>>> interest do you think we have in the Middle East if not oil?
> >>>>
> >>>> we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic
> >>>> interests, so i'm not sure why you would draw that particular line.
> >>>
> >>> You're out of your mind if you don't think we have strategic
> >>> interests in the Middle East.
> >>
> >> i didn't say that either, dumbass.  reread what i actually wrote.
> >
> > Look up about 8 lines. You stated "we've clearly gotten involved where
> > we don't have strategic interests". You're flipflopping pretty wildly
> > at this point.
> 
> no stupid, i am not flipping.
> - you said we're in the middle east because of a strategic interest.
> - i said we've clearly gotten involved in places where we *don't* have a
> strategic interest, so why draw the line at "strategic interests" as a
> bounding condition of where we've been(here's where you went wrong- you for
> some reason, assumed i was talking middle ease, although there was nothing
> in my statement to suggest i was just talking about the m. east.  think
> somalia.)
> - you then said i'm out of my mind for thinking we have no strategic
> interests in the middle east (never mind i never said any such thin)
> - i pointed out i never said such a thing
> - you get retarded and say i'm flipflopping
> 
> clear now?

Sure. Apparently, you were unable to stay on topic.

[discussion about Gulf oil snipped]
Me: What strategic interest do you think we have in the Middle East if 
not oil?
You: "we've clearly gotten involved where we don't have strategic 
interests"

How in the world would any intelligent person understand that you were 
talking about Nigeria or Botswana instead of the gulf?
You: we ar
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/24/2005 12:55:12 PM

Brent wrote:
> On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article
abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The latest from Consumer Reports:
> > "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> > vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> > closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
be
> > among the least reliable overall."
> >
> > So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
American
> > one does have some basis in fact.
>
> The Mac is amongst the most reliable (as in needing repair) computers
one
> can purchase, actually.

Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC maker.

Maybe a Mac is like a Lotus Elise, but with Toyota reliability?
Speaking of the Elise, maybe the need for reliability is why the Elise
has a Toyota engine, IIRC.

Although I use the PC/XP stuff at work and at home, I'm thinking of
going Mac for home use, BTW, for all the usual reasons: too many PC
security threats, Mac is easier for typical home and family use, Mac
looks better, etc. Also, after a day staring at PC/XP, it would be
refreshing to look at something a bit different at home.

>SO I don't think that this would be quite right.
> Also the OS is a lot more stable and predictable.
>
> I think the Mac would be more like a Japanese car with some styling -
but
> only available in right hand drive! :-)

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/24/2005 10:14:04 PM

3l33td00d wrote:
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

(snip)

> > So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
American
> > one does have some basis in fact.

By the way, I made a comparison of the Mac and PC to different brands
of home audio gear in another newsgroup recently, so the auto
comparison is kinda interesting to me too.

In many ways, Apple gear represents a lifestyle, not just hardware.
Some are attracted to that lifestyle, some aren't. There's more to
Apple gear than being a lifestyle, but that is part of what goes with
any Apple product, IMHO.

> You are perhaps more correct than you realize in comparing the PC to
> American automobiles. The typical desktop PC is like one of those
> American SUVs -- huge, noisy, about as stylish as a bus,

That's part of the attraction of the Mac Mini, which I'm considering
buying to replace my big, ugly XP/PC hardware...I thought about an
XP/PC laptop too, but the Mac laptops look so much better too...

>and constantly
> wasting resources. The commercial tells you that it can handle any
> terrain, but once you buy it you realize that the off-road
performance
> is mostly exaggerated. It might come with a powerful engine and lots
of
> storage space, but it's still completely impractical for many
> applications. Also, you live with the constant threat of rolling over
> during simple manuevers, kind of like getting spyware just for
visitng
> a website.

I see your point.

> (I suppose the exception here would be a Linux PC, which would be
more
> like any ordinary car that some hobbyist has put considerable effort
> into improving. As cool as it might be, the non-mechanical folks
> probably won't have anything like it for awhile.)

Maybe a Linux PC is like a hot rod that suits its owner well, but isn't
an appropriate vehicle for typical consumers who don't care what's
under the hood.

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/24/2005 10:22:56 PM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

(snip)

> This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations, and is
mostly
> relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been
(except
> for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to junk
on
> EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955
> Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. The
> ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions; all
the
> same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.
People
> expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000 miles
with
> no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations very
> quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that
happen,
> so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to make
them
> work.

One would think that the older US cars would be reliable for the
reasons you list above, but from my experience and what I've read, such
was not the case. The latest cars are not only much more complex and
have many more features, they're more reliable too. They defy
expectations that way.

>They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy
> to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable.

Having owned and driven some late 1960's/early 1970's cars from GM, I'd
say one would expect cars designed like the above to be reliable, yet
they often weren't. Due to a carbeuretor (sp?) that tended to hang up
on many GM V8's, they often wouldn't start at all. And the inside rear
view mirror tended to fall off every year or so, so the dealer kept
having to glue it back on.

I'll add that many of the 1970's Japanese cars were also very
conservative designs: front engine, RWD, carbs, etc. People fled US
cars for Japanese cars partly for MPG reasons, but the Japanese cars
had better reliability, and that built owner loyalty.

We now have one US car and one Japanese car in our driveway, both cars
being fairly recent. The US car drives pretty well, but many of the
plastic knobs and interior exterior bits tend to break, or self
destruct and fall off. Very annoying, although overall the car is
reliable and sound. I've never had a Japanese car with these sort of
petty problems. When the US car dies, it'll be replaced by a Japanese
car.

>When the Japanese
> decided to enter this market, they realized that they couldn't afford

> for their cars to be unreliable, but at the same time, couldn't
emulate
> the the US practice of making every component super heavy and robust
and
> under-stressed either, so they took advantage of advancements in
> materials technology to give them the edge in reliability and low
> frequency of repair. It worked, and the Japanese can make small
engined
> cars that last just as long and are just as reliable and
> maintenance-free as The old American clunkers.

More so, IMHO.

Part of the reason for the Japanese success is that even as US cars
have improved in reliability, the Japanese keep pushing further ahead.
The US makers still haven't caught up yet, and the Japanese keep
pushing ahead in reliability.

I've read that internally at GM, it's been an outgoing embarrassment
that GM customers keep rating the Toyota-built GM cars higher than GM's
own US vehicles.

> The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to help
cope
> with their high fuel costs,

Yet with the exception of the VW diesels, the Europeans seem to have
given up on importing high-MPG cars to the US.

>they want cars which handle well to deal
> with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads. They
are
> less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although that's

> changing) and more concerned with overall longevity.

Can less-reliable cars have longevity? These days, wouldn't a more
reliable car, such as a Japanese car, have greater longevity, given
equal (or maybe even less) maintenance than a European car?

>Traditionally,
> Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts, but
> that's changing very quickly as well.

Could be. Just generally, it's my impression that taxes and other
expenses for car ownership, including fuel prices, are much higher in
Europe than in the US, so I'd imagine that would tend to make European
consumers hold onto their cars longer.

>Fact is, today, one see very few
> older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or
less.
> European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need to
in
> this regard,

>From what I've read, European cars are falling further and further
behind in reliability. Look at Consumer Reports' owner surveys (every
April issue) for an appalling number of European examples. I've read
that part of the problem is that (for example) many German cars are
moving ahead too fast with new technologies (such as BMW's iDrive), and
putting them into cars before the bugs are worked out, and that's part
of why the reliability is so poor, at least in the US market.


>and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive
> than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past, the
> European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the cars
be
> be high-maintenance, and they were.

Actually, when European cars boomed in the early 1960's in the US, like
VW did, a lot of it had to do with the idea that the VW (for example)
had superior quality.

> I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old (My

> Alfa)

Cool! I had a '66 Guilia GT many years ago...

>and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down
> on me or left me stranded. The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of
> maintenance.

Mine was pretty reliable. My Fiat was another story...

>Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles
> MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went 220,000
> miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump! I prefer European cars to Japanese

> and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with lots of

> characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that
> Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these
things,
> and don't want to see them go away.

Unfortunately, due to reliability issues, the European makers that
still sell in the US are their own worst enemy. And new approaches,
such as BMW's widely-hated iDrive, aren't helping either.

In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued to
boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.

I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many sports
cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with the
least hassles. From experience, I've learned where to get that kind of
car, and it's not at dealers selling European cars.

>I accept that these cars require
> more maintenance as the price I pay for the driving characteristics I

> demand,

Fair enough.

>so my expectations are not that the cars can go from the
> showroom to the auto dismantler without ever having the hood (bonnet)

> raised, the way owners of many Japanese and American do. So, like I
> said, these expectations are relative.

Good point.

I think that VW has a very stylish lineup; they have some very
cool-looking cars. I think of the Golf and Jetta as being about as
stylish as much of the Mac gear.

Too bad I probably won't ever buy a VW, because in reliability VW just
isn't competitive with their Japanese competitors in the US. I need a
car that I and my family can drive without hassles, and the best choice
is a Japanese car these days, IMHO. I really do wish that the European
cars were more competitive in reliability; that would be good for them
and for consumers too.

> --
> George Graves
> ------------------
> "...in all cases where either platform will do the same
> job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/24/2005 11:11:13 PM

In article <1111705873.255100.271840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
> >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart)
> > > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations, and is
> mostly
> > relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been
> (except
> > for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to junk
> on
> > EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955
> > Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. The
> > ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions; all
> the
> > same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.
> People
> > expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000 miles
> with
> > no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations very
> > quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that
> happen,
> > so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to make
> them
> > work.
> 
> One would think that the older US cars would be reliable for the
> reasons you list above, but from my experience and what I've read, such
> was not the case. The latest cars are not only much more complex and
> have many more features, they're more reliable too. They defy
> expectations that way.

Depends on what you mean by reliable. Like I said "reliable" means 
different things to different people. I consider an "enthusiasts" car 
"reliable" if it can be counted upon to start every morning, to get you 
where you are going and get you back without breaking down. Some people 
might consider that only one aspect of the reliability equation, the 
other being frequency of repair. For example, I consider a 
high-performance car to require more maintenance than I would expect of 
an automobile used as an appliance, and I accept that high maintenance 
as part of the cost of ownership of such a car. If I didn't, I'd say 
that I had no business owning such a car. While I expect and don't 
really mind the high maintenance of various Jaguar XKs, Ferraris and 
Alfa Romeos that have passed through my hands over the years, I wouldn't 
tolerate similar requirements from my appliance "daily drivers" for one 
minute. They must be dependable, low in maintenance, and utterly 
undemanding of my time or attention beyond what is required to keep them 
that way. Looked at another way, one expects one's mistress to not be 
able to cook, to be expensive to keep, and somewhat demanding - but then 
one doesn't visit one's mistress for a home-cooked meal, or because she 
doesn't expect anything from you. You go to your wife for the more 
mundane aspects of domestic life, you go to your mistress for the fun, 
the guilty pleasures of life, and unless you're a complete cad, you 
expect to pay for your fun.

> > >They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy
> > to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable.
> 
> Having owned and driven some late 1960's/early 1970's cars from GM, I'd
> say one would expect cars designed like the above to be reliable, yet
> they often weren't. Due to a carbeuretor (sp?) that tended to hang up
> on many GM V8's, they often wouldn't start at all. And the inside rear
> view mirror tended to fall off every year or so, so the dealer kept
> having to glue it back on.

Did you not read the passage above where I said that American cars have 
almost always been very reliable EXCEPT "for an unfortunate period in 
the 1970's when they descended to junk on EVERY front, including 
reliability"?

The 1970's were a difficult time for the auto industry in the US. For 
the first time in history they were faced with meeting demands imposed 
upon them from the outside by state and federal government agencies, 
Smog requirements alone made the cars run very poorly and early ones got 
atrocious gas milage. I had a girlfriend at the time who owned a 
then-new Ford Torino. To start it when cold, one had to grind on the 
starter until the battery just about gave up the ghost, then it would 
finally catch and stumble to life. Repeated trips to the dealership 
never solved the problem. She finally got rid of it.

> I'll add that many of the 1970's Japanese cars were also very
> conservative designs: front engine, RWD, carbs, etc. People fled US
> cars for Japanese cars partly for MPG reasons, but the Japanese cars
> had better reliability, and that built owner loyalty.

The Japanese were smart enough to put the money where the buyer could 
see it. I owned two of the original Honda Civics during this period and 
the cars were perfect daily drivers. Enough performance to keep up with 
traffic, excellent fuel economy and virtually trouble-free. During this 
time I also owned a Jaguar XK140MC, Another Jag, a D-Type race car, an 
Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce, and a Ferrari Dino (not all at the same time, 
mind you), and I had enough on my plate. I didn't need a 
high-maintenance daily driver along with all the exotica.

> We now have one US car and one Japanese car in our driveway, both cars
> being fairly recent. The US car drives pretty well, but many of the
> plastic knobs and interior exterior bits tend to break, or self
> destruct and fall off. Very annoying, although overall the car is
> reliable and sound. I've never had a Japanese car with these sort of
> petty problems. When the US car dies, it'll be replaced by a Japanese
> car.

I hear you, yet Japanese cars aren't as good as they used to be either. 
When Nissan (Datsun, in those days) first came to these shores, they 
sold a sedan called a 510. It was virtually indestructable. I know of 
people who have put a third of a million miles and more on the cars and 
never had to rebuild the engine. I also know guys who raced them in the 
TransAM 2-liter class and went through an entire season without a 
failure or a rebuild! In a race car, that's not only unusual, its 
friggin unheard of!
> 
> >When the Japanese
> > decided to enter this market, they realized that they couldn't afford
> 
> > for their cars to be unreliable, but at the same time, couldn't
> emulate
> > the the US practice of making every component super heavy and robust
> and
> > under-stressed either, so they took advantage of advancements in
> > materials technology to give them the edge in reliability and low
> > frequency of repair. It worked, and the Japanese can make small
> engined
> > cars that last just as long and are just as reliable and
> > maintenance-free as The old American clunkers.
> 
> More so, IMHO.

> > Part of the reason for the Japanese success is that even as US cars
> have improved in reliability, the Japanese keep pushing further ahead.
> The US makers still haven't caught up yet, and the Japanese keep
> pushing ahead in reliability.

You must mean frequency of repair, because you can't get any more 
reliable than NEVER failing over it's entire life cycle. Most cars have 
been there for more than a decade.

> I've read that internally at GM, it's been an outgoing embarrassment
> that GM customers keep rating the Toyota-built GM cars higher than GM's
> own US vehicles.

Corporate culture is at work here. It's hard, often even impossible, to 
change a company's corporate culture from within.

> > The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to help
> cope
> > with their high fuel costs,
> 
> Yet with the exception of the VW diesels, the Europeans seem to have
> given up on importing high-MPG cars to the US.

Reliability and quality in many cases. British cars might have been fun 
to drive in the '50's, but reliable they weren't and they garnered 
themselves an unenviable and nasty reputation that still hasn't gone 
away. They were able to still sell cars in the US until the Japanese 
showed up here in the early sixties with very British-like cars that had 
the most un-British characteristic of actually being reliable and low in 
maintenance. The Japanese killed the British export market for cars, and 
eventually killed off most English brands at home as well. Japanese 
bikes did the same thing to the British motorcycle industry. The French 
never got their acts together, and as late as 1995 a Peugeot was a piece 
of crap that fell apart the moment one bought it. They're OK now, but 
losing the US market was a hard blow for the French auto industry. Fiat 
(as well as other Italian brands) was a victim of a "deal with the 
devil" that forced them to use Soviet steel to build cars with in the 
'60's and '70's . They, in cahoots with the Communist dominated Italian 
Government of the time, entered a deal with the Soviet Bloc to provide 
them with turn-key car factories in Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc. 
When it came time for the Commies to pay-up, they were cash-poor, so 
they hammered-out a deal with the Eye-Ties to pay of the debt with 
steel. It was a disastrous bargain! Fiats, Lancias Alfas, De Tomaso's, 
Isos Bizzarinis, Maseratis, etc. were literally beginning to rust before 
they even left the assembly lines. The brittle, high-sulphur steel that 
the iron curtain countries were producing was that bad. The smaller 
companies succumbed to the warranty costs of fixing these things again 
and again. Fiat cut it losses and took Lancia (which they owned) with 
them in 1981 when they left the US market. Alfa Romeo stopped using the 
Soviet steel in the 1980's and most 80's and 90's Alfas are as rust free 
as any BMW or Mercedes. When Fiat acquired Alfa in the late '80's they 
set about re-furbishing the line. They went to FWD and paired the 
American offerings down to just two models: The 164 Sedan (FWD) and the 
VERY long-in-the-tooth Alfa Spider. The little sports roadster was a 
nice car, but Alfa hadn't changed it appreciably in 25 years.  It was 
becoming increasingly difficult for even the most ardent Alfa lover to 
justify another Spider, essentially just like the last one. The Mazda 
Miata came along and essentially killed that market off dead. The 164 
sedan was (and remains) a nice car, but the fact is, Alfa owners want 
sports cars, not sedans. Failing to have a new one ready, Alfa sold only 
500 cars in all of North America in 1995 and Fiat pulled the plug. It's 
ironic too, because the next year, 1996 Alfa released the new Spider and 
GTV coupe. These two sports cars were DESIGNED for the US market and had 
been totally federalized. They and the beautiful new 156 sedan would 
have sold like hotcakes here in the US from pent-up Alfa enthusiast 
demand alone. Fiat knows that now, and regrets the move, but the people 
who made the decision are, naturally, long gone.

Today, the Germans with their Porsches, Audis, VWs, and Mercedes along 
with Sweden's Volvo (a Ford) and SAAB (a GM/Subaru) and Italy's super 
cars - Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, are the only European makes still 
sold here.  I can attest to the fact that VWs are marvelous cars, as are 
Audis and Porsches. I hear mixed things about Beemers, the rest I don't 
have any experience with (except for several older Ferraris). Of course, 
one can't lump Italian supercars with the others, they are a special 
case and not subject to the same laws of reliability as would apply to a 
VW.

> 
> >they want cars which handle well to deal
> > with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads. They
> are
> > less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although that's
> 
> > changing) and more concerned with overall longevity.
> 
> Can less-reliable cars have longevity? These days, wouldn't a more
> reliable car, such as a Japanese car, have greater longevity, given
> equal (or maybe even less) maintenance than a European car?

Nope. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

> >Traditionally,
> > Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts, but
> > that's changing very quickly as well.
> 
> Could be. Just generally, it's my impression that taxes and other
> expenses for car ownership, including fuel prices, are much higher in
> Europe than in the US, so I'd imagine that would tend to make European
> consumers hold onto their cars longer.

They don't any more. On European roads one rarely sees a car older than 
two-three years old - five at the outside.

> >Fact is, today, one see very few
> > older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or
> less.
> > European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need to
> in
> > this regard,
> 
> >From what I've read, European cars are falling further and further
> behind in reliability. Look at Consumer Reports' owner surveys (every
> April issue) for an appalling number of European examples. I've read
> that part of the problem is that (for example) many German cars are
> moving ahead too fast with new technologies (such as BMW's iDrive), and
> putting them into cars before the bugs are worked out, and that's part
> of why the reliability is so poor, at least in the US market.

I doubt that Idrive puts too many Beemers on the side of the road. 

> >and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive
> > than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past, the
> > European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the cars
> be high-maintenance, and they were.
> 
> Actually, when European cars boomed in the early 1960's in the US, like
> VW did, a lot of it had to do with the idea that the VW (for example)
> had superior quality.

Quality and reliability are not really that closely linked. Some of the 
world's finest cars are VERY high maintenance vehicles - always have 
been. Rolls-Royces, for instance. But when Madam had the chauffeur to 
deal with servicing the Rolls, what did she care how maintenance 
intensive the thing was?

> > I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old (My
> 
> > Alfa)
> 
> Cool! I had a '66 Guilia GT many years ago...

My GTV-6 is the light of my life. Not my main transportation, mind you 
(I want this puppy to LAST) but when I do take it out for spin on 
weekends (taking it to the historic races at Sears Point Raceway in the 
Napa wine country on Sunday -weather permitting) It takes days to get 
the smile off of my face!

You had an original "Bertie"? Good for you. Marvelous cars. Probably the 
most beautiful small car in history and good ones are worth a fortune 
these days.

> >and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down
> > on me or left me stranded. The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of
> > maintenance.
> 
> Mine was pretty reliable. My Fiat was another story...

Yes, they almost always were.......

> >Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles
> > MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went 220,000
> > miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump! I prefer European cars to Japanese
> 
> > and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with lots of
> 
> > characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that
> > Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these
> things,
> > and don't want to see them go away.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to reliability issues, the European makers that
> still sell in the US are their own worst enemy. And new approaches,
> such as BMW's widely-hated iDrive, aren't helping either.

I just wouldn't use the thing. It is an option like Alfa's 'Connect' 
system which is a combo stereo, cellphone, GPS, receiver and sort of 
Euro "On Star" system. Its lousy, If I lived in Italy, I wouldn't order 
my new Alfa with the thing. I've lots of experience with it and wouldn't 
give you a nickel for it. Sane with iDrive, None of this, however has 
anything whatsoever to do with the running of the car.

> In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued to
> boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.
> 
> I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many sports
> cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with the
> least hassles.

Everybody needs at least that. I've my VW for everyday, and my Alfa as 
my toy. I'll trade in the VW when it gets long in the tooth, but the 
Alfa I keep 'till death does us part!

> From experience, I've learned where to get that kind of
> car, and it's not at dealers selling European cars.

VWs are just as reliable and even better built than most Japanese cars 
in my humble opinion. Besides the German engineers actually drive the 
cars they design while the Japanese engineers take the train to work. 
That means a lot to me, and I can FEEL the difference behind the wheel.
> 
> >I accept that these cars require
> > more maintenance as the price I pay for the driving characteristics I
> 
> > demand,
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> >so my expectations are not that the cars can go from the
> > showroom to the auto dismantler without ever having the hood (bonnet)
> 
> > raised, the way owners of many Japanese and American do. So, like I
> > said, these expectations are relative.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> I think that VW has a very stylish lineup; they have some very
> cool-looking cars. I think of the Golf and Jetta as being about as
> stylish as much of the Mac gear.
> 
> Too bad I probably won't ever buy a VW, because in reliability VW just
> isn't competitive with their Japanese competitors in the US. 

I disagree. I find VWs, as I said earlier. every bit as reliable and 
quite a bit better made than most Japanese alternatives.

>I need a
> car that I and my family can drive without hassles, and the best choice
> is a Japanese car these days, IMHO. I really do wish that the European
> cars were more competitive in reliability; that would be good for them
> and for consumers too.

VWs and Audis are. You obviously don't have any recent experience with 
them.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 2:00:56 AM

In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:

> Brent wrote:
> > On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article
> abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
> > "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The latest from Consumer Reports:
> > > "Our survey also shows that improvement in the reliability of U.S.
> > > vehicles was no fluke. American cars and trucks continue to edge
> > > closer to Japanese and Korean makes. European vehicles continue to
> be
> > > among the least reliable overall."
> > >
> > > So your comparing the Mac to a European car and the PC to an
> American
> > > one does have some basis in fact.
> >
> > The Mac is amongst the most reliable (as in needing repair) computers
> one
> > can purchase, actually.
> 
> Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC maker.
> 
> Maybe a Mac is like a Lotus Elise, but with Toyota reliability?
> Speaking of the Elise, maybe the need for reliability is why the Elise
> has a Toyota engine, IIRC.

The need to pass California emissions is why the Elise has a Toyota 
drive train. The Rover engine in the UK version could not.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 2:02:59 AM

George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Another strawman from the Mayor. Nobody proposes that anyone use a 
> sportscar for that, or for any other practical purpose. A sports car is
> a toy - pure and simple. But there is no reason (other than greed) that
> car makers cannot make lightweight, fuel efficient, good handling 
> vehicles that can carry 6 - 8 - or even 10 passengers in comfort and 
> safety.
<snip>

Yes, but greedy is a virtue for corporations, that is precisely what
they are supposed to be.
0
Reply proto (1924) 3/25/2005 3:37:32 AM

TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, there are only a few cases where supply and demand doesn't
> apply. Different markets have different amounts of elasticity (fuel
> seems to be relatively inelastic), but that doesn't mean that supply and
> demand doesn't apply.
<snip>

Yes, but there are a lot of cases where increase of price causes more to
be consumed. For example, in Mexico if the price of corn goes up, more
corn will be bought because it is the base food and people will stop
eating other foods and other purchaces to buy it.
0
Reply proto (1924) 3/25/2005 3:37:37 AM

George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big,
> unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even
> bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to
> try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less
> polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the
> wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more
> business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like
> this one for that attitude.
<snip>

Yes, but Americans _wanted_ _big_ cars, and the American industry did
what they are supposed to do, consider their fiduciary resposiblility to
the shareholders. Between the market and the regulations they really had
no choice if they wanted to stay in business.
0
Reply proto (1924) 3/25/2005 3:37:38 AM

In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC maker.

But just barely better than Dell.

Same goes for other similar ratings, such as the American Consumer 
Satisfaction Index: there Apple is best, barely...after several years of 
being behind Dell.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
Reply reply_in_group (13194) 3/25/2005 6:52:50 AM

In article 
<reply_in_group-3548CA.22525624032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> > mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> > readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC maker.
> 
> But just barely better than Dell.

Isn't it interesting that Apple and Dell are about the only 2 PC 
manufacturers making money?

Maybe consumers actually DO care about things like reliability? Or maybe 
the two facts are unrelated...
0
Reply Nowhere (5224) 3/25/2005 1:00:43 PM

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> > mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> > readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC
maker.
>
> But just barely better than Dell.

Sorry, wrong. CR readers report "Repairs and serious problems," from
best to worst, for desktops:

Apple
Sony
Dell
eMachines
IBM
HP
Compaq
Gateway

Same for laptops:

Apple
Toshiba
Sony
IBM
HP
Dell
Compaq
Gateway

Tech support for desktops, from best to worst:

Apple (76)
Dell (57)
Gateway (57)
HP (52)
Compaq (47)

Tech support for desktops, from best to worst:

Apple (84)
IBM (69)
Toshiba (58)
Dell (57)
Gateway (55)
HP (54)
Compaq (48)
Sony (46)

Among CR subscribers who own these brands and responded to CR's
surveys, Apple is the clear winner in every category.

Dell earned only one second-place spot, at a much lower score (57) than
Apple's 76. And Dell only managed to tie for second place.

See the March issue of CR for the whole story and all the scores.
There's more info than what I've posted here and the graphics and
scores make it clear that Apple is clearly the leader in all these and
related categories.

It would be great if Dell and the other PC makers were as good or
better as Apple in these areas, but the PC makers just aren't nearly as
good about this stuff.

You can probably find back issues of CR at your nearest (US) public
library. You can also read CR online, although you may need an online
subscription to see everything:

www.consumerreports.org

> Same goes for other similar ratings, such as the American Consumer
> Satisfaction Index:

Never heard of it. Can you please post a link?

>there Apple is best, barely...after several years of
> being behind Dell.
> 
> -- 
> --Tim Smith

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 3:35:06 PM

"neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com" <neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com> stated in post
1111764906.947076.215030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 3/25/05 8:35 AM:

> 
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
>>> mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
>>> readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC
> maker.
>> 
>> But just barely better than Dell.
> 
> Sorry, wrong. CR readers report "Repairs and serious problems," from
> best to worst, for desktops:
> 
> Apple
> Sony
> Dell
> eMachines
> IBM
> HP
> Compaq
> Gateway
> 
> Same for laptops:
> 
> Apple
> Toshiba
> Sony
> IBM
> HP
> Dell
> Compaq
> Gateway
> 
> Tech support for desktops, from best to worst:
> 
> Apple (76)
> Dell (57)
> Gateway (57)
> HP (52)
> Compaq (47)
> 
> Tech support for desktops, from best to worst:
> 
> Apple (84)
> IBM (69)
> Toshiba (58)
> Dell (57)
> Gateway (55)
> HP (54)
> Compaq (48)
> Sony (46)
> 
> Among CR subscribers who own these brands and responded to CR's
> surveys, Apple is the clear winner in every category.
> 
> Dell earned only one second-place spot, at a much lower score (57) than
> Apple's 76. And Dell only managed to tie for second place.
> 
> See the March issue of CR for the whole story and all the scores.
> There's more info than what I've posted here and the graphics and
> scores make it clear that Apple is clearly the leader in all these and
> related categories.
> 
> It would be great if Dell and the other PC makers were as good or
> better as Apple in these areas, but the PC makers just aren't nearly as
> good about this stuff.
> 
> You can probably find back issues of CR at your nearest (US) public
> library. You can also read CR online, although you may need an online
> subscription to see everything:
> 
> www.consumerreports.org

Good catch - thanks.  Apple almost always gets the top ratings in consumer
satisfaction, fewest DOA's, brand loyalty, etc.
> 
>> Same goes for other similar ratings, such as the American Consumer
>> Satisfaction Index:
> 
> Never heard of it. Can you please post a link?
> 
>> there Apple is best, barely...after several years of
>> being behind Dell.
>> 
>> -- 
>> --Tim Smith
> 


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)






_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
0
Reply SNIT (24289) 3/25/2005 3:39:05 PM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article
> <reply_in_group-3548CA.22525624032005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> > > mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> > > readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC
maker.
> >
> > But just barely better than Dell.

Dell's not even close. None of the PC makers are consistentlly close to
Apple. See my previous post in this thread today.

> Isn't it interesting that Apple and Dell are about the only 2 PC
> manufacturers making money?

Don't know if that's true, but I also note both are lead by very strong
individuals. Not always a good thing, because if that leader leaves
suddenly or dies, a business in an individual's image may flounder. Of
course, I hope nothing like that happens, and if anything happens to
Dell or Jobs, there are leaders who can continue the success.

> Maybe consumers actually DO care about things like reliability?

Could explain why those Japanese cars keep selling! ;-)

>Or maybe
> the two facts are unrelated...

If you check the CR reader surveys, the Apple reliability and service
ratings are almost embarrassing, when you see how poorly all the PC
makers did against Apple. CR doesn't allow anyone to use CR material in
ads, but if CR allowed Apple to use that info in ads, the ads would be
devastating to read.

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 3:43:01 PM

Snit wrote:
> "neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com" <neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com> stated in
post
> 1111764906.947076.215030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 3/25/05 8:35
AM:
>
> >
> > Tim Smith wrote:
> >> In article
<1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> Or maybe the most reliable, period. Since somebody else already
> >>> mentioned Consumer Reports in this thread, I'm reminded that CR's
> >>> readers rate Mac reliability and service as better than any PC
> > maker.
> >>
> >> But just barely better than Dell.
> >
> > Sorry, wrong.

(snip)

> > See the March issue of CR for the whole story and all the scores.
> > There's more info than what I've posted here and the graphics and
> > scores make it clear that Apple is clearly the leader in all these
and
> > related categories.
> >
> > It would be great if Dell and the other PC makers were as good or
> > better as Apple in these areas, but the PC makers just aren't
nearly as
> > good about this stuff.
> >
> > You can probably find back issues of CR at your nearest (US) public
> > library. You can also read CR online, although you may need an
online
> > subscription to see everything:
> >
> > www.consumerreports.org
>
> Good catch - thanks.  Apple almost always gets the top ratings in
consumer
> satisfaction, fewest DOA's, brand loyalty, etc.

The CR results are almost shocking to read. It's very impressive that
one computer maker (Apple), selling products that are basically similar
to their PC competitors' products, could be so far ahead and do such a
better job at these basic things. Really makes you wonder why anyone,
espcially a typical home user, would buy a PC. (I know there are
reasons and there's no point in rehashing them here, but Apple clearly
trounces the competition in reliability and service.)

(snip)

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 3:49:00 PM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <1111702444.434751.308980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Brent wrote:
> > > On 3/20/05 2:06 PM, in article
> > abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com,
> > > "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

> > Maybe a Mac is like a Lotus Elise, but with Toyota reliability?
> > Speaking of the Elise, maybe the need for reliability is why the
Elise
> > has a Toyota engine, IIRC.
>
> The need to pass California emissions is why the Elise has a Toyota
> drive train. The Rover engine in the UK version could not.

I'll never buy an Elise (too pricey and not a good family car,
obviously), but for me, if I were a potential buyer, I'd feel better
knowing that it's powered by Toyota.

Ever look at Land Rover owner experiences in Consumer Reports and
places like www.epinions.com? It's not pretty.

(snip)

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 3:55:17 PM

"neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com" <neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com> stated in post
1111765740.715712.197760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 3/25/05 8:49 AM:

>> Good catch - thanks.  Apple almost always gets the top ratings in consumer
>> satisfaction, fewest DOA's, brand loyalty, etc.
>> 
> The CR results are almost shocking to read. It's very impressive that one
> computer maker (Apple), selling products that are basically similar to their
> PC competitors' products, could be so far ahead and do such a better job at
> these basic things. Really makes you wonder why anyone, espcially a typical
> home user, would buy a PC. (I know there are reasons and there's no point in
> rehashing them here, but Apple clearly trounces the competition in reliability
> and service.)

For anyone who uses objective measures, there really is little doubt of what
you say.  Still, many in CSMA will disagree...


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
0
Reply SNIT (24289) 3/25/2005 4:40:13 PM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <1111705873.255100.271840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
> > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne
Stuart)
> > > > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations, and is
> > mostly
> > > relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been

My late-model US car is pretty reliable, it's just the lousy trim,
paint, and exterior and interior bits that tend to crumble and/or fall
off that makes ownership so disconcerting.

We take the Japanese car on the long trips, because we have greater
faith in it. It manages not to self destruct in these little annoying
ways, or any other way.

> > (except
> > > for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to
junk
> > on
> > > EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955
> > > Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. The
> > > ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions;
all
> > the
> > > same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.
> > People
> > > expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000
miles
> > with
> > > no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations
very
> > > quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that
> > happen,

Yet that's exactly what did happen, and now it's also happening to many
European makes.

> > > so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to
make
> > them
> > > work.
> >
> > One would think that the older US cars would be reliable for the
> > reasons you list above, but from my experience and what I've read,
such
> > was not the case. The latest cars are not only much more complex
and
> > have many more features, they're more reliable too. They defy
> > expectations that way.
>
> Depends on what you mean by reliable.

Trustworthy. No need to fuss with them.

>Like I said "reliable" means
> different things to different people. I consider an "enthusiasts" car

> "reliable" if it can be counted upon to start every morning, to get
you
> where you are going and get you back without breaking down.

I want a car that I never have to think about, partly because my family
will drive it. I want it to do as you say above.

At a certain point at life, even many guys who are really into begin to
see the car as just another appliance, as a machine that does something
for me, and not much more. I'm past that point.

I'd like a car to be waaaaay cool, fun to drive, etc., but it's more
important to me that it gets the kids to school, takes me to visit sick
relatives, to the grocery store, etc.

>Some people
> might consider that only one aspect of the reliability equation, the
> other being frequency of repair.

If a car needs more repairs, it's less trustworthy and less reliable.

>For example, I consider a
> high-performance car to require more maintenance than I would expect
of
> an automobile used as an appliance, and I accept that high
maintenance
> as part of the cost of ownership of such a car.

OK by me.

>If I didn't, I'd say
> that I had no business owning such a car. While I expect and don't
> really mind the high maintenance of various Jaguar XKs, Ferraris

(snip)

>Looked at another way, one expects one's mistress

....Ferraris...mistresses...sorry, this is all way over my head. I live
a simpler life. Some people are attracted to complexity, some are
attracted to simplicity.

>to not be
> able to cook, to be expensive to keep, and somewhat demanding - but
then
> one doesn't visit one's mistress for a home-cooked meal, or because
she
> doesn't expect anything from you. You go to your wife for the more
> mundane aspects of domestic life, you go to your mistress for the
fun,
> the guilty pleasures of life, and unless you're a complete cad, you
> expect to pay for your fun.

All just too much bother for me.

> > > >They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy

And who needs that in a mistress? Oh, I see we're back on the subbject
of cars again... ;-)

> > > to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable.
> >
> > Having owned and driven some late 1960's/early 1970's cars from GM,
I'd
> > say one would expect cars designed like the above to be reliable,
yet
> > they often weren't. Due to a carbeuretor (sp?) that tended to hang
up
> > on many GM V8's, they often wouldn't start at all. And the inside
rear
> > view mirror tended to fall off every year or so, so the dealer kept
> > having to glue it back on.
>
> Did you not read the passage above where I said that American cars
have
> almost always been very reliable EXCEPT "for an unfortunate period in

> the 1970's when they descended to junk on EVERY front, including
> reliability"?

I haven't found US cars since the 1970's to be particularly reliable
either, not compared to Japanese cars, although almost all cars
(including US cars) have improved in quality, according to Consumer
Reports.

> The 1970's were a difficult time for the auto industry in the US. For

> the first time in history they were faced with meeting demands
imposed
> upon them from the outside by state and federal government agencies,

There were pollution and safety requirements before the 1970's. But I
agree that times did change, and I'll add that US makers did poorly at
anticipating and handling those changes.

> Smog requirements alone made the cars run very poorly and early ones
got
> atrocious gas milage. I had a girlfriend at the time who owned a
> then-new Ford Torino. To start it when cold, one had to grind on the
> starter until the battery just about gave up the ghost, then it would

> finally catch and stumble to life. Repeated trips to the dealership
> never solved the problem. She finally got rid of it.

I had a friend back in the mid-1970's. He finished school, became a
policeman, and bought his first new car, the basic Jeep. But the
distributor cap kept cracking, the distributor would get a little
moist, and the car wouldn't start. My friend asked the dealer about the
problem, and the dealer said, "They all do that." My friend bought the
Jeep because he wanted something new, simple, durable, and reliable,
yet even a basic Jeep couldn't manage that! The dealer just kept
putting on more bad distributor caps.

My friend dumped the Jeep and replaced it with a Mazda GLC wagon. Image
aside, the Mazda really was more rugged, reliable, and trustworthy than
the Jeep.

Your story about the Ford Torino doesn't surprise me. I know from
experience that the GM V8 cars often wouldn't start. (I have a story
about a girlfriend with one of those.) And I drove one that belonged to
my family.

I also sometimes drove a big 1970's Plymouth Fury. Just awful steering
and again, more starting problems. The owner gave up and installed a
manual choke.

> > I'll add that many of the 1970's Japanese cars were also very
> > conservative designs: front engine, RWD, carbs, etc. People fled US
> > cars for Japanese cars partly for MPG reasons, but the Japanese
cars
> > had better reliability, and that built owner loyalty.
>
> The Japanese were smart enough to put the money where the buyer could

> see it.

I'll add that IMHO, back then the Japanese cars were very much like the
US cars. Too much chrome, very conservative design, etc. But
reliability, MPG, a very long-term philosophy of car making and
selling, and patience made the Japanese huge in the US, to the point
that Infiniti and Lexus were immediate hits. I'd never have guessed
that potential Mercedes owners, for example, would flock to buy
Japanese makes instead.

>I owned two of the original Honda Civics during this period and
> the cars were perfect daily drivers. Enough performance to keep up
with
> traffic, excellent fuel economy and virtually trouble-free.

I've always loved the Civic. I was looking at a new one, when the first
4-door Civics came out, 20+ years ago. The salesman started to pop the
hood, and I told him not to bother; I told him I was sure everything
was there and would work fine.

>During this
> time I also owned a Jaguar XK140MC, Another Jag, a D-Type race car,
an
> Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce, and a Ferrari Dino (not all at the same
time,
> mind you),

Wow! I had a lot of sports cars, but all much cheaper makes, except for
the Alfa (which cost me $1600, used).

>and I had enough on my plate. I didn't need a
> high-maintenance daily driver along with all the exotica.

I was in a somewhat lucky position, because I was single and could walk
to work, so I actually didn't need to drive much. (I once parked my car
on the street, and when I finally drove it again a week or so later, I
found an "abandoned vehicle" ticket on it.) So I simply didn't drive
much, which is the most enjoyable way to be a car owner, IME.

Now I work very close to home again, drive very little, and it's simply
a much easier, simpler way to live, and less time wasted on dealing
with cars too.

> > We now have one US car and one Japanese car in our driveway, both
cars
> > being fairly recent. The US car drives pretty well, but many of the
> > plastic knobs and interior exterior bits tend to break, or self
> > destruct and fall off. Very annoying, although overall the car is
> > reliable and sound. I've never had a Japanese car with these sort
of
> > petty problems. When the US car dies, it'll be replaced by a
Japanese
> > car.
>
> I hear you, yet Japanese cars aren't as good as they used to be
either.

CR says they're even better than before.

> When Nissan (Datsun, in those days) first came to these shores, they
> sold a sedan called a 510.

Very quick, IRS, fun to drive. Ridden in several. Sedan, 2-door, and
wagon. Fine car.

Also really cleaned up in the under-2-liter Trans Am series, trouncing
Alfas and Porsches. Of the 510s, the 4-door chassis was the stiffest
and the 2-door body was the stiffest, so the racing 510s had a 2-door
body dropped onto the 4-door chassis. OK, enough 510 trivia!

>It was virtually indestructable. I know of
> people who have put a third of a million miles and more on the cars
and
> never had to rebuild the engine.

I knew a mechanic and he used to sort of standardize on particular
different makes and models, and some of his customers would too. In the
mid-1960's, it was the 2nd-generation Ford Falcon, Mustang, Maverick,
and other basically similar cars, and his other recommendation was the
Datsun 510. I've lost touch with the guy, but in the 1970's he shifted
to recommending the Toyota Corolla, and some of his customers shifted
to that, because of him.

Anyway, buried in all that trivia, is another good word about the 510.

>I also know guys who raced them in the
> TransAM 2-liter class

Man, you can really see I'm writing without reading ahead...guess you
probably knew all that 510 stuff...

Datsun/Nissan eventually did revive the 510 name, years later. It was
an OK car, but different. RWD, no IRS. I think I used to drive a
friend's. Not real memorable or sexy, but very reliable.

The old 810 was another fine car, but sold poorly.

(snip)

> > > Part of the reason for the Japanese success is that even as US
cars
> > have improved in reliability, the Japanese keep pushing further
ahead.
> > The US makers still haven't caught up yet, and the Japanese keep
> > pushing ahead in reliability.
>
> You must mean frequency of repair, because you can't get any more
> reliable than NEVER failing over it's entire life cycle. Most cars
have
> been there for more than a decade.

Don't know if that's true or not. Neither of us is citing any
statistics here.
>
> > I've read that internally at GM, it's been an outgoing
embarrassment
> > that GM customers keep rating the Toyota-built GM cars higher than
GM's
> > own US vehicles.
>
> Corporate culture is at work here. It's hard, often even impossible,
to
> change a company's corporate culture from within.

Agree. GM used to produce a lot of interesting designs in the early
1960's, in one of the earlier small-car booms. I don't mean the
Corvair, but the BOP V8 and the small front-engine, RWD car(s? Buick?
Old?) with the rear transaxle.

But I was too young to drive and later became a car snob, and was more
interested in cars like my Alfa.

Speaking of snobbery, complexity, etc., I highly recommend the movie
"Sideways."

> > > The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to
help
> > cope
> > > with their high fuel costs,
> >
> > Yet with the exception of the VW diesels, the Europeans seem to
have
> > given up on importing high-MPG cars to the US.
>
> Reliability and quality in many cases. British cars might have been
fun
> to drive in the '50's, but reliable they weren't and they garnered
> themselves an unenviable and nasty reputation that still hasn't gone
> away. They were able to still sell cars in the US until the Japanese
> showed up here in the early sixties with very British-like cars that
had
> the most un-British characteristic of actually being reliable and low
in
> maintenance.

I've never had a Brit car. Just watching somebody insert the side
windows in the late 1950's and early 1960's Brit sport cars, or try to
put the convertible tops up and down, or following a Triumph Spitfie
and watching what happens when swing axles go through a turn quickly,
turned me off for life.

The Datsun 1600 and 2000 weren't advanced designs, but they were quick
and fun. The 240Z was a hit, obviously.

My first car was a used Fiat 124 Spyder (1969 model?). When the owner
showed me how he could take the top up and down with one hand while
waiting for a stoplight to change, I forgot about looking at the
British competition.

Old joke that you've probably heard about British cars:

Question: Who is Lucas?

Answer: The God of Darkness.

>The Japanese killed the British export market for cars, and
> eventually killed off most English brands at home as well.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to see it isn't just that the
Japanese succeeded, the British failed. Look at examples of Brit
thinking of the era, like jacking up the already-old MGB to meet safety
regulations. The British had some US success, but they were their own
worst enemy, in a time when small cars and imports were booming.

>Japanese
> bikes did the same thing to the British motorcycle industry. The
French
> never got their acts together, and as late as 1995 a Peugeot was a
piece
> of crap that fell apart the moment one bought it.

I had a mid-1960's 504; bought it cheap as part of a plan to work less
and go back to school. Had to postpone the school thing for awhile and
was happy to dump the 504 for peanuts, after many repairs. The 504 had
4-on-the-tree manual shift and an engine so tall it had to be tilted to
fit under the hood. Had the world's longest dipstick; must have been at
least a yard.

Peugot did well again for awhile in the 1980's, as did Renault, then
faded out again. I remember Citroens and Simcas too. Never been in a
Simca, but all the others had that wonderful, soft ride, yet held the
rode well too, despite a lot of leaning.

The abandonment of the US market by so many UK/European makes
highlights another smart thing about the Japanese: They seem to have a
great deal of commitment and patience. The Japanese started with
nothing in the US, now the Camry is the best selling car, period. Last
time I counted, Toyota had more SUV models than Ford.

>They're OK now, but
> losing the US market was a hard blow for the French auto industry.
Fiat
> (as well as other Italian brands) was a victim of a "deal with the
> devil" that forced them to use Soviet steel to build cars with in the

> '60's and '70's . They, in cahoots with the Communist dominated
Italian
> Government of the time, entered a deal with the Soviet Bloc to
provide
> them with turn-key car factories in Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.
> When it came time for the Commies to pay-up, they were cash-poor, so
> they hammered-out a deal with the Eye-Ties to pay of the debt with
> steel. It was a disastrous bargain! Fiats, Lancias Alfas, De
Tomaso's,
> Isos Bizzarinis, Maseratis, etc. were literally beginning to rust
before
> they even left the assembly lines.

Not that this has anything to do with the above, but Brit cars had some
of the same rust problems in the UK. I used to look at the UK car
magazines sometimes, and I remember reading a story about dealers
having to fix rust problems before the cars could be sold.

BTW, to ramble further, my '66 Alfa and my '69 Fiat seemed to be
basically the same car: 4-cylinder, 5-speed, DOHC, small, sporty, great
looks, IRS, etc., yet the Fiat seemed to be made of junk, while the
Alfa looked good and held together well.

>The brittle, high-sulphur steel that
> the iron curtain countries were producing was that bad. The smaller
> companies succumbed to the warranty costs of fixing these things
again
> and again. Fiat cut it losses and took Lancia (which they owned) with

> them in 1981 when they left the US market. Alfa Romeo stopped using
the
> Soviet steel in the 1980's and most 80's and 90's Alfas are as rust
free
> as any BMW or Mercedes. When Fiat acquired Alfa in the late '80's
they
> set about re-furbishing the line. They went to FWD and paired the
> American offerings down to just two models: The 164 Sedan (FWD) and
the
> VERY long-in-the-tooth Alfa Spider. The little sports roadster was a
> nice car, but Alfa hadn't changed it appreciably in 25 years.

Again, another European maker who just didn't seem to be making an
effort to be competitive in the US. They lost in the US, and so did
consumers. I'd like to have another Alfa, but Alfa gives me no
opportunity to buy one.

>It was
> becoming increasingly difficult for even the most ardent Alfa lover
to
> justify another Spider, essentially just like the last one. The Mazda

> Miata came along and essentially killed that market off dead. The 164

> sedan was (and remains) a nice car, but the fact is, Alfa owners want

> sports cars, not sedans. Failing to have a new one ready, Alfa sold
only
> 500 cars in all of North America in 1995 and Fiat pulled the plug.
It's
> ironic too, because the next year, 1996 Alfa released the new Spider
and
> GTV coupe. These two sports cars were DESIGNED for the US market and
had
> been totally federalized.

Defeat, snatched from the jaws of victory.

Again, the Japanese won, but partly because they've been willing to
stick with a plan, in good and bad times. Hyundai/Kia seem to be
following that plan too, to their credit.

>They and the beautiful new 156 sedan would
> have sold like hotcakes here in the US from pent-up Alfa enthusiast
> demand alone. Fiat knows that now, and regrets the move, but the
people
> who made the decision are, naturally, long gone.

Wasn't there going to be a Fiat/GM merger too, that GM is now backing
away from?

> Today, the Germans with their Porsches, Audis, VWs, and Mercedes
along
> with Sweden's Volvo (a Ford) and SAAB (a GM/Subaru) and Italy's super

> cars - Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, are the only European makes
still
> sold here.

And I think that recently the German makes are starting to fight back
and get into other US market segments. But it may be too late.

>I can attest to the fact that VWs are marvelous cars, as are
> Audis and Porsches. I hear mixed things about Beemers, the rest I
don't
> have any experience with (except for several older Ferraris). Of
course,
> one can't lump Italian supercars with the others, they are a special
> case and not subject to the same laws of reliability as would apply
to a
> VW.
> >
> > >they want cars which handle well to deal
> > > with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads.
They
> > are
> > > less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although
that's
> >
> > > changing) and more concerned with overall longevity.
> >
> > Can less-reliable cars have longevity? These days, wouldn't a more
> > reliable car, such as a Japanese car, have greater longevity, given
> > equal (or maybe even less) maintenance than a European car?
>
> Nope. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I think reliable cars will keep running longer and have greater
longevity.

> > >Traditionally,
> > > Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts,
but
> > > that's changing very quickly as well.
> >
> > Could be. Just generally, it's my impression that taxes and other
> > expenses for car ownership, including fuel prices, are much higher
in
> > Europe than in the US, so I'd imagine that would tend to make
European
> > consumers hold onto their cars longer.
>
> They don't any more. On European roads one rarely sees a car older
than
> two-three years old - five at the outside.
>
> > >Fact is, today, one see very few
> > > older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or
> > less.
> > > European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need
to
> > in
> > > this regard,
> >
> > >From what I've read, European cars are falling further and further
> > behind in reliability. Look at Consumer Reports' owner surveys
(every
> > April issue) for an appalling number of European examples. I've
read
> > that part of the problem is that (for example) many German cars are
> > moving ahead too fast with new technologies (such as BMW's iDrive),
and
> > putting them into cars before the bugs are worked out, and that's
part
> > of why the reliability is so poor, at least in the US market.
>
> I doubt that Idrive puts too many Beemers on the side of the road.

You're right. But it may keep many of the fancier BMW's from getting on
the road at all! ;-)

Maybe 10+ years ago, John Deere introduced a new driver interface on
their bulldozers that competed with Caterpillar and similar makes. But
Deere gave up and dropped it. People wanted a familiar interface that
was easy to use, so Deere went to interfaces similar to their
competitors', and sales rose. It'll be interesting to see if BMW sticks
with iDrive in the world's biggest car market.

I admit I haven't tried iDrive, but I've never read a good word about
it, either.

> > >and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive
> > > than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past,
the
> > > European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the
cars
> > be high-maintenance, and they were.
> >
> > Actually, when European cars boomed in the early 1960's in the US,
like
> > VW did, a lot of it had to do with the idea that the VW (for
example)
> > had superior quality.

....and reliability...the old VWs are really primitive, so they were
pretty reliable...

> Quality and reliability are not really that closely linked. Some of
the
> world's finest cars are VERY high maintenance vehicles - always have
> been. Rolls-Royces, for instance. But when Madam had the chauffeur to

> deal with servicing the Rolls, what did she care how maintenance
> intensive the thing was?

And the fact that such cars require such extensive, expensive care is
part of what makes them luxury cars. Even if someone gave me a Rolls or
other high-end car, and paid the gas, taxes, insurance, etc., I'm sure
I couldn't afford the maintenance.

It took me a long time to understand that impracticality is part of
luxury, and that a luxury buyer will gladly spend more on cars,
clothes, etc. that are in many ways inferior than cheaper products.

It'd be fun to be chauffered around in a Rolls, like in an old movie,
but if I had to drive across the US, I'd get a Japanese car.

Sorta reminds, while I'm rambling, of the book "The Millionaire Next
Door," written by people who actually went out and met millionaires and
wealthier sorts, and discovered that these people were often pretty
practical, unlike the stereotype of the Rolls, etc. (There's even a
funny story in there about receiving a Rolls as a gift.) Interesting
reading. The authors concluded that these people, who could buy any car
they wanted, tended to buy cars by the pound--they favored big sedans,
often US-made, and not the luxury US brands either. They also liked
Japanese cars, however, jsut like the rest of the public.

> > > I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old
(My
> >
> > > Alfa)
> >
> > Cool! I had a '66 Guilia GT many years ago...
>
> My GTV-6 is the light of my life.

There's one of those I see in my neighborhood. Same owner has an
Alfetta sedan too. Don't know the guy, but the cars catch my eye.

I think the coupe (like yours) was another Giogetto Guigaro (sp?)
design, but I could be wrong.

> Not my main transportation, mind you
> (I want this puppy to LAST) but when I do take it out for spin on
> weekends (taking it to the historic races at Sears Point Raceway in
the
> Napa wine country on Sunday -weather permitting) It takes days to get

> the smile off of my face!
>
> You had an original "Bertie"?

Never heard that nickname; is that from "Bertone"? It was the same car
that was later called the 1750 or GTV, I think. Mine had the 1600
engine, I think. I occasionally window shop for those on eBay. Designed
by Guigaro while he was at Bertone, I think. And later beaten in the
Trans Am by the Porsches and Datsun 510s.

>Good for you. Marvelous cars. Probably the
> most beautiful small car in history and good ones are worth a fortune

> these days.

Girls really liked that car. Another car I had that women always liked
and always said they'd always wanted one: the VW Kharmann Ghia. They
were always impressed when I brought that on a first date. Primitive,
slow, but the gals loved the looks.

>From what I could see, many of the big, powerful cars that impressed
guys didn't impress women at all! They were more intrigued by smaller,
more interesting cars.

My Alfa was a neat little size, had a really nice steering wheel, and
looked good from behind, but overall, I wasn't that crazy about the
looks. I would've preferred a lower front on the body and more of a
wedge shape to the car overall.

> > >and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down
> > > on me or left me stranded. The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of
> > > maintenance.
> >
> > Mine was pretty reliable. My Fiat was another story...
>
> Yes, they almost always were.......

They seemed to hold up better in Europe, while falling apart in the US,
for some reason.

I considered buiying several 1960's Fiat 850's, BTW, both the coupe and
Spyder (yet another Guigaro for Bertone design?), or whatever it was
called. But even in only occasional local highway driving, the cars
felt underpowered and inadequate. But the looks were great. I'm always
attracted to small, cool, efficient things, which is why I'm attracted
to (brace yourself for actual on-topic comment) the Mac Mini.

> > >Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles
> > > MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went
220,000
> > > miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump!

I never replaced any water pumps on a VW--there were none! I could get
a fuel pump from J.C. Whitney for $7. No oil filter replacements; VWs
didn't have those either.

>>>I prefer European cars to Japanese

I wish the Europeans would compete harder with the Japanese, not just
in the cars, but in being willing to really go after every segment of
the US market, like the Japanese did.

> > > and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with
lots of
> >
> > > characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that
> > > Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these
> > things,
> > > and don't want to see them go away.
> >
> > Unfortunately, due to reliability issues, the European makers that
> > still sell in the US are their own worst enemy. And new approaches,
> > such as BMW's widely-hated iDrive, aren't helping either.
>
> I just wouldn't use the thing. It is an option like Alfa's 'Connect'
> system which is a combo stereo, cellphone, GPS, receiver and sort of
> Euro "On Star" system. Its lousy, If I lived in Italy, I wouldn't
order
> my new Alfa with the thing. I've lots of experience with it and
wouldn't
> give you a nickel for it. Sane with iDrive, None of this, however has

> anything whatsoever to do with the running of the car.

For the BMWs that offer iDRive, like the 740 (model number), is it
possible to get the cars w/o iDrive, or to get iDrive, but not use it?
My impression is that it controls the auto transmission and everything
else and can't be avoided.

> > In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued
to
> > boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.
> >
> > I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many
sports
> > cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with
the
> > least hassles.
>
> Everybody needs at least that. I've my VW for everyday, and my Alfa
as
> my toy. I'll trade in the VW when it gets long in the tooth, but the
> Alfa I keep 'till death does us part!

I love the looks of the Golf and used to carpool with a Jetta owner.
Both nifty and likeable cars. The Jetta owner's spouse had a Golf and
he was in love with VWs, did some autocrossing, etc. But the wife hated
things like the Golf's electric windows failing, etc. Just petty stuff
like that that would drive me nuts and that our Japanese car never
does.

If I had to name a car that seemed as cool and stylish as an iPod, Mac
Mini, or iBook, I'd name the Golf.

> > From experience, I've learned where to get that kind of
> > car, and it's not at dealers selling European cars.
>
> VWs are just as reliable and even better built than most Japanese
cars
> in my humble opinion. Besides the German engineers actually drive the

> cars they design while the Japanese engineers take the train to work.

> That means a lot to me, and I can FEEL the difference behind the
wheel.

I agree that the European cars are sexy and stimulating. A friend has
the Audi Allroad, and it's like the Swiss Army knife of cars; does
almost anything. (Way overpriced for the interior size, however.)

Anyway, to wander back to some sort of point, CR has liked driving the
VWs and has given some of them very high ratings, but the only VW they
still recommend is the Passat, because readers report so many problems
with the other VWs. And even the Passat isn't as reliable as the
competing Japanese makes, unfortunately.

Of course, I'm very glad your VW experience has been much, much better.

(snip)

> I find VWs, as I said earlier. every bit as reliable and
> quite a bit better made than most Japanese alternatives.
>
> >I need a
> > car that I and my family can drive without hassles, and the best
choice
> > is a Japanese car these days, IMHO. I really do wish that the
European
> > cars were more competitive in reliability; that would be good for
them
> > and for consumers too.
>
> VWs and Audis are. You obviously don't have any recent experience
with
> them.

Probably the car among the above makes that I'd be most likely to buy
is a Jetta wagon, because it's small and would suit my needs.

However, due to some very light off-road driving I need to do
occasionally that requires extra ground clearance, and good experience
with the following brands, if I buy new again, I'll probably go for a
Subaru Forester or a Honda CR-V.

No small VW SUV, while all the Japanese makers offer them. Again, I see
this as a European maker choosing not to compete.

If cost was no object, I'd look at the Audi Allroad. But it's hard to
justify the price, even though it does so many nifty things, like raise
and lower itself.

Well, it's been good talking here. I offer quantity, if not quality.
And it's been more fun than working on my (still unfinished) Form
1040...

> --
> George Graves
> ------------------
> "...in all cases where either platform will do the same
> job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta

Speaking of cars, it's kinda interesting to see the Mac Mini is being
installed in cars...

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 6:09:51 PM

Walter Bushell wrote:
> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of
big,
> > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with
even
> > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws
enacted to
> > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and
less
> > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all
the
> > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more
> > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions
like
> > this one for that attitude.
> <snip>
>
> Yes, but Americans _wanted_ _big_ cars, and the American industry did
> what they are supposed to do, consider their fiduciary resposiblility
to
> the shareholders. Between the market and the regulations they really
had
> no choice if they wanted to stay in business.

I see your point and agree to some extent. For example, the big US SUVs
are easy to build, yet enormously profitable, even though these are
vehicles I'll never want or buy. The Japanese have jumped into that
market also; arguably, they have no choice, if they want to compete.

If and when the big SUV fad really dies, the big US makers dependent on
sales of those vehicles may be in trouble. If fuel prices get high
enough to force dramatic changes by consumers, the salvation may be the
hybrid SUV, like the hybrid Ford Escape. Too bad for US makers that
Honda and Toyota are already so far ahead with hybrid models and
experience. They can transition to offering more hybrid SUVs quickly, I
bet.

Or GM could come in with a high-quality hybrid SUV. The only catch is
that they may need to buy so much of the technology from Honda and
Toyota to produce a decent GM hybrid.

0
Reply neilnewsgroups (195) 3/25/2005 6:36:43 PM

In article <1111774191.447697.189630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <1111705873.255100.271840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves wrote:
> > > > In article <abir3154he4lqad4350i8etpa6imgqh7nq@4ax.com>,
> > > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:10:51 +0000, me4@privacy.net (Wayne
> Stuart)
> > > > > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > This "reliability" thing depends a lot upon expectations, and is
> > > mostly
> > > > relative. American cars are VERY reliable, and always have been
> 
> My late-model US car is pretty reliable, it's just the lousy trim,
> paint, and exterior and interior bits that tend to crumble and/or fall
> off that makes ownership so disconcerting.
> 
> We take the Japanese car on the long trips, because we have greater
> faith in it. It manages not to self destruct in these little annoying
> ways, or any other way.
> 
> > > (except
> > > > for an unfortunate period in the 1970's when they descended to
> junk
> > > on
> > > > EVERY front, including reliability). A 1938 Packard 120, a 1955
> > > > Chevrolet a 1967 Dodge Charger were all basically Identical. The
> > > > ignition systems, the carburetors, the brakes and suspensions;
> all
> > > the
> > > > same, and basically all very simple and very mature technologies.
> > > People
> > > > expect(ed) these cars to start every time, to run for 100,000
> miles
> > > with
> > > > no problems, and if they didn't, they got very bad reputations
> very
> > > > quickly. The US auto business couldn't afford to ever have that
> > > happen,
> 
> Yet that's exactly what did happen, and now it's also happening to many
> European makes.
> 
> > > > so they over-built the cars and used tried and true methods to
> make
> > > them
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > One would think that the older US cars would be reliable for the
> > > reasons you list above, but from my experience and what I've read,
> such
> > > was not the case. The latest cars are not only much more complex
> and
> > > have many more features, they're more reliable too. They defy
> > > expectations that way.
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by reliable.
> 
> Trustworthy. No need to fuss with them.
> 
> >Like I said "reliable" means
> > different things to different people. I consider an "enthusiasts" car
> 
> > "reliable" if it can be counted upon to start every morning, to get
> you
> > where you are going and get you back without breaking down.
> 
> I want a car that I never have to think about, partly because my family
> will drive it. I want it to do as you say above.
> 
> At a certain point at life, even many guys who are really into begin to
> see the car as just another appliance, as a machine that does something
> for me, and not much more. I'm past that point.

I'm not. Probably never will be. I'm a car guy. I like exotic cars. I 
find them exiting to own, marvelous to look at, and fun to drive. Cars 
as rolling art, if you will. But I do want that from my daily driver. To 
me, my VW is disposable. I have no more regard for it than I do my 
refrigerator or my washer/dryer. With the exotics I've had, I looked at 
myself as being their current caretaker, rather than their owner. As in 
I'm just passing through history, these cars ARE history.

> I'd like a car to be waaaaay cool, fun to drive, etc., but it's more
> important to me that it gets the kids to school, takes me to visit sick
> relatives, to the grocery store, etc.

Everyone needs a car like that as well.

> >Some people
> > might consider that only one aspect of the reliability equation, the
> > other being frequency of repair.
> 
> If a car needs more repairs, it's less trustworthy and less reliable.
> 
> >For example, I consider a
> > high-performance car to require more maintenance than I would expect
> of
> > an automobile used as an appliance, and I accept that high
> maintenance
> > as part of the cost of ownership of such a car.
> 
> OK by me.
> 
> >If I didn't, I'd say
> > that I had no business owning such a car. While I expect and don't
> > really mind the high maintenance of various Jaguar XKs, Ferraris
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >Looked at another way, one expects one's mistress
> 
> ...Ferraris...mistresses...sorry, this is all way over my head. I live
> a simpler life. Some people are attracted to complexity, some are
> attracted to simplicity.
> 
> >to not be
> > able to cook, to be expensive to keep, and somewhat demanding - but
> then
> > one doesn't visit one's mistress for a home-cooked meal, or because
> she
> > doesn't expect anything from you. You go to your wife for the more
> > mundane aspects of domestic life, you go to your mistress for the
> fun,
> > the guilty pleasures of life, and unless you're a complete cad, you
> > expect to pay for your fun.
> 
> All just too much bother for me.
> 
> > > > >They might have been too heavy, too slow, ponderous and unwieldy
> 
> And who needs that in a mistress? Oh, I see we're back on the subbject
> of cars again... ;-)
> 
> > > > to drive, and terribly unsafe, but they WERE reliable.
> > >
> > > Having owned and driven some late 1960's/early 1970's cars from GM,
> I'd
> > > say one would expect cars designed like the above to be reliable,
> yet
> > > they often weren't. Due to a carbeuretor (sp?) that tended to hang
> up
> > > on many GM V8's, they often wouldn't start at all. And the inside
> rear
> > > view mirror tended to fall off every year or so, so the dealer kept
> > > having to glue it back on.
> >
> > Did you not read the passage above where I said that American cars
> have
> > almost always been very reliable EXCEPT "for an unfortunate period in
> 
> > the 1970's when they descended to junk on EVERY front, including
> > reliability"?
> 
> I haven't found US cars since the 1970's to be particularly reliable
> either, not compared to Japanese cars, although almost all cars
> (including US cars) have improved in quality, according to Consumer
> Reports.

Take it from me. Consumer reports is always wrong about anything that I 
know about. Therefore I extrapolate from that the probability that 
EVERYTHING they say is wrong. I take their info with a grain of salt. 
Have you ever seen their automobile satisfaction questionnaire? I 
suspect a high-school class could construct a better one. It does not 
take into account owner's expectations or biases. And thus the accuracy 
of the results looks pretty suspect to me.

> > The 1970's were a difficult time for the auto industry in the US. For
> 
> > the first time in history they were faced with meeting demands
> imposed
> > upon them from the outside by state and federal government agencies,
> 
> There were pollution and safety requirements before the 1970's. 

The DOT safety laws came into being for the 1969 model year, CA 
introduced emissions standards in the 1966 model year. Close enough.

>But I
> agree that times did change, and I'll add that US makers did poorly at
> anticipating and handling those changes.
> 
> > Smog requirements alone made the cars run very poorly and early ones
> got
> > atrocious gas milage. I had a girlfriend at the time who owned a
> > then-new Ford Torino. To start it when cold, one had to grind on the
> > starter until the battery just about gave up the ghost, then it would
> 
> > finally catch and stumble to life. Repeated trips to the dealership
> > never solved the problem. She finally got rid of it.
> 
> I had a friend back in the mid-1970's. He finished school, became a
> policeman, and bought his first new car, the basic Jeep. But the
> distributor cap kept cracking, the distributor would get a little
> moist, and the car wouldn't start. My friend asked the dealer about the
> problem, and the dealer said, "They all do that." My friend bought the
> Jeep because he wanted something new, simple, durable, and reliable,
> yet even a basic Jeep couldn't manage that! The dealer just kept
> putting on more bad distributor caps.

I think I would have bought an aftermarket brand and kept a couple in 
the car. I used to do that with distributor rotors on various Jaguar 
XKs. They threw them often.

> My friend dumped the Jeep and replaced it with a Mazda GLC wagon. Image
> aside, the Mazda really was more rugged, reliable, and trustworthy than
> the Jeep.

> Your story about the Ford Torino doesn't surprise me. I know from
> experience that the GM V8 cars often wouldn't start. (I have a story
> about a girlfriend with one of those.) And I drove one that belonged to
> my family.
> 
> I also sometimes drove a big 1970's Plymouth Fury. Just awful steering
> and again, more starting problems. The owner gave up and installed a
> manual choke.

These starting problems were mostly emissions controls related.

> > > > I'll add that many of the 1970's Japanese cars were also very
> > > conservative designs: front engine, RWD, carbs, etc. People fled US
> > > cars for Japanese cars partly for MPG reasons, but the Japanese
> cars
> > > had better reliability, and that built owner loyalty.
> >
> > The Japanese were smart enough to put the money where the buyer could
> 
> > see it.
> 
> I'll add that IMHO, back then the Japanese cars were very much like the
> US cars. Too much chrome, very conservative design, etc. But
> reliability, MPG, a very long-term philosophy of car making and
> selling, and patience made the Japanese huge in the US, to the point
> that Infiniti and Lexus were immediate hits. I'd never have guessed
> that potential Mercedes owners, for example, would flock to buy
> Japanese makes instead.
> 
> >I owned two of the original Honda Civics during this period and
> > the cars were perfect daily drivers. Enough performance to keep up
> with
> > traffic, excellent fuel economy and virtually trouble-free.
> 
> I've always loved the Civic. I was looking at a new one, when the first
> 4-door Civics came out, 20+ years ago. The salesman started to pop the
> hood, and I told him not to bother; I told him I was sure everything
> was there and would work fine.
> 
> >During this
> > time I also owned a Jaguar XK140MC, Another Jag, a D-Type race car,
> an
> > Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce, and a Ferrari Dino (not all at the same
> time,
> > mind you),
> 
> Wow! I had a lot of sports cars, but all much cheaper makes, except for
> the Alfa (which cost me $1600, used).
> 
> >and I had enough on my plate. I didn't need a
> > high-maintenance daily driver along with all the exotica.
> 
> I was in a somewhat lucky position, because I was single and could walk
> to work, so I actually didn't need to drive much. 

I still am somewhat lucky in that I'm STILL single and can still walk to 
work (my second bedroom is my office). I made a decision early in life: 
marriage/kids or single and buying what I wanted, when I wanted, without 
having to weigh the consequences, to able to travel when I like and 
where I like. I chose the latter. Never regretted it for second.

> (I once parked my car
> on the street, and when I finally drove it again a week or so later, I
> found an "abandoned vehicle" ticket on it.) So I simply didn't drive
> much, which is the most enjoyable way to be a car owner, IME.
> 
> Now I work very close to home again, drive very little, and it's simply
> a much easier, simpler way to live, and less time wasted on dealing
> with cars too.
> 
> > > We now have one US car and one Japanese car in our driveway, both
> cars
> > > being fairly recent. The US car drives pretty well, but many of the
> > > plastic knobs and interior exterior bits tend to break, or self
> > > destruct and fall off. Very annoying, although overall the car is
> > > reliable and sound. I've never had a Japanese car with these sort
> of
> > > petty problems. When the US car dies, it'll be replaced by a
> Japanese
> > > car.
> >
> > I hear you, yet Japanese cars aren't as good as they used to be
> either.
> 
> CR says they're even better than before.

You already know how I feel about what CR says.
> 
> > When Nissan (Datsun, in those days) first came to these shores, they
> > sold a sedan called a 510.
> 
> Very quick, IRS, fun to drive. Ridden in several. Sedan, 2-door, and
> wagon. Fine car.
> 
> Also really cleaned up in the under-2-liter Trans Am series, trouncing
> Alfas and Porsches. Of the 510s, the 4-door chassis was the stiffest
> and the 2-door body was the stiffest, so the racing 510s had a 2-door
> body dropped onto the 4-door chassis. OK, enough 510 trivia!
> 
> >It was virtually indestructable. I know of
> > people who have put a third of a million miles and more on the cars
> and
> > never had to rebuild the engine.
> 
> I knew a mechanic and he used to sort of standardize on particular
> different makes and models, and some of his customers would too. In the
> mid-1960's, it was the 2nd-generation Ford Falcon, Mustang, Maverick,
> and other basically similar cars, and his other recommendation was the
> Datsun 510. I've lost touch with the guy, but in the 1970's he shifted
> to recommending the Toyota Corolla, and some of his customers shifted
> to that, because of him.
> 
> Anyway, buried in all that trivia, is another good word about the 510.
> 
> >I also know guys who raced them in the
> > TransAM 2-liter class
> 
> Man, you can really see I'm writing without reading ahead...guess you
> probably knew all that 510 stuff...

I don't want to seem like I'm bragging, but there isn't much general 
info about cars that I don't know. 

> Datsun/Nissan eventually did revive the 510 name, years later. It was
> an OK car, but different. RWD, no IRS. I think I used to drive a
> friend's. Not real memorable or sexy, but very reliable.
> 
> The old 810 was another fine car, but sold poorly.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > > > Part of the reason for the Japanese success is that even as US
> cars
> > > have improved in reliability, the Japanese keep pushing further
> ahead.
> > > The US makers still haven't caught up yet, and the Japanese keep
> > > pushing ahead in reliability.
> >
> > You must mean frequency of repair, because you can't get any more
> > reliable than NEVER failing over it's entire life cycle. Most cars
> have
> > been there for more than a decade.
> 
> Don't know if that's true or not. Neither of us is citing any
> statistics here.

> > > I've read that internally at GM, it's been an outgoing
> embarrassment
> > > that GM customers keep rating the Toyota-built GM cars higher than
> GM's
> > > own US vehicles.
> >
> > Corporate culture is at work here. It's hard, often even impossible,
> to
> > change a company's corporate culture from within.
> 
> Agree. GM used to produce a lot of interesting designs in the early
> 1960's, in one of the earlier small-car booms. I don't mean the
> Corvair, but the BOP V8 and the small front-engine, RWD car(s? Buick?
> Old?) with the rear transaxle.

Well, the only thing wrong with the Corvair was lack of development. 
They were great fun to drive and that's something that simply cannot be 
said about many American cars. The original Pinto was another American 
car that was fun to drive. The Vega SHOULD have been but wasn't.

> But I was too young to drive and later became a car snob, and was more
> interested in cars like my Alfa.
> 
> Speaking of snobbery, complexity, etc., I highly recommend the movie
> "Sideways."

> > > > The Europeans see cars differently. They want small engines to
> help
> > > cope
> > > > with their high fuel costs,
> > >
> > > Yet with the exception of the VW diesels, the Europeans seem to
> have
> > > given up on importing high-MPG cars to the US.
> >
> > Reliability and quality in many cases. British cars might have been
> fun
> > to drive in the '50's, but reliable they weren't and they garnered
> > themselves an unenviable and nasty reputation that still hasn't gone
> > away. They were able to still sell cars in the US until the Japanese
> > showed up here in the early sixties with very British-like cars that
> had
> > the most un-British characteristic of actually being reliable and low
> in
> > maintenance.
> 
> I've never had a Brit car. Just watching somebody insert the side
> windows in the late 1950's and early 1960's Brit sport cars, or try to
> put the convertible tops up and down, or following a Triumph Spitfie
> and watching what happens when swing axles go through a turn quickly,
> turned me off for life.
> 
> The Datsun 1600 and 2000 weren't advanced designs, but they were quick
> and fun. The 240Z was a hit, obviously.
> 
> My first car was a used Fiat 124 Spyder (1969 model?). When the owner
> showed me how he could take the top up and down with one hand while
> waiting for a stoplight to change, I forgot about looking at the
> British competition.

124 Spiders were fun cars. Unfortunately, unlike Alfa (who used Bosch 
electrics), the Fiats used Magneto Marelli and they were just as bad as 
British Lucas. The result is that Fiats were never very reliable.

> Old joke that you've probably heard about British cars:
> 
> Question: Who is Lucas?
> 
> Answer: The God of Darkness.

Or the "British prince of Darkness" depending on who's telling the 
story. 

One I really like: Why do the Brits drink warm beer? Because they all 
have Lucas refrigerators.

> 
> >The Japanese killed the British export market for cars, and
> > eventually killed off most English brands at home as well.
> 
> That's one way to look at it. Another way to see it isn't just that the
> Japanese succeeded, the British failed. Look at examples of Brit
> thinking of the era, like jacking up the already-old MGB to meet safety
> regulations. The British had some US success, but they were their own
> worst enemy, in a time when small cars and imports were booming.

The Brits never understood the US market. Jags overheated, In England 
where its always damp and cool, they did not. The Brits never understood 
that here in the USA we have REAL summers and some people live in places 
like Phoenix or Miami. They never fixed the problem until the XJ6 came 
out in the late '70's.
> 
> >Japanese
> > bikes did the same thing to the British motorcycle industry. The
> French
> > never got their acts together, and as late as 1995 a Peugeot was a
> piece
> > of crap that fell apart the moment one bought it.
> 
> I had a mid-1960's 504; bought it cheap as part of a plan to work less
> and go back to school. Had to postpone the school thing for awhile and
> was happy to dump the 504 for peanuts, after many repairs. The 504 had
> 4-on-the-tree manual shift and an engine so tall it had to be tilted to
> fit under the hood. Had the world's longest dipstick; must have been at
> least a yard.
> 
> Peugot did well again for awhile in the 1980's, as did Renault, then
> faded out again. I remember Citroens and Simcas too. Never been in a
> Simca, but all the others had that wonderful, soft ride, yet held the
> rode well too, despite a lot of leaning.
> 
> The abandonment of the US market by so many UK/European makes
> highlights another smart thing about the Japanese: They seem to have a
> great deal of commitment and patience. The Japanese started with
> nothing in the US, now the Camry is the best selling car, period. Last
> time I counted, Toyota had more SUV models than Ford.
> 
> >They're OK now, but
> > losing the US market was a hard blow for the French auto industry.
> Fiat
> > (as well as other Italian brands) was a victim of a "deal with the
> > devil" that forced them to use Soviet steel to build cars with in the
> 
> > '60's and '70's . They, in cahoots with the Communist dominated
> Italian
> > Government of the time, entered a deal with the Soviet Bloc to
> provide
> > them with turn-key car factories in Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.
> > When it came time for the Commies to pay-up, they were cash-poor, so
> > they hammered-out a deal with the Eye-Ties to pay of the debt with
> > steel. It was a disastrous bargain! Fiats, Lancias Alfas, De
> Tomaso's,
> > Isos Bizzarinis, Maseratis, etc. were literally beginning to rust
> before
> > they even left the assembly lines.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with the above, but Brit cars had some
> of the same rust problems in the UK. I used to look at the UK car
> magazines sometimes, and I remember reading a story about dealers
> having to fix rust problems before the cars could be sold.
> 
> BTW, to ramble further, my '66 Alfa and my '69 Fiat seemed to be
> basically the same car: 4-cylinder, 5-speed, DOHC, small, sporty, great
> looks, IRS, etc., yet the Fiat seemed to be made of junk, while the
> Alfa looked good and held together well.
> 
> >The brittle, high-sulphur steel that
> > the iron curtain countries were producing was that bad. The smaller
> > companies succumbed to the warranty costs of fixing these things
> again
> > and again. Fiat cut it losses and took Lancia (which they owned) with
> 
> > them in 1981 when they left the US market. Alfa Romeo stopped using
> the
> > Soviet steel in the 1980's and most 80's and 90's Alfas are as rust
> free
> > as any BMW or Mercedes. When Fiat acquired Alfa in the late '80's
> they
> > set about re-furbishing the line. They went to FWD and paired the
> > American offerings down to just two models: The 164 Sedan (FWD) and
> the
> > VERY long-in-the-tooth Alfa Spider. The little sports roadster was a
> > nice car, but Alfa hadn't changed it appreciably in 25 years.
> 
> Again, another European maker who just didn't seem to be making an
> effort to be competitive in the US. They lost in the US, and so did
> consumers. I'd like to have another Alfa, but Alfa gives me no
> opportunity to buy one.
> 
> >It was
> > becoming increasingly difficult for even the most ardent Alfa lover
> to
> > justify another Spider, essentially just like the last one. The Mazda
> 
> > Miata came along and essentially killed that market off dead. The 164
> 
> > sedan was (and remains) a nice car, but the fact is, Alfa owners want
> 
> > sports cars, not sedans. Failing to have a new one ready, Alfa sold
> only
> > 500 cars in all of North America in 1995 and Fiat pulled the plug.
> It's
> > ironic too, because the next year, 1996 Alfa released the new Spider
> and
> > GTV coupe. These two sports cars were DESIGNED for the US market and
> had
> > been totally federalized.
> 
> Defeat, snatched from the jaws of victory.
> 
> Again, the Japanese won, but partly because they've been willing to
> stick with a plan, in good and bad times. Hyundai/Kia seem to be
> following that plan too, to their credit.
> 
> >They and the beautiful new 156 sedan would
> > have sold like hotcakes here in the US from pent-up Alfa enthusiast
> > demand alone. Fiat knows that now, and regrets the move, but the
> people
> > who made the decision are, naturally, long gone.
> 
> Wasn't there going to be a Fiat/GM merger too, that GM is now backing
> away from?

Already backed away from. Neither company wanted it. It was a bad deal 
forged during the heady days of the late '90's when large car companies 
were overcome with "acquisition fever." That's cooled somewhat, and both 
Fiat and GM realize that for GM to buy Fiat was in neither's best 
interest (certainly not Fiat;s GM ownership of anything is the kiss of 
death. Look at SAAB). Besides, all GM really wanted out of the deal was 
Fiat's advanced Diesel technology - and they got that without buying 
Fiat.

> > Today, the Germans with their Porsches, Audis, VWs, and Mercedes
> along
> > with Sweden's Volvo (a Ford) and SAAB (a GM/Subaru) and Italy's super
> 
> > cars - Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, are the only European makes
> still
> > sold here.
> 
> And I think that recently the German makes are starting to fight back
> and get into other US market segments. But it may be too late.
> 
> >I can attest to the fact that VWs are marvelous cars, as are
> > Audis and Porsches. I hear mixed things about Beemers, the rest I
> don't
> > have any experience with (except for several older Ferraris). Of
> course,
> > one can't lump Italian supercars with the others, they are a special
> > case and not subject to the same laws of reliability as would apply
> to a
> > VW.
> > >
> > > >they want cars which handle well to deal
> > > > with their twisty and mostly (what we'd call) secondary roads.
> They
> > > are
> > > > less concerned with cars being maintenance intensive (although
> that's
> > >
> > > > changing) and more concerned with overall longevity.
> > >
> > > Can less-reliable cars have longevity? These days, wouldn't a more
> > > reliable car, such as a Japanese car, have greater longevity, given
> > > equal (or maybe even less) maintenance than a European car?
> >
> > Nope. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> I think reliable cars will keep running longer and have greater
> longevity.

Nope. If the car is desirable and not seen as an appliance it will keep 
getting fixed or restored by a succession of owners. Longevity depends 
upon a car's intrinsic value, not by how often it breaks down. A 1950 
Ferrari 166 Barchetta, for instance, is not a very reliable car -never 
was, but of the 76 built, more than 65 are still "on the road" (an 
amazing survival rate) and when an example comes on the market, as one 
did in January at Barrett-Jackson in Arizona, it fetches about US$4 
million.  On a more modest note, Fiat 124 roadsters and Fiat X1/9s are 
hot on the restorer's list. Most of them, still on the road, are being 
restored and all the parts to do so are still available. These cars were 
not very expensive to begin with and are of a brand not even sold in the 
USA any more. But they are cool and desirable cars and they are still 
around long after other, more reliable cars such as the original Civics, 
510's or Corrollas have met the crusher. Most Japanese cars are simply 
not very lovable. They do what they are supposed to do, but engender no 
passion in their owners and few reach the status where they are seen to 
have any intrinsic value. The Datsun 240Z is an exception, as is the 
Toyota 2000 GT. The AWD V-6 Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000 A4 MIGHT make 
the leap as might the big Toyota Supra from the nineties. Few others 
have achieved that status, yet.

> > > >Traditionally,
> > > > Europeans keep cars longer than do their American counterparts,
> but
> > > > that's changing very quickly as well.
> > >
> > > Could be. Just generally, it's my impression that taxes and other
> > > expenses for car ownership, including fuel prices, are much higher
> in
> > > Europe than in the US, so I'd imagine that would tend to make
> European
> > > consumers hold onto their cars longer.
> >
> > They don't any more. On European roads one rarely sees a car older
> than
> > two-three years old - five at the outside.
> >
> > > >Fact is, today, one see very few
> > > > older cars on Europe's highways. Most cars seem to 5 years old or
> > > less.
> > > > European car manufacturers are not changing as fast as they need
> to
> > > in
> > > > this regard,
> > >
> > > >From what I've read, European cars are falling further and further
> > > behind in reliability. Look at Consumer Reports' owner surveys
> (every
> > > April issue) for an appalling number of European examples. I've
> read
> > > that part of the problem is that (for example) many German cars are
> > > moving ahead too fast with new technologies (such as BMW's iDrive),
> and
> > > putting them into cars before the bugs are worked out, and that's
> part
> > > of why the reliability is so poor, at least in the US market.
> >
> > I doubt that Idrive puts too many Beemers on the side of the road.
> 
> You're right. But it may keep many of the fancier BMW's from getting on
> the road at all! ;-)
> 
> Maybe 10+ years ago, John Deere introduced a new driver interface on
> their bulldozers that competed with Caterpillar and similar makes. But
> Deere gave up and dropped it. People wanted a familiar interface that
> was easy to use, so Deere went to interfaces similar to their
> competitors', and sales rose. It'll be interesting to see if BMW sticks
> with iDrive in the world's biggest car market.
> 
> I admit I haven't tried iDrive, but I've never read a good word about
> it, either.
> 
> > > >and many European cars are much more maintenance intensive
> > > > than are their US or Japanese counterparts because, in the past,
> the
> > > > European car culture was so different. People EXPECTED that the
> cars
> > > be high-maintenance, and they were.
> > >
> > > Actually, when European cars boomed in the early 1960's in the US,
> like
> > > VW did, a lot of it had to do with the idea that the VW (for
> example)
> > > had superior quality.
> 
> ...and reliability...the old VWs are really primitive, so they were
> pretty reliable...
> 
> > Quality and reliability are not really that closely linked. Some of
> the
> > world's finest cars are VERY high maintenance vehicles - always have
> > been. Rolls-Royces, for instance. But when Madam had the chauffeur to
> 
> > deal with servicing the Rolls, what did she care how maintenance
> > intensive the thing was?
> 
> And the fact that such cars require such extensive, expensive care is
> part of what makes them luxury cars. Even if someone gave me a Rolls or
> other high-end car, and paid the gas, taxes, insurance, etc., I'm sure
> I couldn't afford the maintenance.
> 
> It took me a long time to understand that impracticality is part of
> luxury, and that a luxury buyer will gladly spend more on cars,
> clothes, etc. that are in many ways inferior than cheaper products.
> 
> It'd be fun to be chauffered around in a Rolls, like in an old movie,
> but if I had to drive across the US, I'd get a Japanese car.
> 
> Sorta reminds, while I'm rambling, of the book "The Millionaire Next
> Door," written by people who actually went out and met millionaires and
> wealthier sorts, and discovered that these people were often pretty
> practical, unlike the stereotype of the Rolls, etc. (There's even a
> funny story in there about receiving a Rolls as a gift.) Interesting
> reading. The authors concluded that these people, who could buy any car
> they wanted, tended to buy cars by the pound--they favored big sedans,
> often US-made, and not the luxury US brands either. They also liked
> Japanese cars, however, jsut like the rest of the public.
> 
> > > > I have two european cars at the moment, one is about 20 years old
> (My
> > >
> > > > Alfa)
> > >
> > > Cool! I had a '66 Guilia GT many years ago...
> >
> > My GTV-6 is the light of my life.
> 
> There's one of those I see in my neighborhood. Same owner has an
> Alfetta sedan too. Don't know the guy, but the cars catch my eye.
> 
> I think the coupe (like yours) was another Giogetto Guigaro (sp?)
> design, but I could be wrong.

It was. This time via Giugiaro's own company, ItalDesign, not Bertone as 
was yours.

> > Not my main transportation, mind you
> > (I want this puppy to LAST) but when I do take it out for spin on
> > weekends (taking it to the historic races at Sears Point Raceway in
> the
> > Napa wine country on Sunday -weather permitting) It takes days to get
> 
> > the smile off of my face!
> >
> > You had an original "Bertie"?
> 
> Never heard that nickname; is that from "Bertone"?

Yep.

> It was the same car
> that was later called the 1750 or GTV,

And even later the 2000 GTV. It was made, in one guise or another from 
1966 to 1977. 

> I think. Mine had the 1600
> engine, I think. I occasionally window shop for those on eBay. Designed
> by Guigaro while he was at Bertone, I think. And later beaten in the
> Trans Am by the Porsches and Datsun 510s.

That's right. But make no mistake. The race cars were GTA's not GTVs. 
The 'A" stood for "Allegretta" or "lightened." they were made from 
Aluminum alloy over steel tubes, not steel like you car, and they had a 
170 BHP twin-spark engine and a sliding-block rear suspension. The 
engines in the GTA were cast from Elektron, an alloy of aluminum and 
magnesium whereby the road-going GTVs were simply aluminum. For 
homologation purposes, Alfa built a number of GTAs for the street and 
called them "GTA Stradales." Plexigalss windows, aluminum bodies, no 
center console, and simple, racing seats. You can tell a real one by 
it's flat, wood-rimmed steering wheel with the lightening holes in it's 
spokes and the "Auto Delta" badges. If you find a good one these days, 
be prepared to spend $35-60,000 for it, or more than twice what a 
totally restored GT or GTV 'Bertie' like you had is worth. But it's 
worth it. What a car! You can't buy a new ANYTHING that is anywhere near 
as much fun to own and drive as a cherry GTA Stradale would be.
> 
> >Good for you. Marvelous cars. Probably the
> > most beautiful small car in history and good ones are worth a fortune
> 
> > these days.
> 
> Girls really liked that car. Another car I had that women always liked
> and always said they'd always wanted one: the VW Kharmann Ghia. They
> were always impressed when I brought that on a first date. Primitive,
> slow, but the gals loved the looks.
> 
> >From what I could see, many of the big, powerful cars that impressed
> guys didn't impress women at all! They were more intrigued by smaller,
> more interesting cars.
> 
> My Alfa was a neat little size, had a really nice steering wheel, and
> looked good from behind, but overall, I wasn't that crazy about the
> looks. I would've preferred a lower front on the body and more of a
> wedge shape to the car overall.

Luckily, many people thought the car was a work of art. It's still 
considered so.

> > > >and the other is almost new (My VW). Neither has ever broken down
> > > > on me or left me stranded. The Alfa, however, requires a LOT of
> > > > maintenance.
> > >
> > > Mine was pretty reliable. My Fiat was another story...
> >
> > Yes, they almost always were.......
> 
> They seemed to hold up better in Europe, while falling apart in the US,
> for some reason.
> 
> I considered buiying several 1960's Fiat 850's, BTW, both the coupe and
> Spyder (yet another Guigaro for Bertone design?), or whatever it was
> called. But even in only occasional local highway driving, the cars
> felt underpowered and inadequate. But the looks were great. I'm always
> attracted to small, cool, efficient things, which is why I'm attracted
> to (brace yourself for actual on-topic comment) the Mac Mini.

I loved the looks of the 850 spider. Unfortunately, you couldn't 
generate enough power with one of them to even get the tail out in a 
turn. Abarth made a version that went like stink though! Unfortunately, 
it cost as much as a new Alfa at the time. The original 850 spider was 
$1800. After Carlo Abarth breathed on it, it was more like $5000. 
> 
> > > >Water pumps, for instance last only about 40,000 miles
> > > > MAXIMUM on this Alfa while my previous VW (a 1985 GTI) went
> 220,000
> > > > miles on it's ORIGINAL water pump!
> 
> I never replaced any water pumps on a VW--there were none! I could get
> a fuel pump from J.C. Whitney for $7. No oil filter replacements; VWs
> didn't have those either.
> 
> >>>I prefer European cars to Japanese
> 
> I wish the Europeans would compete harder with the Japanese, not just
> in the cars, but in being willing to really go after every segment of
> the US market, like the Japanese did.
> 
> > > > and American cars and find them to be well designed cars with
> lots of
> > >
> > > > characteristics having to do with the pleasures of driving, that
> > > > Japanese or American cars simply cannot provide. I value these
> > > things,
> > > > and don't want to see them go away.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, due to reliability issues, the European makers that
> > > still sell in the US are their own worst enemy. And new approaches,
> > > such as BMW's widely-hated iDrive, aren't helping either.
> >
> > I just wouldn't use the thing. It is an option like Alfa's 'Connect'
> > system which is a combo stereo, cellphone, GPS, receiver and sort of
> > Euro "On Star" system. Its lousy, If I lived in Italy, I wouldn't
> order
> > my new Alfa with the thing. I've lots of experience with it and
> wouldn't
> > give you a nickel for it. Sane with iDrive, None of this, however has
> 
> > anything whatsoever to do with the running of the car.
> 
> For the BMWs that offer iDRive, like the 740 (model number), is it
> possible to get the cars w/o iDrive, or to get iDrive, but not use it?

It's an option like most GPS systems, AFAIK.


> My impression is that it controls the auto transmission and everything
> else and can't be avoided.

I don't think it controls the AT, but it does control the radio, GPS, 
and HVAC systems as well as the communications system. 

> > > In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued
> to
> > > boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.
> > >
> > > I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many
> sports
> > > cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with
> the
> > > least hassles.
> >
> > Everybody needs at least that. I've my VW for everyday, and my Alfa
> as
> > my toy. I'll trade in the VW when it gets long in the tooth, but the
> > Alfa I keep 'till death does us part!
> 
> I love the looks of the Golf and used to carpool with a Jetta owner.
> Both nifty and likeable cars. The Jetta owner's spouse had a Golf and
> he was in love with VWs, did some autocrossing, etc. But the wife hated
> things like the Golf's electric windows failing, etc. Just petty stuff
> like that that would drive me nuts and that our Japanese car never
> does.

I've never had those problems with either Golf I've owned.

> If I had to name a car that seemed as cool and stylish as an iPod, Mac
> Mini, or iBook, I'd name the Golf.
> 
> > > From experience, I've learned where to get that kind of
> > > car, and it's not at dealers selling European cars.
> >
> > VWs are just as reliable and even better built than most Japanese
> cars
> > in my humble opinion. Besides the German engineers actually drive the
> 
> > cars they design while the Japanese engineers take the train to work.
> 
> > That means a lot to me, and I can FEEL the difference behind the
> wheel.
> 
> I agree that the European cars are sexy and stimulating. A friend has
> the Audi Allroad, and it's like the Swiss Army knife of cars; does
> almost anything. (Way overpriced for the interior size, however.)
> 
> Anyway, to wander back to some sort of point, CR has liked driving the
> VWs and has given some of them very high ratings, but the only VW they
> still recommend is the Passat, because readers report so many problems
> with the other VWs. And even the Passat isn't as reliable as the
> competing Japanese makes, unfortunately.

Again with CR. I find one is usually better off avoiding the products CR 
recommends. They are ALWAYS wrong on audio, cameras, video equipment, 
and cars. I don't know about toasters, breakfast cereal or 
refrigerators, but I suspect that they're probably wrong about those as 
well.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 9:08:08 PM

In article <1gty48c.1ao78i6ze5g7kN%proto@panix.com>,
 proto@panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big,
> > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even
> > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to
> > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less
> > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the
> > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more
> > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like
> > this one for that attitude.
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, but Americans _wanted_ _big_ cars, 

Well, they thought they did anyway. I don't see anybody lamenting the 
demise of Buick Limiteds, Mercury Turnpike Cruisers, or Chrysler 
Imperials.

> and the American industry did
> what they are supposed to do, consider their fiduciary resposiblility to
> the shareholders. Between the market and the regulations they really had
> no choice if they wanted to stay in business.

Americans didn't have to follow them like sheep, though.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 9:34:16 PM

In article 
<gmgravesnos-E6715D.13080625032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <1111774191.447697.189630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > > I just wouldn't use the thing. It is an option like Alfa's 'Connect'
> > > system which is a combo stereo, cellphone, GPS, receiver and sort of
> > > Euro "On Star" system. Its lousy, If I lived in Italy, I wouldn't
> > order
> > > my new Alfa with the thing. I've lots of experience with it and
> > wouldn't
> > > give you a nickel for it. Sane with iDrive, None of this, however has
> > 
> > > anything whatsoever to do with the running of the car.
> > 
> > For the BMWs that offer iDRive, like the 740 (model number), is it
> > possible to get the cars w/o iDrive, or to get iDrive, but not use it?
> 
> It's an option like most GPS systems, AFAIK.

AFAIK, it is standard on the 7 and 5 series. It will be optional on the 
new 3 series when it comes out, however.
> 
> 
> > My impression is that it controls the auto transmission and everything
> > else and can't be avoided.
> 
> I don't think it controls the AT, but it does control the radio, GPS, 
> and HVAC systems as well as the communications system. 

I think they may be getting better with newer iterations of iDrive, 
however. I believe it is possible to control the radio and climate 
control without using iDrive, at least on the 5 series. 
> 
> > > > In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued
> > to
> > > > boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.
> > > >
> > > > I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many
> > sports
> > > > cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with
> > the
> > > > least hassles.
> > >
> > > Everybody needs at least that. I've my VW for everyday, and my Alfa
> > as
> > > my toy. I'll trade in the VW when it gets long in the tooth, but the
> > > Alfa I keep 'till death does us part!
> > 
> > I love the looks of the Golf and used to carpool with a Jetta owner.
> > Both nifty and likeable cars. The Jetta owner's spouse had a Golf and
> > he was in love with VWs, did some autocrossing, etc. But the wife hated
> > things like the Golf's electric windows failing, etc. Just petty stuff
> > like that that would drive me nuts and that our Japanese car never
> > does.
> 
> I've never had those problems with either Golf I've owned.

I owned an original Rabbit GTI, and loved the thing. I still regret 
selling it. I have heard bad stories about the reliability of late model 
VWs, however. 
[snip]

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
Reply dfritzin3 (567) 3/25/2005 9:36:45 PM

In article <1gty4ll.rujxlm1vgadn3N%proto@panix.com>,
 proto@panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Another strawman from the Mayor. Nobody proposes that anyone use a 
> > sportscar for that, or for any other practical purpose. A sports car is
> > a toy - pure and simple. But there is no reason (other than greed) that
> > car makers cannot make lightweight, fuel efficient, good handling 
> > vehicles that can carry 6 - 8 - or even 10 passengers in comfort and 
> > safety.
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, but greedy is a virtue for corporations, that is precisely what
> they are supposed to be.

And that's precisely why that greed needs to be regulated. Greed tends 
to be irresponsible.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 9:38:06 PM

In article <dfritzin-BF6EF5.11364325032005@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-E6715D.13080625032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1111774191.447697.189630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >  neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > I just wouldn't use the thing. It is an option like Alfa's 'Connect'
> > > > system which is a combo stereo, cellphone, GPS, receiver and sort of
> > > > Euro "On Star" system. Its lousy, If I lived in Italy, I wouldn't
> > > order
> > > > my new Alfa with the thing. I've lots of experience with it and
> > > wouldn't
> > > > give you a nickel for it. Sane with iDrive, None of this, however has
> > > 
> > > > anything whatsoever to do with the running of the car.
> > > 
> > > For the BMWs that offer iDRive, like the 740 (model number), is it
> > > possible to get the cars w/o iDrive, or to get iDrive, but not use it?
> > 
> > It's an option like most GPS systems, AFAIK.
> 
> AFAIK, it is standard on the 7 and 5 series. It will be optional on the 
> new 3 series when it comes out, however.
> > 
> > 
> > > My impression is that it controls the auto transmission and everything
> > > else and can't be avoided.
> > 
> > I don't think it controls the AT, but it does control the radio, GPS, 
> > and HVAC systems as well as the communications system. 
> 
> I think they may be getting better with newer iterations of iDrive, 
> however. I believe it is possible to control the radio and climate 
> control without using iDrive, at least on the 5 series. 
> > 
> > > > > In contrast, the Japanese have been more conservative and continued
> > > to
> > > > > boost reliability as the Europeans have fallen behind.
> > > > >
> > > > > I no longer care which car handles the best, and I've owned many
> > > sports
> > > > > cars, all European. I just want something that gets me there with
> > > the
> > > > > least hassles.
> > > >
> > > > Everybody needs at least that. I've my VW for everyday, and my Alfa
> > > as
> > > > my toy. I'll trade in the VW when it gets long in the tooth, but the
> > > > Alfa I keep 'till death does us part!
> > > 
> > > I love the looks of the Golf and used to carpool with a Jetta owner.
> > > Both nifty and likeable cars. The Jetta owner's spouse had a Golf and
> > > he was in love with VWs, did some autocrossing, etc. But the wife hated
> > > things like the Golf's electric windows failing, etc. Just petty stuff
> > > like that that would drive me nuts and that our Japanese car never
> > > does.
> > 
> > I've never had those problems with either Golf I've owned.
> 
> I owned an original Rabbit GTI, and loved the thing. I still regret 
> selling it. I have heard bad stories about the reliability of late model 
> VWs, however. 
> [snip]

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that SOME US VW models 
are assembled in Brazil? Mine happens to be a Wolfsburg car, and I've 
had no problems with it.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/25/2005 9:43:21 PM

TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > 
> > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > 
> > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big,
> > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even
> > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to
> > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less
> > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the
> > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like
> > this one for that attitude.
> 
> The problem could be solved quite easily.
> 
> Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> 
> Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> costs, medical costs, etc.
> 
> No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> SUVs.

Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
vote loser!

But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.

I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
Hummer.

So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.

With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
with armed with 3 tons of metal.

This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
significantly decrease.

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
0
Reply me41 (1097) 3/26/2005 12:57:22 AM

In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-56A6EC.13125922032005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <tkp041psg4td60t21lkthvfrng2lgvrhbn@4ax.com>,
> > >  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > You applaud the government for making a popular product essentially
> > > > illegal and wonder aloud why car companies quit making a product that
> > > > government regulations made it impossible to do anything but lose
> > > > money on and then actually think you're a conservative?
> > > 
> > > I have no problem with Detroit quitting the manufacture and sale of big,
> > > unsafe American triremes. I just think that replacing them with even
> > > bigger, more unsafe trucks simply to circumvent the very laws enacted to
> > > try to make the car manufacturers build safer, more efficient, and less
> > > polluting automobiles is a big step in the wrong direction for all the
> > > wrong reasons. If this country continues to become more and more 
> > > business hostile, you can thank irresponsible corporate decisions like
> > > this one for that attitude.
> > 
> > The problem could be solved quite easily.
> > 
> > Simply state that as of January 1, 2007, SUVs will be classified as 
> > passenger vehicles and included in the CAFE numbers. SInce the 
> > overwhelming majority of SUVs are used by private individuals as 
> > passenger vehicles, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> > 
> > Then I'd increase gas taxes to the point where revenues paid all the 
> > transportation infrastructure expenses as well as added health care 
> > costs, medical costs, etc.
> > 
> > No one would be prevented from having SUVs, they'd just have to pay 
> > their share. If vehicles had to pay the full cost of driving them, 
> > people would consider very seriously before driving 3 ton (or more) 
> > SUVs.
> 
> Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> vote loser!
> 
> But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> 
> I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> Hummer.
> 
> So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> 
> With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> 
> This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> significantly decrease.

I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every 
vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes 
his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets 
400 pound ticket in the post.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/26/2005 1:13:55 AM

George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
>  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> 
> > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > vote loser!
> > 
> > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > 
> > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > Hummer.
> > 
> > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > 
> > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > 
> > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> > significantly decrease.
> 
> I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> 400 pound ticket in the post.

Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o

But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
would be their glorious utopia.

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
0
Reply me41 (1097) 3/26/2005 1:37:02 AM

In article <1gu0bv1.7t8v101j7q8doN%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > 
> > > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > > vote loser!
> > > 
> > > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > > 
> > > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> > > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> > > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > > Hummer.
> > > 
> > > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> > > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > > 
> > > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> > > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> > > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> > > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> > > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > > 
> > > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> > > significantly decrease.
> > 
> > I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> > vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> > his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> > 400 pound ticket in the post.
> 
> Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o
> 
> But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
> navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
> the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
> authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
> would be their glorious utopia.

In the US, tickets for various sorts of traffic violations are a major 
source of revenue for a lot of municipalities. They're also a great 
excuse for police to pull people over, which is "useful" for all sorts 
of things. For instance, the cops can claim they're acting suspicious, 
search the car, and on occasion, bust someone for drug possession.

So, the idea of making it impossible for people to speed probably 
wouldn't get very far.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
0
Reply znu (10395) 3/26/2005 3:04:46 AM

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1gu0bv1.7t8v101j7q8doN%me4@privacy.net>,
>  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> 
> > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> > >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > > > vote loser!
> > > > 
> > > > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > > > 
> > > > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> > > > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> > > > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > > > Hummer.
> > > > 
> > > > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> > > > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > > > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > > > 
> > > > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> > > > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> > > > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> > > > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> > > > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > > > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > > > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > > > 
> > > > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > > > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > > > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> > > > significantly decrease.
> > > 
> > > I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> > > vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> > > his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> > > 400 pound ticket in the post.
> > 
> > Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o
> > 
> > But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
> > navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
> > the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
> > authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
> > would be their glorious utopia.
> 
> In the US, tickets for various sorts of traffic violations are a major
> source of revenue for a lot of municipalities. They're also a great 
> excuse for police to pull people over, which is "useful" for all sorts
> of things. For instance, the cops can claim they're acting suspicious,
> search the car, and on occasion, bust someone for drug possession.
> 
> So, the idea of making it impossible for people to speed probably 
> wouldn't get very far.

Here, a police presence the level of which you speak of, is too
expensive, so there's much less of it on the roads as there used to be,
in favour of dumb boxes on poles, and officers hiding behind bushes with
lazer guns.  It's so much more convenient, cheap to maintain, and a
cash-cow to boot, having road safety summerised into a simple number.

You can be drunk as a skunk, a glovebox stuffed with a plethora of mind
altering goodies, a Uzi in the back seat, handbrake turning around every
corner, driving a stolen car, and the rear loaded with stolen TVs, but
just so long as you're doing less than 'x' MPH, then that's just peachy!

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
0
Reply me41 (1097) 3/26/2005 1:09:22 PM

In article <1gu0bv1.7t8v101j7q8doN%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > 
> > > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > > vote loser!
> > > 
> > > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > > 
> > > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> > > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> > > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > > Hummer.
> > > 
> > > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> > > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > > 
> > > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> > > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> > > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> > > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> > > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > > 
> > > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> > > significantly decrease.
> > 
> > I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> > vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> > his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> > 400 pound ticket in the post.
> 
> Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o

Yeah, ain't it awful?
> 
> But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
> navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
> the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
> authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
> would be their glorious utopia.

I find it really chilling that what once was one of the most car centric 
societies on earth, the very essence of the romantic notion of the car 
as a device for pleasure, of blasting down idyllic country lanes in a 
prewar Jaguar SS100 with the engine note echoing off of stone walls and 
the top down on a glorious summer day, has become one of the most 
car-phobic countries around. And for what? Safety? NO. Fuel Economy? NO. 
For revenue enhancement, pure and simple. What a shame. I can see the US 
officials watching England with great interest; licking their greedy 
little chops like a wolf pack circling lame caribou.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/26/2005 8:00:24 PM

In article <znu-DF6FF4.22044625032005@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1gu0bv1.7t8v101j7q8doN%me4@privacy.net>,
>  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> 
> > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> > >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > > > vote loser!
> > > > 
> > > > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > > > 
> > > > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's rather
> > > > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test in a
> > > > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > > > Hummer.
> > > > 
> > > > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box size,
> > > > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > > > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > > > 
> > > > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I don't
> > > > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to be
> > > > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger class
> > > > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much more
> > > > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > > > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > > > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > > > 
> > > > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > > > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > > > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road would
> > > > significantly decrease.
> > > 
> > > I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> > > vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> > > his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> > > 400 pound ticket in the post.
> > 
> > Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o
> > 
> > But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
> > navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
> > the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
> > authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
> > would be their glorious utopia.
> 
> In the US, tickets for various sorts of traffic violations are a major 
> source of revenue for a lot of municipalities. They're also a great 
> excuse for police to pull people over, which is "useful" for all sorts 
> of things. For instance, the cops can claim they're acting suspicious, 
> search the car, and on occasion, bust someone for drug possession.
> 
> So, the idea of making it impossible for people to speed probably 
> wouldn't get very far.

Not unless they can design the speed governor in such a way that anytime 
a motorist comes up against the governor's limit, the information is 
relayed to the police resulting in an automatic and expensive ticket. 
Then the authorities would sit up and take notice. Big brother IS 
watching, you know, He doesn't want your mind, like Orwell suggested, he 
merely wants your money - as much of it as he can get!

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/26/2005 8:05:02 PM

In article <1gu17gg.pn68061ycoh9kN%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gu0bv1.7t8v101j7q8doN%me4@privacy.net>,
> >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > 
> > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1gu07ph.3b8x0y2yyef4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> > > >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Trying to tax people out of their SUVs is never gonna happen.  It's a
> > > > > vote loser!
> > > > > 
> > > > > But by all means, re-categorise what a 'car' is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I presume it's the same there as it is here in England, but it's 
> > > > > rather
> > > > > scary to think that some snot nosed kid can pass their driving test 
> > > > > in a
> > > > > Civic, and immediately walk into a dealership and drive away in a
> > > > > Hummer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So say, define a car as anything that fits into a pre-defined box 
> > > > > size,
> > > > > and is below a pre-defined unladen weight.  Anything beyond this,
> > > > > becomes a class in itself - the SUV/minivan class.
> > > > > 
> > > > > With this class of vehicle segregated away from 'normal' cars, I 
> > > > > don't
> > > > > think it's unreasonable to expect that drivers' of such vehicles to 
> > > > > be
> > > > > of a higher standard and maturity.  As such, to drive this larger 
> > > > > class
> > > > > of vehicle, should require an additional licence whose test is much 
> > > > > more
> > > > > stringent, and conditions more focused, so as to determine if this
> > > > > person is the kind of person society wants to be sharing the highway
> > > > > with armed with 3 tons of metal.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This way, nobody is telling you you can't have an SUV, and nobody is
> > > > > trying to tax you off the road - You just have to prove you're safe
> > > > > enough.  I think it's safe to say the amount of SUVs on the road 
> > > > > would
> > > > > significantly decrease.
> > > > 
> > > > I understand that in Great Britain they're gonna put a gatso in every
> > > > vehicle. Anytime the driver even thinks about speeding, the gatso takes
> > > > his picture, sends it to the police via satellite, and the driver gets
> > > > 400 pound ticket in the post.
> > > 
> > > Don't even joke about it!  You might give 'em ideas! :-o
> > > 
> > > But they are thinking about compulsary speed limiters.  Presumably a GPS
> > > navigation system mated to the engine's electronics to prevent exceeding
> > > the posted speed limit.  They already have a prototype.  Yes, the
> > > authorities are real big on automated traffic enforcement here, and this
> > > would be their glorious utopia.
> > 
> > In the US, tickets for various sorts of traffic violations are a major
> > source of revenue for a lot of municipalities. They're also a great 
> > excuse for police to pull people over, which is "useful" for all sorts
> > of things. For instance, the cops can claim they're acting suspicious,
> > search the car, and on occasion, bust someone for drug possession.
> > 
> > So, the idea of making it impossible for people to speed probably 
> > wouldn't get very far.
> 
> Here, a police presence the level of which you speak of, is too
> expensive, so there's much less of it on the roads as there used to be,
> in favour of dumb boxes on poles, and officers hiding behind bushes with
> lazer guns.  It's so much more convenient, cheap to maintain, and a
> cash-cow to boot, having road safety summerised into a simple number.
> 
> You can be drunk as a skunk, a glovebox stuffed with a plethora of mind
> altering goodies, a Uzi in the back seat, handbrake turning around every
> corner, driving a stolen car, and the rear loaded with stolen TVs, but
> just so long as you're doing less than 'x' MPH, then that's just peachy!

It costs governments big money to prosecute for those things. Gatsos 
BRING-IN money with minimal effort. No wonder the powers-that-be are in 
love with them.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/26/2005 8:07:56 PM

Walter Bushell wrote:
> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Another strawman from the Mayor. Nobody proposes that anyone use a
> > sportscar for that, or for any other practical purpose. A sports
car is
> > a toy - pure and simple. But there is no reason (other than greed)
that
> > car makers cannot make lightweight, fuel efficient, good handling
> > vehicles that can carry 6 - 8 - or even 10 passengers in comfort
and
> > safety.

The minivan would be that vehicle, but its popularity in the US has
waxed and waned. I think we'll always have minivans, but SUVs have
taken their place in many a suburban driveway, even though the SUV
lacks most of these virtues. But the SUV appeals in other ways (and
some irrational ways) to many people.

(snip)

0
Reply neilkoomen (2) 3/30/2005 5:28:42 PM

In article <1112203722.029924.321600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 neilkoomen@hotmail.com wrote:

> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Another strawman from the Mayor. Nobody proposes that anyone use a
> > > sportscar for that, or for any other practical purpose. A sports
> car is
> > > a toy - pure and simple. But there is no reason (other than greed)
> that
> > > car makers cannot make lightweight, fuel efficient, good handling
> > > vehicles that can carry 6 - 8 - or even 10 passengers in comfort
> and
> > > safety.
> 
> The minivan would be that vehicle, 

Not what is needed. The mini van is too heavy, and handles too poorly. I 
envision a plastic and composite vehicle similar to the Honda Kiwami:

http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2003/auto/kiwami/index.html

Only proportioned to have another row of seats.

> I think we'll always have minivans, but SUVs have
> taken their place in many a suburban driveway, even though the SUV
> lacks most of these virtues. But the SUV appeals in other ways (and
> some irrational ways) to many people.

But there's no reason why SUVs have to be continued to be built. The fad 
has got to end sometime and it will.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"...in all cases where either platform will do the same 
job equally, the Macintosh is the better choice." - Joe Ragosta
0
Reply gmgravesnos (8642) 3/30/2005 9:01:33 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 32978 articles. 1 followers. Post

100 Replies
109 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 36


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

InDesign: Mac vs PC (was Quark: Mac vs PC)
As I've pointed out to the employee who uses Quark on a Mac at the nonprofit, it's possible that she doesn't use enough of the features of Quark to test its limitations, whether Mac or PC. What about InDesign? If she's not using the wide range of features, including those which make it superior to Quark, does it matter on which platform she uses it? Is it any more difficult to learn than Quark? -- Bob Ball If you want to think positive thoughts, surround yourself with positive people. If you want to email me, eliminate the negative. ...

Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again
<http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm> In article <irmdg4$akh$1@news.albasani.net>, "Nobody" <nobody@all.com> wrote: > <http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm> 2002, Edwin? Really? -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's A...

PowerBook vs. ThinkPad (rather than Mac vs. PC)
I am interested in an opbective comparison between PowerBooks (and OS X) with ThinkPads (and Windows XP). The problem I have is that most Mac and PC acolytes tend to be (a) blind to the advantages of the �other� system, and (b) clueless as to the real true advantages of the �other� because they are so ensconced in their own chosen system. Unfortunately it is difficult to find a power user who is equally familiar, and comfortable, with both Macs and PCs. I, for one, am clearly of the PC camp, but not just PC; I have used ThinkPad's ever since the first one was created in Japan (only for t...

"I am the happy owner of a Mac Book Pro, but I can't really justify purchasing a new Mac given the cost of a new Mac vs. a comparable PC."
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2010/02/11/suggestions-for-a-new-laptop.aspx Suggestions for a new laptop? Okay, the previous time I asked this question, I decided that buying a big desktop machine would be preferable, but I am currently traveling and I am pained at the speed of my current laptop. Therefore, I am going to need a new one. I am the happy owner of a Mac Book Pro, but I can't really justify purchasing a new Mac given the cost of a new Mac vs. a comparable PC. The Mac tax just doesn't pay for itself at those levels for me. Any recommendations? I want so...

Mac vs PC
Heh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id_kGL3M5Cg ...

MAC vs. PC
I'm studying animationfilm and computers are a big part of the time and work you put into animation. At school it's all mac G4's but at home it's an old iMac DV+ 450Mhz. I'm at the point of buying a new system but can't make up my mind between an new PC-system or a new Mac-system. The point is :"i get for the same amount of money lots & lots more when buying pc than mac". I've been asking around but nobody seems to be able to make the choice either. We' running Adobe After effects, Adobe premiere, Final Cut Pro, Toonboom, ... Thanks. In article &...

Mac vs PC
1st annual Mac Misconceptions! ------------------------------ ============================== ------------------------------ Okay, okay, okay. I know I shouldn't be doing this, but something happened today that just pissed me off. A die hard mac user said that macs are better, because they don't require drivers and dells (aka PC's) need them. I say B.S. The only reason the mac didn't need drivers installed is because they were in the kernel and/or the manufacturer of the product supplied drivers to Apple and not Microsoft for built in support. And the mouse! One button (nativ...

Mac vs. PC?
Considering switching from PC to Mac, for editing purposes, despite the "Mac Tax." Can any Mac advocates shed any light, or give arguments pro and con doing such a switch? "sf_funnygirl@yahoo.com" <sf_funnygirl@yahoo.com> wrote in BD101164.12E%sf_funnygirl@yahoo.com on 7/6/04 8:20 AM: > Considering switching from PC to Mac, for editing purposes, despite the "Mac > Tax." Can any Mac advocates shed any light, or give arguments pro and con > doing such a switch? > I have a comparison site that looks at the two: http://myweb.cableone.net/s...

Mac vs. PC.
http://www.cycary.com/technews.html Cuss and discuss. "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> stated in post roOdndLLRbJCvmrbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com on 9/23/07 7:40 PM: > http://www.cycary.com/technews.html > > > Cuss and discuss. Sometimes such parodies are funny... this one was not, at least not to me. They really did not say anything about the products or commercials that was clever. A shame... -- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke Under the PC Guy it should read "Uses a computer that sucks...

Mac vs. PC
I am a long time PC user, but I am changing jobs and have a choice of a Mac G5 Powerbook, or a PC (presumably with Intel Core Duo processor). Most of my coworkers are using Macs, but they aren't Matlab users. I'm leaning towards the Mac, but I'm wondering if there are any major issues with Matlab on a Mac. Thanks Kyle Kyle wrote: > > > I am a long time PC user, but I am changing jobs and have a choice > of > a Mac G5 Powerbook, or a PC (presumably with Intel Core Duo > processor). Most of my coworkers are using Macs, but they aren't > Matlab users. I'...

PC vs. Mac
<http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare/pc-vs-mac> On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:07:43 -0500, Nobody wrote: > <http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare/pc-vs-mac> The girl in the picture looks like my cousin. -- flatfish+++ Please visit our hall of Linux idiots. http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ Watching Linux Fail: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/ Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead "By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory." http://www.pcworld.com/busi...

PC vs Mac
I've come across a couple of Mac owners and I'm wondering - whats the attraction of the Mac? Why is it not compatible with PC software? How has it survived so long? What can a Mac do that a PC can't? In article <4304fc65_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Draycos <draycosgamedev@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >I've come across a couple of Mac owners and I'm wondering - whats the >attraction of the Mac? Why is it not compatible with PC software? How has >it survived so long? What can a Mac do that a PC can't? Please, learn to use ...

Re: PC vs Win vs Mac<How to pick? Dvorak got it right
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Elizabot@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article 4145cc2c$0$58895$75868355@news.frii.net on 9/13/04 9:34 AM: >> My Powerbook has worked excellent for the three months I have >> had it. Supernews works great for me AND whatever low life jerkoff that >> posts occasionally using my name. >> > > Snit's been having problems posting through Supernews, so there's a fair > chance "whatever low life jerk that posts" with your name may be absent > for a while. Care to support your accusation? Snit wrote: > &quo...

Re: PC vs Win vs Mac<How to pick? Dvorak got it right #4
"Awnold" <govern@ator.com> wrote in article 10kc060mgk69ld8@corp.supernews.com on 9/13/04 1:16 PM: > > "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message > news:fretwizz-99CA60.14062413092004@netnews.comcast.net... >> In article <ci4tm3$glt@odah37.prod.google.com>, >> "Snit" <CSMA_SNIT@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in article >>> 10kbu44iil6ha02@corp.supernews.com on 9/13/04 12:41 PM: >>> >>>>>> My Powerbook has w...

Re: PC vs Win vs Mac<How to pick? Dvorak got it right #2
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Elizabot@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article 4145f5bc$0$58893$75868355@news.frii.net on 9/13/04 12:32 PM: > Snit wrote: > >> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <Elizabot@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article >> 4145cc2c$0$58895$75868355@news.frii.net on 9/13/04 9:34 AM: >> >> >>>> My Powerbook has worked excellent for the three months I have had >>>> it. Supernews works great for me AND whatever low life jerkoff >>>> that posts occasionally using my name. >>> >>> Snit's been h...

Re: PC vs Win vs Mac<How to pick? Dvorak got it right #3
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in article 10kbu44iil6ha02@corp.supernews.com on 9/13/04 12:41 PM: >>> My Powerbook has worked excellent for the three months I have had >>> it. Supernews works great for me AND whatever low life jerkoff >>> that posts occasionally using my name. >>> >> >> Snit's been having problems posting through Supernews, so there's a >> fair chance "whatever low life jerk that posts" with your name may >> be absent for a while. > > If you can show that it is Snit I will t...

Re: PC vs Win vs Mac<How to pick? Dvorak got it right #5
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Elizabot@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article 4145cc2c$0$58895$75868355@news.frii.net on 9/13/04 9:34 AM: >> My Powerbook has worked excellent for the three months I have had >> it. Supernews works great for me AND whatever low life jerkoff that >> posts occasionally using my name. >> > > Snit's been having problems posting through Supernews, so there's a > fair chance "whatever low life jerk that posts" with your name may be > absent for a while. This seems to not be true. Hmmm, I wonder why John seems ...

iPod PC vs Mac
I tried to find a dedicated newsgroup, but couldn't find one. The question is: can I load music onto my iPod _both_ from my home Mac and from my office PC laptop ? After installing iPod and iTunes on the PC, it asks me to re-format the iPod... which I first used with the Mac. -- Fran�ois de Dardel http:/mapage.noos.fr/dardelf/ Faber est suae quisque fortunae Enlever le quatorze pour m'�crire Remove fourteen in the address to send mail << I tried to find a dedicated newsgroup, but couldn't find one. The question is: can I load music onto my iPod _both_ from my home Ma...

Filepath Mac vs PC
I am using the new FMP 11 recurring import table, which works pretty well for my needs, but I have a filepath problem that others must have come across: I have set the path up in a Mac environment, but when PC users try and make the import they can't find the file. I am almost certain this is because of the "/" vs "\" of Macs and PCs. Is there some sort of if then script that I can put in depending on what platform is performing the import? On 2010-04-15 17:14:53 -0700, dc said: > I am using the new FMP 11 recurring import table, which works pretty > well for...

PC OEMs vs. The Mac
Just for future reference. All computers by big computer companies are made from OEM parts including Macs. When they build the computers at the factory, they get large quantities of components. They do not go to the store and buy over the shelf retail parts to build computers. The people who do that are smaller businesses and people who build their own systems. The reason for the big companies buy OEM is that the parts that make up the computer are covered under the warranty for the whole system. Retail parts come with their own warranty. Some of the parts are exactly the same. O...

Firefox Mac vs PC
Hi. I am planning to publish a website in a few weeks. I don't have a PC but I'm trying some software called CrossOver that lets me run iE6 and IE7 for Windows on my Mac. CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are identical or different from Firefox on a Mac. Thanks In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>, Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote: > CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if > anyone here k...

Browsing Mac vs PC
I'm having a gentle argument with a PC friend in a distant state. I could use some legitimate amunition as to why it is better/easier etc browsing on a Mac as oppoased to a PC, regardless of browser. TIA Fred Fred G wrote: > I'm having a gentle argument with a PC friend in a distant state. I > could use some legitimate amunition as to why it is better/easier etc > browsing on a Mac as oppoased to a PC, regardless of browser. > > TIA > > Fred I don't think it's any "easier", but you will probably have less security issues on a Mac. But as l...

Some reasons for Mac vs PC
I'm a PC user, and a (real) unix admin on large HP-UX boxes. I've been thinking about switching to Macs ever since OS X came out, and probably will do so this year. Basically, I'm just waiting for my current desktop PC to become a bit more obsolete. I don't understand why so many PC users bash Macs here. The old Mac OS9, I could see the bashing back then. But not now. Two factors seem to really drive this, and at least one of them really doesn't apply any more - and hasnt for the last couple of years : 1 - Price. Every PC nut seems to think they can build a PC...

MAC vs PC ads
The other day, someone remarked that with the failure of Windows 8, Apple lost an opportunity by not relaunching MAC vs PC ads to grab people who need a new PC and don't want Windows 8. In a soft market, being agressive can get you a bigger share of the smaller pie. Thoughts ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > In a soft market, being agressive can get you a bigger share of the > smaller pie. "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon In article <51951d6f$0$46952$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, ...