"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:


"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:

So, if we'd like prices to be lower, I wonder why so many people
are doing the exact opposite of what it takes to make that happen.

People who want to lose weight still eat donuts.

Many who complain about high unemployment support paying those who
don't work.

Such illogic abounds.


Yeah. Let's all buy an Escalade or a Suburban, even if we're single
and never haul anything bigger than 3 bags of groceries.

Whom do you nominate to be the Minister of Vehicular Appropriateness?


You, at some point in the future.

I do not choose to serve, for I did not make the suggestion that such an
authority, presumably with punitive powers, be created. Please try again.


I suggest that you serve as your own best advisor, and you choose not to?
What's left? Mommy and Daddy? God? A dog who talks to you in private
moments? A ouja board & tarot cards? You're not accustomed to the idea of
making better decisions for yourself, because there has never been a leader
who has asked you to do it. Kennedy suggested it when he said "And so, my
fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can
do for your country."



Eventually, people will stop
believing this next personal rule:

"All petroleum usage is part of the concept known as 'demand'. There
are no exceptions. Except MY petroleum usage".

This has little relevance to your proposal to ban certain vehicles. Why
do you wish to do so, and how logistically do you propose to execute your
plan?

I have no wish to ban certain vehicles. You and a few others here like to
read that into my statements. I want to see consumers bring the numbers of
certain vehicles back down to a level which reflects the actual need for
them. I'll play Kennedy here and assume that you can analyze that statement
using your head instead of your genitals.