On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:36:12 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:


The end of oil reservees in the near future has been predicted for years.
THe fact is that there are fstill plenty of sources that are currnetly not
economical to develop. As the readily available sources become scarcer,
those known deposits will become economically viable, as will alternate
energy sources.......synthetics, etc.

Yeah, but, it takes energy to develop those sources. There is a point
where it is no longer viable from an energy standpoint, regardless of the
economic prices. Make no mistake, oil has been a gift, a *finite* gift.
The intelligent thing would be to start using it as a precious resource.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their
car
for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup
and
adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.



Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why would there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along with the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund research and
development of new technologies.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a previous oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in place to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working,
profitable farms today?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on their

car

for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel
pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing,
and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants
it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.


BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power boats
or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats?

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on
their

car

for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size
diesel
pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls
nothing,
and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just
wants
it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100
decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed
a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various
other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go
look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to
haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle
wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.


BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power
boats
or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats?

That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or
50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you
have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's
saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to
carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a
waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste?

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on
their

car

for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size
diesel
pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls
nothing,
and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just
wants
it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100
decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed
a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various
other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go
look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to
haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle
wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.


BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power
boats
or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats?

That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or
50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you
have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's
saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to
carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a
waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste?


It is a pretty sad case when Krause has to rely on Bassy to defend him.
Sort of like getting Kramer to do your electrical work.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on
their

car

for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size
diesel
pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls
nothing,
and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just
wants
it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100
decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed
a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various
other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go
look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to
haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle
wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.


BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power
boats
or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats?

That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or
50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you
have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's
saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to
carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a
waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste?


Around here (Rochester NY), the excuse is that they're more stable in snow.
In fact, I see MORE of them in ditches. Then, their main advantage is their
height. The windows remain above the snow so the dummy can wave for help.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a depression at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why would there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along with the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund research and
development of new technologies.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a previous oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in place to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using alternative means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW technology. The right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always. Hell, when motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought they'd replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see on working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a small recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of Silicon Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country. That was just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the odd / even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a 60% lack of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country will be gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:09:39 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


It would be worse if you were so incompetent in life you enlisted in the
military as a career after serving your commitment as a draftee.

Do you know someone who did that, Harry? You know so little about the
military you can't even get the terms correct.

Go back to lies about where you've been, who you've known, what you've
owned, and how many doctorates your wife has. You're better at it.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:37:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
roups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...


Are you going to limit the amount of gas for folks that rely on
their

car

for business use?

Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size
diesel
pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls
nothing,
and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just
wants
it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100
decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed
a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various
other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go
look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to
haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle
wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.


BS. If you were concerned about oil, you would either have no power
boats
or a small sailboat. Let alone 2 power boats?

That's pretty shallow reasoning. So WHAT if a single person owns one or
50 power boats? He can only operate one at a time. What problem do you
have with someone who wants to be sensible about oil usage? He's
saying, and correctly so, that if you use a gas guzzling giant SUV to
carry one person around to the grocery store and such, that it is a
waste of oil. How is it NOT a waste?


Around here (Rochester NY), the excuse is that they're more stable in snow.
In fact, I see MORE of them in ditches. Then, their main advantage is their
height. The windows remain above the snow so the dummy can wave for help.


The same is true around here. The drivers just don't know how to
handle an SUV with an automatic transmission when there's a little
snow on the ground.

It's funny to watch them try, though.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes