"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:37:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
groups.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

I had to help push my next door neighbor out from high snow a month or so
ago. She drives a 2wd Chevy Blazer and thinks because it is a SUV that she
can drive through anything.

Calif Bill wrote:
"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 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.

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.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?

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

"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.

It is not just the energy factor, every product with a petroleum base would
be affected.......plastics, lubricants, paints, etc etc.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:43:19 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:


It is not just the energy factor, every product with a petroleum base
would be affected.......plastics, lubricants, paints, etc etc.

And don't forget food. Our agriculture base is heavily dependent on oil,
both as fuel to run the machinery and fertilizers/pesticides.

P.Fritz wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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 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.

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.

It is not just the energy factor, every product with a petroleum base
would
be affected.......plastics, lubricants, paints, etc etc.

Wow, what an insightful post! Of course every product with a petroleum
base would be affected by a reduction of petroleum!

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:52:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.

If you only pull a trailer twice a year to pull your boat to and from
the marina, then you can rent a truck. On the other hand, if you tow a
lot, then you have to buy a vehicle that will handle your towed load.
Undersizing the tow vehicle is simply not safe and it subjects it to
increased stress and seriously shortens useful life.

Some people (like me) have two vehicles. I use my truck for utility
and pulling, and I drive a 50 MPG Metro, for daily commuting. Since I
drive 88 miles per day, the savings in fuel, by driving the small car,
makes it economically sensible to do it. Other people, who don't drive
as far, will not save enough to pay for the small car or the insurance
on it.

YMMV

Dave

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:08:57 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:52:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.

If you only pull a trailer twice a year to pull your boat to and from
the marina, then you can rent a truck. On the other hand, if you tow a
lot, then you have to buy a vehicle that will handle your towed load.
Undersizing the tow vehicle is simply not safe and it subjects it to
increased stress and seriously shortens useful life.

Some people (like me) have two vehicles. I use my truck for utility
and pulling, and I drive a 50 MPG Metro, for daily commuting. Since I
drive 88 miles per day, the savings in fuel, by driving the small car,
makes it economically sensible to do it. Other people, who don't drive
as far, will not save enough to pay for the small car or the insurance
on it.

YMMV

Dave

I knew there was a good reason I bought that Mustang!

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

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"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 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.

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.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As to having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp up to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too long to stave
off a very large rescession.

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"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 a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='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';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a.

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.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful, people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"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 a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='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';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a.

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.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful, people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed during the
"Great Depression". As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette got about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI, weight is 50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5 mpg max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there would be a
"Extremely Great Depression".