"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.