Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

The moron thinks it's a good idea to drive a Hummer all over town doing
errands.

A Hummer is more fuel-efficient than a 20-foot Bayscraper. And you can't
run a Bayscraper to the grocerty store and back.

That's why I asked you what kind of work you do.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


John Kerry's family doesn't own an SUV?

No idea. Doesn't matter. You're wrong about the fact that people
won't buy certain products just because they have less impact on
resources. You can't imagine this.

What vehicles do you own?

I own a 2002 Tacoma 6 cylinder. Why do you ask?

So you didn't buy a certain produce just because it has less impact
on resources. You just proved that you're an absolute liar. I'd
been doing a great job of that, but I appreciate the help.

What a ridiculous conclusion. I said "people will buy certain products
because they have less impact on resources". I did not say that I did
this with my vehicle purchase.

So you're a ****ing pompous dickless hypocrite.

I needed the following features when I chose my truck:

1) Enough power to tow my boat.

Someone needs to sink that gas guzzler. Where's it moored right now?

That's why I asked you what kind of work you do.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

Fred Dehl wrote:
1. "Gas-guzzler" is a perjorative term.

No, it is descriptive.

It is accurate in many cases, not so in others.

For example, a 5 ton SUV driven to the grocery store for a
bottle of milk is guzzling gas. The same vehicle, used to
haul large heavy objects over unfavorable terrain, is not.
The difference is in utility.

Didn't one of your butt-buddies claim they weren't trying to control
behavior? Thanks for proving that statement wrong.

I'm curious: What kind of work do you do?

Stay on topic.

I need to know what kind of work you do. You will get no further
gratification from this discussion until I have an answer. Hang onto your
diapers.



Repeat after me:

Serenity now.............serenity now................serenity
now..........................aaaaauuuuuuummmmmmmmm m......

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

Fred Dehl wrote:
1. "Gas-guzzler" is a perjorative term.

No, it is descriptive.

It is accurate in many cases, not so in others.

For example, a 5 ton SUV driven to the grocery store for a
bottle of milk is guzzling gas. The same vehicle, used to
haul large heavy objects over unfavorable terrain, is not.
The difference is in utility.

Didn't one of your butt-buddies claim they weren't trying to control
behavior? Thanks for proving that statement wrong.

I'm curious: What kind of work do you do?

Stay on topic.

I need to know what kind of work you do. You will get no further
gratification from this discussion until I have an answer. Hang onto your
diapers.



Repeat after me:

Serenity now.............serenity now................serenity
now..........................aaaaauuuuuuummmmmmmmm m......


I'm as smooth as can be at the moment. Heading out to disassemble a bar and
its patrons with my bass guitar.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


John Kerry's family doesn't own an SUV?

No idea. Doesn't matter. You're wrong about the fact that people
won't buy certain products just because they have less impact on
resources. You can't imagine this.

What vehicles do you own?

I own a 2002 Tacoma 6 cylinder. Why do you ask?

So you didn't buy a certain produce just because it has less impact
on resources. You just proved that you're an absolute liar. I'd
been doing a great job of that, but I appreciate the help.

What a ridiculous conclusion. I said "people will buy certain products
because they have less impact on resources". I did not say that I did
this with my vehicle purchase.

So you're a ****ing pompous dickless hypocrite.

I needed the following features when I chose my truck:

1) Enough power to tow my boat.

Someone needs to sink that gas guzzler. Where's it moored right now?

That's why I asked you what kind of work you do.


A hiccup?

Repeat after me:

Serenity now.............serenity now................serenity
now..........................aaaaauuuuuuummmmmmmmm m......

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

Just playing YOUR game, Bert. Remember? I tell you used car lots are
loaded with 1-2 year old SUVs, not because they came from ended
leases, but because many people woke up and figured out they were
the wrong car. You respond by explaining the purchase terms of your
vehicle. It's called a "feint".

You are making an assumption about why these people traded in 1-2
year old SUV's. When you have interviewed a statistically appropriate
number and generated some statistics let me know.

I was explaining to you that the decision to purchase a Hybrid is not
based upon economics but, it is based upon emotion. Also, the fact
that you said "Beats me. I don't care. I'd never buy that type of
vehicle, regardless of how it was powered" was a poor attempt to
deflect the factthat you were beaten on your own terms.

I didn't say I wouldn't buy a hybrid. I said I wouldn't buy a hybrid
SUV.

You were harping about people "turning in" their SUV's for other
vehicles. So, I used the Escape as an example and your responded that
it didn't matter because you wouldn't buy that kind of vehicle. Do you
know how childish that sounds?

Not much different from you explaining the financing terms of your
vehicle, which was 100% irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps people buy the hybrid version because they want to use less
gasoline, not because they care so much about total cost of ownership.
Is that possible?

Look, Doug is ignoring economics when it conveniently fits his current
position. I'll have to remember that economics are not important to
you.

Well, people are buying hybrids right now. If battery replacement issues
are such a problem, how do YOU explain the FACT that they are selling
well? Are the customers being hypnotized when they enter the
dealerships?

It makes them feel good, no other reason and no logic involved. I'm
suprised that you are ranting and raving about how stupid these people
are for wasting money.


I think you're assuming buyers are always stupid. What is SUV buyers were
asked this question: "If you can have every single feature and benefit you
asked for, but get 23mpg instead of 14mpg, would that interest you?" How
do you suppose some buyers would react to that?

Cavet Emptor.

Remember: People buy the sizzle, not the steak (as sales trainers love to
point out).

Ask Chuck how much money he made only delivering the sizzle.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...


John Kerry's family doesn't own an SUV?

No idea. Doesn't matter. You're wrong about the fact that people
won't buy certain products just because they have less impact on
resources. You can't imagine this.

What vehicles do you own?

I own a 2002 Tacoma 6 cylinder. Why do you ask?

So you didn't buy a certain produce just because it has less impact
on resources. You just proved that you're an absolute liar. I'd
been doing a great job of that, but I appreciate the help.

What a ridiculous conclusion. I said "people will buy certain products
because they have less impact on resources". I did not say that I did
this with my vehicle purchase.

So you're a ****ing pompous dickless hypocrite.

I needed the following features when I chose my truck:

1) Enough power to tow my boat.

Someone needs to sink that gas guzzler. Where's it moored right now?

That's why I asked you what kind of work you do.


A hiccup?

Repeat after me:

Serenity now.............serenity now................serenity
now..........................aaaaauuuuuuummmmmmmmm m......

Die.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

I think you're assuming buyers are always stupid. What is SUV buyers
were asked this question: "If you can have every single feature and
benefit you asked for, but get 23mpg instead of 14mpg, would that
interest you?" How do you suppose some buyers would react to that?

At $2.50 a gallon, it will cost $5,434 in gas to drive the 23mpg vehicle
50,000 miles. It will cost $8,928 to drive the 17mpg vehicle the same.
That's a savings of less than $3,500, far less than the premium for the
privilege of driving the higher-mpg vehicle.

So, yes, the people who are buying hybrids to "save money on gas" ARE
stupid.

Do you think some people might want to save gas just for the hell of it? I
know that's a real stretch for you, but try anyway.

It must hurt to be so twisted and bent that you are arguing the positions
you normally argue against.

If you want to pay double for your gasoline you are free to do so. Buy a
hybrid of your choice.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Fred Dehl wrote:
1. "Gas-guzzler" is a perjorative term.

No, it is descriptive.

It is accurate in many cases, not so in others.

For example, a 5 ton SUV driven to the grocery store for a bottle of milk
is guzzling gas. The same vehicle, used to haul large heavy objects over
unfavorable terrain, is not. The difference is in utility.

Would you be so kind as to name the make and model of any 5 ton SUV?

2. I never claimed everyone wants to drive a vehicle that is less gas-
efficient than other vehicles.

Correct.
But you did claim that those who do not want to drive an inefficient
vehicle were stupid.


3. Your statement refutes nothing I've ever posted.


Actually, it refutes everything you've posted and also points out your own
stupidity & close mindedness.



The FACT that oil is a non-renewable resource




Nobody has brought this up, but now that you have, I must ask why you're
opposed to finding more

Why do you assume I am opposed to finding more?
Another stupid non-fact posted by you.


... since doing so would keep all energy more affordable.


Clue- oil is non-renewable. No matter how much exploration is done, we
will run out eventually.

When we, everyone on the entire planet, start to really run out of oil we
will be forced to find other means of producing energy and goods from oil.
But, until that time we will continue to drill, pump and burn oil. There is
not economic incentive to switch away from oil, there is only an emotional
desire on the part of some.

A very smart scientist... who made a lot of money in the oil business...
named King Hubbert worked out the math of global oil supply a long time
ago.

Really? I thought that the supply of oil was going to run out in 30 years,
with the clock startign to click in the late 1970's. I guess that we only
have a couple of years worth of oil left.

Google up the words "Hubbert peak"

Of course, you haven't liked any of the FACTS introduced into this thread
so far, and you won't like these FACTS either because they prove you're
wrong.

Ice age. Global warming. What's next.

Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
For example, a 5 ton SUV driven to the grocery store for a bottle of milk
is guzzling gas. The same vehicle, used to haul large heavy objects over
unfavorable terrain, is not. The difference is in utility.


Fred Dehl wrote:
Didn't one of your butt-buddies claim they weren't trying to control
behavior? Thanks for proving that statement wrong.


???

Fred, at first I thought you were kind of funny, in a sad way. I mean,
you're the ultimate fat & stupid angry white man (you're bald, too, right?
just a guess). You're like listening to an audition for a spot on
hate-talk radio, with a laugh track.

Your immaturity and shallowness is shinning brightly. I suppose you asked
your parents to give you you the physical characteristics you have now?