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

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.


Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually
dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close
personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone
based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a
vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens
at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy
dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly
trades for smaller cars.

Never leased a car and never will. I buy new and keep them for a long time.
The shortest period I have owned a vehicle is four years and the average is
somewhere around eight years. The last two vehicles that we got rid of were
a large sedan and a 1/2 ton truck, both donated to charity, the sedan was 8
years old when we donated it and the truck was 7 years old. I currently own
a full size truck and a mini-van, the truck is 6 years old and the mini-van
is 10 years old.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every
two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years.
You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually
dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close
personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a
vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of
your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There is
absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use the
mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff like
"Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000 feet,
there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and lots of
people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs belong, as
opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.

I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't
even know where the 4WD switch is located.


Never leased a car and never will. I buy...
snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion


Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car
every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven
years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of
money.

More clutter. Not relevant.

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

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is
actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or
close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in
a vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of
your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There
is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use
the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff
like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000
feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and
lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs
belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than
there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than in
the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the manufacturers
providing those choices.

People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad?

I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't
even know where the 4WD switch is located.


Never leased a car and never will. I buy...
snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion

Why was it unrelated to the discussion. I made a choice and I stuck with it
because it is more economically beneficial to me.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car
every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven
years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling
of money.

More clutter. Not relevant.

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you
making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with
your for the rest of their lives?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is
actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or
close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model.
They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that
wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and
DOD might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window
of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago.
There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually
use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out
stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation
3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy
there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where
SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping
mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than
there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than
in the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the
manufacturers providing those choices.

People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad?


I'm not arguing that choices should be taken away. You keep saying this. So,
let's try another way. According to Ford, the company trying to develop a
much more efficient SUV, but with the same physical size & comfort features
of their current ones. They will still continue to sell the more powerful
ones, as well. This information came from a Ford spokesperson. DO YOU
BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE?




Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices?

I'm describing how a company is developing a NEW set of choices, not taking
away an existing choice. How do you interpret that as a desire on my part to
limit choices?



Does your family appreciate you making all of their daily decisions for
them. Will your children live with your for the rest of their lives?

You've tried this "family" stunt before, when you're about to run out of
ideas and you're being backed into an alley. Drop it.

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

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

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want
more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is
actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or
close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model.
They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that
wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and
DOD might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window
of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago.
There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who
actually use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't
blurt out stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado,
elevation 3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like
crazy there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course.
That's where SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in
a shopping mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than
there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than
in the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the
manufacturers providing those choices.

People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad?


I'm not arguing that choices should be taken away. You keep saying this.
So, let's try another way. According to Ford, the company trying to
develop a much more efficient SUV, but with the same physical size &
comfort features of their current ones. They will still continue to sell
the more powerful ones, as well. This information came from a Ford
spokesperson. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE?

Whether the statement is true or false is irrelevant.

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices?

I'm describing how a company is developing a NEW set of choices, not
taking away an existing choice. How do you interpret that as a desire on
my part to limit choices?

But, the real choice is to make the consumer pay more or less. The hybrid is
the more costly of the two choices. And, the government will try to remove
the less costly choice.

Does your family appreciate you making all of their daily decisions for
them. Will your children live with your for the rest of their lives?

You've tried this "family" stunt before, when you're about to run out of
ideas and you're being backed into an alley. Drop it.

Why? You are a control freak at a minimum. If someone disagrees with you
then you do anything and everything to try and coerce them into your way of
thinking. You have stated many times that you will not allow your children
to make choices on their own if they disagree with what your want them to
do. This is telling of your character and your tactics in a debate or
discussion.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

You have stated many times that you will not allow your children to make
choices on their own if they disagree with what your want them to do. This
is telling of your character and your tactics in a debate or discussion.

Please search at Google and show me where I've "stated many times".

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

I'm not arguing that choices should be taken away. You keep saying this.
So, let's try another way. According to Ford, the company trying to
develop a much more efficient SUV, but with the same physical size &
comfort features of their current ones. They will still continue to sell
the more powerful ones, as well. This information came from a Ford
spokesperson. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE?

Whether the statement is true or false is irrelevant.

More drivel. Not surprising.



Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to
take away their freedom by removing choices?

I'm describing how a company is developing a NEW set of choices, not
taking away an existing choice. How do you interpret that as a desire on
my part to limit choices?

But, the real choice is to make the consumer pay more or less. The hybrid
is the more costly of the two choices. And, the government will try to
remove the less costly choice.

Sorry. I didn't know you were involved with formulating pricing for Ford
products. Is that where you work? Or, do you have other information about
prices for products they haven't begun selling yet?

Bert Robbins wrote:

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you
making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with
your for the rest of their lives?

Pardon a lurker for jumping in, Bert, it sounds to me like you are
reading this thread from another dimension, I don't believe Doug was
saying anything like what you seem to be saying he said! He wasn't
talking at all about controlling the public's behavior, taking away
freedom or removing choices.

richforman

wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you
making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with
your for the rest of their lives?

Pardon a lurker for jumping in, Bert, it sounds to me like you are
reading this thread from another dimension, I don't believe Doug was
saying anything like what you seem to be saying he said! He wasn't
talking at all about controlling the public's behavior, taking away
freedom or removing choices.

richforman

He's a real paranoid sort......

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to
take
away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you
making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live
with
your for the rest of their lives?

Pardon a lurker for jumping in, Bert, it sounds to me like you are
reading this thread from another dimension, I don't believe Doug was
saying anything like what you seem to be saying he said! He wasn't
talking at all about controlling the public's behavior, taking away
freedom or removing choices.

richforman

He's a real paranoid sort......


.....and he works from a one-page script.