"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.